Threatened with eviction by Landlord

G_M

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Is this a break clause or an incorrectly written contract?

Your landlord cannot evict you before the first 6 months of your tenancy except for specific reasons.

See here:

https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-agreements-a-guide-for-landlords/ending-a-tenancy

So when did your tenancy begin and what exactly does this clause say?

Indeed. When I said "if it is a valid Break Clause which can be envoked at any time,..." I meant "envoked at any time from now"ie that he intial 6months had expired and the clause was thus envokable..

As lindy says, no S21 can be acted on by a LL in the 1st 6 months of an AST irrespective of a Break Clause.

jarvish

1. Break Clause
[FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]1.1. [/FONT][/FONT]The Landlord [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]shall be entitled to terminate this Tenancy by giving Notice to the Tenant as follows:
1.1.1. The period of the Notice to be a minimum of two calendar months
1.1.2. The Notice period will expire on the last day of a period of the Tenancy and must be served in writing
1.1.3. Notice must be served in accordance with the attached Tenancy Terms and Conditions
1.2. [/FONT][/FONT]The Tenant [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]shall be entitled to terminate this Tenancy by giving Notice to the Landlord as follows:
1.2.1. The period of the Notice to be a minimum of one calendar month
1.2.2. The Notice period will expire on the last day of a period of the Tenancy and must be served in writing
1.2.3. Notice must be served in accordance with the attached Tenancy Terms and Conditions

We were under the impression it was one month notice from the LL but it seems is actually two (sorry for the error!) - we have been in the property since July 2012, renewing annually.
[/FONT][/FONT]

FBaby

The problem is that you considered having water after 10pm and not be prepared to wait until the morning to talk to the LA an emergency, when in all likelihood, the LL doesn't agree with you. If you had waited until the morning (your wife doing what she needed to do and either managing to get water out of the kitchen tap to flushed it away or at worse jut closing the seat), contacted the LA at 9am, then most likely would have contacted the HA and they would have dealt with it leaving the LL out of it. I can understand how on this basis, they were not impressed that they ended up with the bill.

I do think that the threat was unecessary, but I don't think it is unreasonable for you to pay half just because you couldn't wait until the morning to deal with a matter that really wasn't an emergency.

G_M

Like so many tenancy agreements, poorly worded!

jarvish wrote: »

1. Break Clause
[FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]1.1. [/FONT][/FONT]The Landlord [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]shall be entitled to terminate this Tenancy by giving Notice to the Tenant as follows:
1.1.1. The period of the Notice to be a minimum of two calendar months
1.1.2. The Notice period will expire on the last day of a period of the Tenancy and must be served in writing
1.1.3. Notice must be served in accordance with the attached Tenancy Terms and Conditions
1.2. [/FONT][/FONT]The Tenant [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]shall be entitled to terminate this Tenancy by giving Notice to the Landlord as follows:
1.2.1. The period of the Notice to be a minimum of one calendar month
1.2.2. The Notice period will expire on the last day of a period of the Tenancy and must be served in writing
1.2.3. Notice must be served in accordance with the attached Tenancy Terms and Conditions

We were under the impression it was one month notice from the LL but it seems is actually two (sorry for the error!) - we have been in the property since July 2012, renewing annually.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Since this applies during the fixed term of the tenancy (indeed, a Break Clause cannot apply thereafter) the 'period of the tenancy' is from the fixed term start date to the fixed term end date (12 months).

The only time notice aligned to tenancy periods is relevant is in a 'periodic' (ie monthly) tenancy.But of course then a Break Clause does not apply!

So using this legal argument, you could claim that the Break Clause can only be enforced at the end of the fixed term..........

I look forward to hearing how the judge rules in this case.

pmlindyloo

FBaby wrote: »

The problem is that you considered having water after 10pm and not be prepared to wait until the morning to talk to the LA an emergency, when in all likelihood, the LL doesn't agree with you. If you had waited until the morning (your wife doing what she needed to do and either managing to get water out of the kitchen tap to flushed it away or at worse jut closing the seat), contacted the LA at 9am, then most likely would have contacted the HA and they would have dealt with it leaving the LL out of it. I can understand how on this basis, they were not impressed that they ended up with the bill.

I do think that the threat was unecessary, but I don't think it is unreasonable for you to pay half just because you couldn't wait until the morning to deal with a matter that really wasn't an emergency.

You may be right but without knowing all the facts then it is difficult to judge.

Although the OP talks about the shower and the toilet were any other appliances involved? Bathroom basin? Kitchen sink?

OP also talks about flooding of the property.

It could be argued that the OP was trying to protect the landlord's property by getting things fixed quickly to prevent further flooding.

Ignoring the OP's lack knowledge of these things even turning off the water stopcock would have meant no water at all.

Mmmmm.... in the end it all comes down to what is reasonable. The letting agent seems to think it was reasonable. The absence of any details about what to do in an emergency such as this (particularly since the HA has an involvement in this) might also be a factor in the OP's favour.

Whatever the outcome it does seem unfair for the landlord to be using this as a threat - not nice but, unfortunately, not illegal as the LL can evoke the break clause for whatever reason.

Might be easier to just pay up rather than be evicted.

Not disagreeing with you

dodger1

According to the OP it was a drain issue and therefore the HA needs to pay up and not the LL. Get your HA to pay the £90 to the LL. As for the toilet just use it without flushing if it happens again, it won't do any harm.

Pixie5740

It doesn't really matter if the LA are on your side. You have no contract with them, they are employed by the LL to act as his agent.

A break clause isn't unique to you. Break clauses and Section 21 notices can be used to evict any tenant with an AST for any, or no, reason at all.

Your options are, pay the £90, find somewhere new to live, or do nothing and see if your LL is bluffing. As much as I'm all for T standing up to LL you have bigger fish to fry. You have a new baby, I hear that babies are supposed to bring joy to their parents, so enjoy your newborn and put this issue behind you.

Ask the LA for an emergency number for you to contact in case something else like this crops up in the future. The LA that my LL uses gave me an emergency phone number for out of hours emergencies. I think everyone in the office takes a turn at being on call.

jarvish

Thanks all for your replies - it is very much appreciated.

Ok - so it seems that the wording of the break clause is quite clear that even if they serve an eviction notice now, the notice period won't end until the end of our tenancy (i.e early July). I will get the LA to confirm this though!!!

Assuming this is right, it seems we can either pay £90 and LL still could evict us in July anyway, or pay £0 and LL still could evict us in July anyway. Seems a no-brainer to me (especially with the bullying attitude of the LL - even if it is legal) - I guess having quite a lot of time will give us lots of time to prepare/save(!) for moving, and will give Mrs Jarvish an extra hobby during her mat leave....!

Will let you know what happens.........!

Thanks again

G_M

jarvish wrote: »

Ok - so it seems that the wording of the break clause is quite clear that even if they serve an eviction notice now, the notice period won't end until the end of our tenancy (i.e early July). I will get the LA to confirm this though!!!

I trust you are not relying on my post above for this caagorical statement! My post was an interpretation, but legal interpretations are always subject to the ruling of a court! Hence my final sentence.

To put the opposing areguement, I suspect the intention of the Break Clause was to align the notice with rent periods (ie the periods each monthly rent payment covers). This contracts with tenancy periods (as per my post above).

A judge might rule that the intention was clear even if the wording was poor.......

jarvish

Thanks G_M - don't worry - I'm going to wait to see what the LA says first without doing anything rash/concrete - if it turns out summat different I'll cross that bridge when I come to it