Advice on agreeing a mutual surrender

Anne2

We've just had a long week without electricity due to a very dodgy set up in our rental property. Our electricity was cut off when suppliers came and removed a stolen key card meter that had been bypassed. Turned out the meter we were paying for by direct debit was supplying the upstairs flat (although had originally supplied our flat; some one had switched it over....confusing I know!) We were unknowingly getting our electricity from the dodgy meter. The guy upstairs hasn't been paying a penny for his electricity. There is only 1 supply line to the property, so when the house was split into 2 flats, it was not done properly.

As well as allowing us to move in to this dodgy set up (although they claim not have known anything about it; despite the fact the landlord is also the owner of the agency) the agency and the guy upstairs have behaved badly over everything but to cut an even longer story short, we want to leave the property.

We are 5 months in to a 12 month contract that has a 6 month break clause that favours the landlord not the tenant. I have been advised that we can ask them to agree to a mutual surrender. If they don't agree we could then go down the root of discussing their breach of section 11 duties with regard to their failure to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for supply of electricity. We could try discussing reporting the landlord to Ofgem (?) for the wiring of the meters. We could also request the gas safety certificate and invite the local council to check the safety ratings of the flat.

We are trying to decide whether to pursue this with the agency and try to leave or just lump it until the contract finishes.

Thoughts and opinions please and thanks for reading!

ValHaller

Relevant thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4607953

Anne2

Oops route not root! The stress has got to me!

Anne2

Any advice!??!

ValHaller

What does the break clause actually say?

I am struggling to think of a way out of this other than mutual surrender. If an approach for mutual surrender does not work, I might be thinking of strong arming the Landlord that rent will be withheld unless he exercises the break clause and issues a S21. This will have consequences.

agrinnall

As Val says you really need to post what the break clause actually says. I doubt very much if a clause that only applies to the party drawing up the contract would be valid, so you may be able to use it against the LL to exercise the break yourself - but without seeing the exact wording we're just guessing.

Anne2

Thanks for your responses! The break clause says...

"This agreement may be terminated by the landlord only at any time after the expiry of the first six months from the commencement of the agreement by the landlord upon giving the tenant not less than two months' written notice to terminate and upon expiry of such notice, this agreement shall cease but without prejudice to the rights and remedies of either party against the other in respect of any antecedent claim of breach of obligation."

ValHaller

Then as suggested in post #5

G_M

If it were not for thebreak clause, I would be saying that this is entirely a matter between you and your electricity supplier.

That is a contractual relationship which is nothing to do with the Landlord.

It is not that rare for flats/meters to get confused. annoying, troublesome yes - but ultimately it can be resolved.

However the breakclause is an unfair term. A break clause must apply equally toboth parties. However I am unsure, in a case like this where it appears to apply only to the landlord whether

a) it can be relied on by the tenant (to equalise the rights bestowed) or
b) the tenant could prohibit the LL using it (due to the unequal rights bestowed.

ie the break clause may be totally unenforcible and useless to either party or it may give you an option to end the tenancy

Someone else may be along who knows, or you could ask Shelter/a housing adviser

ValHaller

G_M wrote: »

However I am unsure, in a case like this where it appears to apply only to the landlord whether

a) it can be relied on by the tenant (to equalise the rights bestowed) or
b) the tenant could prohibit the LL using it (due to the unequal rights bestowed.

An interesting thought. You would never have a single situation where both a) and b) would both be testable, but I could imagine both a) and b) being upheld in different scenarios, so that the effect of the clause becomes entirely in the tenants favour rather than the landlord's

G_M

ValHaller wrote: »

An interesting thought. You would never have a single situation where both a) and b) would both be testable, but I could imagine both a) and b) being upheld in different scenarios, so that the effect of the clause becomes entirely in the tenants favour rather than the landlord's

I suspect you are right.

Which would serve the LL right for trying to impose a one-sided clause.