Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

MrNiceGuy_007

Guest101 wrote: »

PM me your email adress

did you receive it?

G_M

MrNiceGuy_007 wrote: »

I have, but LL is only reading the parts that LL wants to see.

Then quote him the parts you want him to read:

"(6)The court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house to take effect at a time when it is let on an assured fixed term tenancy unless—

(a)the ground for possession is Ground 2[F6, Ground 7A] or Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act or any of the grounds in Part II of that Schedule, other than Ground 9 or Ground 16; "

Note NOT ground 1. Ground 1 cannot be used during the fixed term which ends on August xth 2017.

Guest101

MrNiceGuy_007 wrote: »

did you receive it?

Yes I've sent you the info

GDB2222

I don't think I would react to the LL's sabre rattling in the way you are doing. He says he is using a solicitor. That's patently a lie, as he has filled in the form himself. If he gets a solicitor involved, he will get legal advice that will set him straight, and until then he won't believe you.

I think he has just sent you the form to harass you and probably has no intention of starting proceedings. If I am wrong about this, you can defend the proceedings in person without a solicitor.

I still think that there's a deal to be done, if you are more flexible in your demands.

franklee

The landlord's solicitor will give incorrect information if he hasn't been given the full picture. I had this with my landlord, solicitors letters and court papers for a section 21 notice when the deposit prescribed information hadn't been served. I can only assume they were told a different version of events. In other words garbage in garbage out.

Bear in mind it may not get as far as court. My landlord, after his agent hassling me for weeks, finally withdrew his case on receipt of my defence form. OP you must fill in and return the defence form in time which is something you should be able to do based on info. in this thread. That will IMO bring on the crunch point where the landlord will stop bluffing and see if he has a valid case or not.

You need to be sure there is a fixed term and no break clause that the landlord can use. Although if the deposit isn't protected then he can't break until that's sorted.

kiddy_guy

Given the rank amateurism of the LL, if I was the OP I'd be suggesting every day the LL wastes my time in not accepting the generous offer, the terms for settlement increase by £50. That or refusal to move out point blank

FBaby

Te be fair, the issue here lays with the ast. It does have a termination clause that provides reference to being able to terminate under various circumstances, one of which is describes as 'landlords returning to live in the property'.

Now we know the LL is a complete amateur and doesn't have a clue as to what they are doing. They are relying on this ast believing that it is a legal contractual agreement and therefore prevail anything else.

I wouldn't think they drafted that ast themselves so they either used a template of the internet or that of the agency. If the latter, than it is them they should turn their anger to, as clearly, that termination clause has no legal bearing, unless everyone here has missed something?

Saying that, we know that break clauses can be agreed in a contract, are perfectly legal (although it is correct that they can't be enacted sooner than 6 months in the ast?), so could the argument be that this 'termination' clause constitutes a break clause that OP agreed to?

Miss_Samantha

FBaby wrote: »

Saying that, we know that break clauses can be agreed in a contract, are perfectly legal (although it is correct that they can't be enacted sooner than 6 months in the ast?), so could the argument be that this 'termination' clause constitutes a break clause that OP agreed to?

This has been mentioned a long, long time ago in this thread but the suggestion received abuse

(By the way, nothing prevents a break clause from applying sooner than the first 6 months of the AST).

FBaby

Ha ha, I missed that post then, but again, I have no legal knowledge at all, just learning from what I read on forums! Not sure where I got the 6 months!

the consensus here seems to be that LL is making up that he has sought legal advice, or have assumed that the legal advice received was nonsense. That might be the case, but I know that if I was OP, I would be weary that maybe, just maybe, there might be some truth behind what his LL is saying, and that the interpretation of whether he has the right to stay until the end of the ast or not might be more grey than what he has been led to believe.

Miss_Samantha

FBaby wrote: »

Ha ha, I missed that post then, but again, I have no legal knowledge at all, just learning from what I read on forums!

You're making a good point re. a break clause, but that's going against the will of 'the mob'