Is what my Landlord did illegal?

LukeyMagic

McKneff wrote: »

Yes, but you'll may not have been able to find new tenants and say if you found them after say 3 months then they would have to give a months notice. So compare 4 months rent to £1k. You reallt should move on.

£1000 might mean nothing you you but for me its quite a lot of money.

LukeyMagic

Guest101 wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding.


"Not to be sublet, part with possession of the Property, or let any other person live at the Property - The usual nonsense about who can and cannot live there - however you want to assign the tenancy. except that during the fixed term of tenancy - presumably it was still fixed term, as you say you had 6 months to pay. the Tenant may sign the remainder of the tenancy with the Landlords's express consent which will not be unreasonably withheld. Such consent, as a variation of the tenancy agreement, to be agreed in writing."


I'll highlight the important bit, it is not unreasonable for the LL to check who the tenant will be. Perhaps the LL decided that instead of assigning the remainder of YOUR tenancy, he would let you end yours and take this person on as a completely new tenant.


To end yours it cost you £1,000.


If you did not pay this, the LL could reasonably say, he did not agree with your choice of tenant. Please find another.


It would be reasonable for you to ask the LL what criteria the tenant must meet. But it is reasonable for the LL to set such criteria.

he put me in a position where I had to pay him, otherwise references wouldn't of got given to mortgage people making me miss the completion date, as the housing association has a set completion date that everything had to be done by.

Guest101

LukeyMagic wrote: »

he put me in a position where I had to pay him, otherwise references wouldn't of got given to mortgage people making me miss the completion date, as the housing association has a set completion date that everything had to be done by.

That's not relevant.


Why do you think you would've go a bad reference? You'd paid rent up until then presumably??

LukeyMagic

Guest101 wrote: »

That's not relevant.


Why do you think you would've go a bad reference? You'd paid rent up until then presumably??

he wouldn't of given the reference.

melstar11

I think you need to consider all the terms of the tenancy and the agent's terms and conditions on this (and we can't see them and don't have the details). Your landlord allowed you to leave the contract early as you found a replacement tenant for the rest of the term. Presumably that replacement tenant had to be credit and reference checked and a variation to your originally tenancy agreement drawn up, etc? Those things cost time and money.

It was as a favour to you that the tenancy allowed for this so why do you think it would have been okay for the landlord to incur all the costs of taking the replacement tenant on because you wanted to get out of the contract early?

If the contract hadn't allowed for that then you would have had to pay the rent for the rest of the term unless the landlord had kindly agreed to release you from your contractual obligations. Would it have been fair for the landlord to then have a period with no rent coming in and to them incur the costs of finding and signing up a new tenant?

Guest101

LukeyMagic wrote: »

he wouldn't of given the reference.

Why not?


You can rent and own at the same time.

LukeyMagic

melstar11 wrote: »

I think you need to consider all the terms of the tenancy and the agent's terms and conditions on this (and we can't see them and don't have the details). Your landlord allowed you to leave the contract early as you found a replacement tenant for the rest of the term. Presumably that replacement tenant had to be credit and reference checked and a variation to your originally tenancy agreement drawn up, etc? Those things cost time and money.

It was as a favour to you that the tenancy allowed for this so why do you think it would have been okay for the landlord to incur all the costs of taking the replacement tenant on because you wanted to get out of the contract early?

If the contract hadn't allowed for that then you would have had to pay the rent for the rest of the term unless the landlord had kindly agreed to release you from your contractual obligations. Would it have been fair for the landlord to then have a period with no rent coming in and to them incur the costs of finding and signing up a new tenant?

I understand it wouldn't be fair on him, but the thing is I found him about 10 replacement tenants all meeting criteria with in about 3 days of putting the house on the market. he wouldn't of been out of money rent wise. the day we left was the day new tenants moved in. He chose the first name on the list, didn't contact the rest.

What I'm annoyed about is these fees that appeared out of nowhere, I could understand administration fees but to charge £1000, with no break down of fees. I think that's wrong and I don't agree with it.

G_M

What actually happened legally, in the end? Did

1) the landlord end your tenancy (in response to a request from you for an Early Surrender), and grant a brand new tenancy to the new tenant? or

2) did you, the LL, and the new tenant all Execute a Deed of Variation whereby the new tenant took over the remaining 6 months of your tenancy?

These are two quite different things.

Your contract states:

".......except that during the fixed term of tenancy the Tenant may sign the remainder of the tenancy with the Landlords's express consent which will not be unreasonably withheld. Such consent, as a variation of the tenancy agreement, to be agreed in writing."

That is option 2 above. If that is what happened, then since the clause does not refer to a payment, the £1000 should not have been charged and you could (with some difficulty and uncertainty) re-claim it.

However if what happened was option 1 above, then the clause is irrelevant. You asked for the tenancy to end. The landlord said yes subject to a £1000 payment. You agreed, and paid. You have no case.

LukeyMagic

G_M wrote: »

What actually happened legally, in the end? Did

1) the landlord end your tenancy (in response to a request from you for an Early Surrender), and grant a brand new tenancy to the new tenant? or

2) did you, the LL, and the new tenant all Execute a Deed of Variation whereby the new tenant took over the remaining 6 months of your tenancy?

These are two quite different things.

Your contract states:
That is option 2 above. If that is what happened, then since the clause does not refer to a payment, the £1000 should not have been charged and you could (with some difficulty and uncertainty) re-claim it.

However if what happened was option 1 above, then the clause is irrelevant. You asked for the tenancy to end. The landlord said yes subject to a £1000 payment. You agreed, and paid. You have no case.

Ok thanks this is the best answer yet clear and precise!
And not the answer I wanted

I chose option 1.......

stator

Was your deposit protected properly and have you been given it back?
I ask because if it wasn't protected properly then you have leverage.