Tenant legs it

mjoneseyjones

Guest101 wrote: »

Go back under the bridge.

I'm not the one who's crap advice alarm goes off every time a tenancy thread is started, rushing in to impart half baked, copy and pasted wisdom passed off as knowledge.

Guest101

mjoneseyjones wrote: »

I'm not the one who's crap advice alarm goes off every time a tenancy thread is started, rushing in to impart half baked, copy and pasted wisdom passed off as knowledge.

No, u never provide any advice at all. U literally type out 'ignore him/her, they're wrong'.

Not qualifying statement, not contrary advice, knowledge, case study.

U literally have zero knowledge of tenancy law. U think something should be wrong, so it must be. What a small and self centred world u must live in.

You're the daily mail reader on the web, shouting outrage, based on a headline. If you looked deeper into the laws and guidance and rules etc, which govern various aspects of tenancies, you would realise it's not black and white. It's not right and wrong, you might even learn something.

But to be frank. You're a troll. So disappear off back under the bridge until next week.

mjoneseyjones

Sorry, that post descended into a barely legible mess of text speak before bizarrely ending up at the daily mail?!


You know nothing of tenancy or any other kind of law. Nothing.


Your posts are all regurgitated, copy and pasted rip offs of stuff you've seen more knowledgeable members of the forum saying. The only difference is that you don't properly understand it yourself and apply it haphazardly every time you see a thread about tenancy. It wouldn't be so bad if you disclaimered it by saying you have no training or knowledge on the subject, but you don't, you pass it off as gospel.


For that reason ill flag your nonsense up every time I see it.

Guest101

mjoneseyjones wrote: »

Sorry, that post descended into a barely legible mess of text speak before bizarrely ending up at the daily mail?!


You know nothing of tenancy or any other kind of law. Nothing.


Your posts are all regurgitated, copy and pasted rip offs of stuff you've seen more knowledgeable members of the forum saying. The only difference is that you don't properly understand it yourself and apply it haphazardly every time you see a thread about tenancy. It wouldn't be so bad if you disclaimered it by saying you have no training or knowledge on the subject, but you don't, you pass it off as gospel.


For that reason ill flag your nonsense up every time I see it.

That's my point. You don't flag up anything.

You don't say Guest I think your wrong because of this and this. You have no knowledge. You THINK it's wrong.

Perhaps you should disclaimer your posts by adding 'nothing useful to say, constructive or otherwise'.

Anyway waste of time feeding a troll. In summary, I couldn't care less what a pathetic person such as you thinks.

anselld

Guest101 wrote: »

Unless giving more rights under contract. Which is what happened here.

I would agree it was unwise to offer more contractual rights than necessary, but it still doesn't mean the OPs lodger has inherited all the statutory rights of a Tenant. I very much doubt, for example, that the contract stipulates a 3x penalty for non-protection.

Guest101

anselld wrote: »

I would agree it was unwise to offer more contractual rights than necessary, but it still doesn't mean the OPs lodger has inherited all the statutory rights of a Tenant. I very much doubt, for example, that the contract stipulates a 3x penalty for non-protection.

The problem is, as far as I see it, a confusion about subletting.

Subletting is where the leaseholder ( tenant ) leasing out part of their remaining lease ( tenancy ) to a 3rd party.

It is not moving in a lodger.

The OP by way of a contract ( which a tenancy agreement is) leased out the entire property ( accidentally ) to their sub tenant. The person therefore became a tenant. The fact that tenant 1 remained on the property is in fact by reading the contract by complete luck. It sounds like the subtenant could've asked them to leave at any point.

Now I agree that the situation was unlikely to arise, as the subtenant clearly wanted to rent a room. Why the OP didn't put 'a room at 1A Street' I don't know.

That does not though mean he's an excluded occupier. The law provides the minimum standards, contracts cannot offer less than this, but can offer more.

In this case, the subtenant in my view became the legal owner of the lease, for whatever period. And in turn was granted full tenant rights.

That said, it's not clear cut, mainly because the agreement is badly worded, in respect of what the subtenant rented and what the relationship should've been.

Would a court agree with you or me? I don't know. It would be a tight call I think.

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Because what you did was become a Landlord. Instead of taking him on as a lodger ( much fewer rights ), you took him on as a tenant, so just like your landlord has responsibilities to you regarding your deposit, the gas safety etc.

Please note that the above is incorrect.

It seems that OP is subletting only a single room in the house that he lets as a whole from his landlord.

If so, the person might a 'lodger' or a 'tenant' (the terminology is wrong but seemingly common).
In either case:
- Gas safety certificate is mandatory
- Deposit protection legislation does not apply
- EPC... Who cares about the EPC at this point?
- No court order is required to evict

Perhaps OP could clarify what exactly he rents from his landlord: the whole house or just the room that he sublets.

jjlandlord

yz324 wrote: »

Address says the full address.

That's why people shouldn't blindly download whatever document they find online....

The agreement itself is poor with, IMHO rubbish clauses.

With the full address you have arguably agreed to let the whole house, though that's clearly not what was intended or even what the current situation is...

It is quite messy so I'd suggest you might be better off cutting your losses.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

That's why people shouldn't blindly download whatever document they find online....

The agreement itself is poor with, IMHO rubbish clauses.

With the full address you have arguably agreed to let the whole house, though that's clearly not what was intended or even what the current situation is...

It is quite messy so I'd suggest you might be better off cutting your losses.

Agree completely, it's a bad document

DaftyDuck

Go to the Cambridge University Accommodation Service in Tennis Court Road. They will be able to give you clear and pertinent advice. They should also be able to suggest a pro bono solicitor for advice. Sadly, they don't work weekends.

Assuming the lodger/tenant was registered at a college, wander in to the Porters' Lodge and ask who the Senior Tutor is there, and write to them. They will most certainly have a current address for your ex tenant, and will forward mail accordingly. They do not like members of college accruing debts in Cambridge, they really do not like it at all!

There's only one large research group with business links in Cambridge and Kent that I know of, and I know it really rather well... There will, of course, be many smaller ones. I'm involved in it in a small way, I live in Kent half the year, I teach in Cambridge, and I'm also a landlord to students in Cambridge, although I know I'm not your landlord!