Where do I Stand as a Tenant?

prudryden

Franklee -
I agree totally with what you say, but what is bizarre is the mutual agreement to stay for an additional two weeks. A short term contract so to speak. Why was this offered and why was it accepted? Who was the driving force behind this idiotic agreement? In the meantime, the LA has offered a new contract which the tenants can accept or decline.
If they decline, then there is no reason for them to stay and incur adverse references or whatever. It isn't to the benefit of either party to get into a dispute for the sake of two months additional residence. Is it really worth it to end up in a court room ?- no one has really anything to gain!

Gold_Shogun

pickles110564 wrote: »

That's it you are right screw the hard working LL, don't pay the utilities, let the rich LL pay after all you are the poor down trodden. You probably think Dole payments are your wages, sit down relax let everybody else pay for you.

I strongly disagree with your overly bigoted post & point of view.

Respect & Righteousness are BOTH "Two way streets" !!!

As I landlord, I would not hesitate to "Crucify a Bad Tenant" IF it was justified (and I have indeed done exactly that sometimes), but as a strong libertarian, I consider that the same principles should equally apply to "Bad LLs / LAs".

In THIS case, the Tenant has made absolutely NO mention of trying to evade his rent & inclusive bills as YOU Claim ... Rather, it appears that either or both the LL & the LA are seeking to "screw" this Tenant by trying to evade the legislation protecting the Tenant from either premature eviction OR excessive / un-notified rental increases.

That is simply WRONG (by the LL / LA) ... And is just as bad as what many "Bad Tenants" do to many Landlords.

Unfortunately, you are never likely to have much success (or happiness) in the letting / property arena until & unless you rid yourself of your closed mind & bigoted / paranioac outlook.

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

I agree totally with what you say, but what is bizarre is the mutual agreement to stay for an additional two weeks. A short term contract so to speak. Why was this offered and why was it accepted?

I don't think that's of relevance as the landlord/agent ALSO got into negotiations about oligopoly signing a new 12 month contract. This IS enough to invalidate an old S21. If there is an expired S21 and the landlord/agent had simply said they'd delay starting court proceedings for possession for two weeks while making clear they still equivocally and without reservation wanted oligopoly to leave then the S21 would stand.

But we don't even know if there is an old S21 to discuss, oligopoly hasn't confirmed there IS one yet. If there was no S21 then short term extension or not the landlord/agent would still need to issue a S21.

prudryden wrote: »

In the meantime, the LA has offered a new contract which the tenants can accept or decline. If they decline, then there no reason for them to stay and incur adverse references or whatever. It isn't to the benefit of either party to get into a dispute for the sake of two months additional residence. Is it really worth it to end up in a court room ?- no one has really anything to gain!

Why on earth would this go to court or incur bad references? The landlord/agent HAS to follow the proper notice procedure and it certainly sounds to me like there isn't a valid S21. As for when oligopoly moves he'd need to have permission to move straightaway IN WRITING from the landlord/agent or he could get stung for not giving notice! As for when oligopoly moves, that's up to him he did say "this would buy us time to find a new property while continuing to pay rent at this one" which sounds like he wants time to arrange moving. It does take time to move, it's horrid having to move under pressure as a good place may not be immediately available to move in to. That's why the law is structured that by default the tenancy continues it's to make sure the tenant is given proper notice.

prudryden

I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't think that whether there was a valid S21 or not is entirely relevant. For some reason, the tenants were allowed to stay in residence, maybe at their own request, for an additional two weeks, perhaps to give them more time to find another place. In the meantime, another contract was offered to them which wasn't to their liking. If that is the case, then they should decline the offer and leave as agreed.
Of course, there is no need for a court, but if they now stay and force the LA to issue notice - they won't be doing themselves any favours. In many cases, LL are being more intense with asking for past residence references. Why take that risk for the sake of shouting all the rules and regulations at the LL? They know the rules. At the moment, there is no dispute over the deposit, but I can imagine there will be if they take this route. Their only gain is an additional two months or so at the original rent. Just doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole story doesn't make sense just yet.

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't think that whether there was a valid S21 or not is entirely relevant. For some reason, the tenants were allowed to stay in residence, maybe at their own request, for an additional two weeks, perhaps to give them more time to find another place. In the meantime, another contract was offered to them which wasn't to their liking. If that is the case, then they should decline the offer and leave as agreed.
Of course, there is no need for a court, but if they now stay and force the LA to issue notice - they won't be doing themselves any favours. In many cases, LL are being more intense with asking for past residence references. Why take that risk for the sake of shouting all the rules and regulations at the LL? They know the rules. At the moment, there is no dispute over the deposit, but I can imagine there will be if they take this route. Their only gain is an additional two months or so at the original rent. Just doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole story doesn't make sense just yet.

Ah I see you're getting at.

Well it reads to me like oligopoly was negotiating the year's extension in good faith and it was only at the last minute the landlord sprung the rent increase. So oligopoly has an unexpected move thrust upon him.

I'd want proper notice not "for the sake of shouting all the rules and regulations" but simply because it takes time to arrange moving.

I don't see the landlord has grounds to take it out on the tenant with bad references as it was the landlord who changed the terms at a late stage. oligopoly can easily explain this to his next agent/landlord. The fact he was offered a years extension means he must have been a reasonable tenant! Any bad landlord could issue unfair references, it's no reason to give into bullying.

prudryden

franklee wrote: »

Ah I see you're getting at.

Well it reads to me like oligopoly was negotiating the year's extension in good faith and it was only at the last minute the landlord sprung the rent increase. So oligopoly has an unexpected move thrust upon him.

