Landlord won't let us leave

agrinnall

OP, you do know who has your deposit, you've given the clue in your re-reading of the tenancy agreement.

http://www.mydeposits.co.uk/

At the bottom of the page it says Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd (i.e. TDSL).

Whether it is properly protected and whether you have been correctly informed are separate issues.

quidsy

benjus wrote: »

These two statements contradict each other. Why would a court grant the LL something unless the LL had a legal right to it?

One is not connected to the other.

benjus

quidsy wrote: »

One is not connected to the other.

They are both about the LL's access to the property. You say that the LL has no right of access, then you go on to say the LL can use the courts to enforce their right of access.

quidsy

I said access, not right of access.

The LL could take you to court to access

The LL can go to court to enforce access via an eviction. Provided of course they have protected deposit & issued a correct notice that the tenant ignores.

benjus

quidsy wrote: »

The LL can go to court to enforce access via an eviction.

The LL could also go to court to enforce their right of access under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 8.2 or any access clauses in the tenancy agreement, without evicting the tenant. In practice if relations between LL and tenant have deteriorated to such an extent, most LLs would evict instead if possible. It doesn't mean it's not a possibility though.

quidsy

access clauses in the tenancy agreement

You can write any clause you want, very few are legally enforceable.

In this case from reading the op, there is a lot of question marks over the LL handling of the deposit & their incorrect assumption that the op has to stay put until the LL get a sale. The op has every right to refuse viewings esp as it seems the LL is possibly forcing them through some misinformed rights of access. The tenant has the right to refuse.

benjus

quidsy wrote: »

You can write any clause you want, very few are legally enforceable.

In this case from reading the op, there is a lot of question marks over the LL handling of the deposit & their incorrect assumption that the op has to stay put until the LL get a sale. The op has every right to refuse viewings esp as it seems the LL is possibly forcing them through some misinformed rights of access. The tenant has the right to refuse.

You seem to have some odd views on what constitutes a "legal right". If you enter into a contract, then as long as the terms in the contract are not illegal or considered unfair, you are bound to follow them. You do not have the "legal right" to ignore the contract. You could ignore it and face any consequences, but that's not the same thing.

As for what is considered "unfair", Parts 3.32-3.34 cover this. It seems that it comes down to what is "excessive".

mrginge

There is a world of difference between a term which is unfair or unenforceable and one which cannot practically be enforced.

I don't see why a properly worded term requiring access should be classed as the former despite the protestations of the quiet enjoyment posse. Whether a LL can or would go the hassle of getting a court order however...

Guest101

It's simple.

A contract exists which allows certain things to happen. If one party doesn't honour it, the other must go to court to try enforce it.

The person ( tenant in this case ) who breached the contract may have laws which override the contract. ( for example quiet enjoyment, protection from eviction, etc).

The LL has a right to do viewings. Is it practical or sensible to upset the tenant? No.

Because the tenant can just be vengeful legally, e.g. Leaving dirty clothes, dishes, mess ( or even a step further eg adult material on the telly or a poster ). And the house will not sell.

alleyway

fairy_lights wrote: »

What does your contract say about allowing viewings and marketing the property?
You don't have to promote the house for her, you're under no obligation to keep it tidy and presentable for viewers and she needs to give you notice before any viewings.

Just re-read, it says under one of the clauses: 'Without prior notice with or without the tenants consent during the last two months of this tenancy allow access to prospective tenants or purchasers surveyors or any such person or contractor as required by the landlord or the landlords agent'

It look like I'm powerless to having people storming through the house.

If i were able to prevent the disruption it would be good to stay for one month, being able then to pack-up everything properly and move into an appropriate new place. The given my heightened dislike to having strangers constantly swanning in the house i feel i'm forced to move out within the week, throw everything i own in storage and look for somewhere new while being somewhat free, maybe taking on a temp accommodation for the in between.

This is by no means ideal, but possibly the only way to avoid the invasion on the house.

If anyone has any further advice as to this would be really helpful.