I'd want proper notice not "for the sake of shouting all the rules and regulations" but simply because it takes time to arrange moving.

I don't see the landlord has grounds to take it out on the tenant with bad references as it was the landlord who changed the terms at a late stage. oligopoly can easily explain this to his next agent/landlord. The fact he was offered a years extension means he must have been a reasonable tenant! Any bad landlord could issue unfair references, it's no reason to give into bullying.

1. If he was negotiating, then he must have had some belief that the new contract was going to be different. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a rent increase as others keep pointing out. Just a reclassification on who pays the gas and electricity. Why do you think it was unexpected if they were negotiating?

2. Why do they feel that they didn't have proper notice? The expiry term of the contract is on the first page and the OP believes there was a S21 in the contract. It takes time to move, I agree, but the OP said it was the hassle, not the time.

3. Whether the LL has grounds to give an adverse reference doesn't matter, if he feels he has grounds, then that is what he will do. The OP can explain yes, but if a LL has a choice of tenants, which certainly is the case in London, he won't take the time to follow up on the explanation with the previous LL and will simply choose others who have passed the more strengent checks LL are doing..

4. Bullying is a bit strong when the tenant has a choice of action: Pay his own gas and electric with the rent remaining as is or find another place either now with a good reference or in two months time with a bad reference if he starts telling the LL about the law, Acts of Parliament, what MSE says. Paying for your own gas and electric is probably a healthy way to learn about being enviromentally friendly in any case.

prudryden

Frank - got to go to bed mate- shall we continue tomorrow? You can get the last word in for the night and I'll get back to you tomorrow. Besides, I seem to be on my own here and I'm feeling the pressure.

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

1. If he was negotiating, then he must have had some belief that the new contract was going to be different. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a rent increase as others keep pointing out. Just a reclassification on who pays the gas and electricity. Why do you think it was unexpected if they were negotiating?

It reads to me like the OP expected to sign a new contract all along only for some reason it was to be delayed by two weeks:

oligopoly wrote: »

Myself and 3 others are on an assured shorthold contract which ended middle of May. We verbally agreed to stay until the end of May and then sign a new 12 month contact at the start of June.

Nothing there to expect increased costs that the bills represent. It was only when this was mooted NOW (which I took to mean recently) that the OP started negotiating:

oligopoly wrote: »

The letting agents now want us to pay bills on top of rent (which were previously included in the rent), which as you know could push the total rent up by £50-100 per person. There was no mention of this at the time of agreeing to discuss a new contract.

So it was only recently that the OP started negotiating:

oligopoly wrote: »

All negotiations with the agents have since failed.

So there is nothing that makes me think the OP had agreed to move out or, at the time of the original verbal agreement to sign a new 12 month contact, expected to pay more ...

prudryden wrote: »

2. Why do they feel that they didn't have proper notice? The expiry term of the contract is on the first page and the OP believes there was a S21 in the contract.

Really, which post is that in? I think in post #3 the OP is just getting confused by the bad advice from scrummy.

prudryden wrote: »

It takes time to move, I agree, but the OP said it was the hassle, not the time.

Eh?

oligopoly wrote: »

this would buy us time to find a new property while continuing to pay rent at this one

Are we reading the same thread (Of course it is hassle too, as the OP also said )

prudryden wrote: »

3. Whether the LL has grounds to give an adverse reference doesn't matter, if he feels he has grounds, then that is what he will do. The OP can explain yes, but if a LL has a choice of tenants, which certainly is the case in London, he won't take the time to follow up on the explanation with the previous LL and will simply choose others who have passed the more strengent checks LL are doing..

I call threatening a bad reference without grounds bullying by the landlord and won't give in to it. Actually I'm surprised you think the landlord would even consider giving a bad reference in the OP's case

prudryden wrote: »

4. Bullying is a bit strong when the tenant has a choice of action: Pay his own gas and electric with the rent remaining as is or find another place either now with a good reference or in two months time with a bad reference if he starts telling the LL about the law, Acts of Parliament, what MSE says. Paying for your own gas and electric is probably a healthy way to learn about being enviromentally friendly in any case.

The fact it's the gas and electric is bit irrelevant, the end result is a rent increase as the previous rent included the bills and that's being taken away. It's an extra cost to the OP of £50-100 per person. Presumably the original rent was set to factor in paying for the bills...

prudryden wrote: »

Frank - got to go to bed mate- shall we continue tomorrow? You can get the last word in for the night and I'll get back to you tomorrow. Besides, I seem to be on my own here and I'm feeling the pressure.

Nite, nite. (Ain't exactly the Waltons round here ).

Moorepart

This has to be the defector resource in respects to renting and Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements.

It is produced by the Office of Fair Trading:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/nr/rdonlyres/daaefe58-1aab-422a-afed-bde6c654a4ee/0/oft356.pdf

It should be your starting place if you have any concerns about landlord / letting agencies practices, your rights as a tenant, and unfair terms in your tenancy that cannot be enforced in a court of law.

Hope that helps:cool:

Gold_Shogun

prudryden wrote: »

Frank - got to go to bed mate- shall we continue tomorrow? You can get the last word in for the night and I'll get back to you tomorrow. Besides, I seem to be on my own here and I'm feeling the pressure.

Pru --- Please don't feel either "pressured" or entirely alone ...

I consider that many of your points are valid for many situations, but I just disagree with them in THIS PARTICULAR case (assuming events are indeed as described by the OP).

Have a friendly drink :beer: , relax, and then come back to rip our throats out.

Regards
Bob