Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

FBaby

mrginge wrote: »

No, you are not right because nothing is black and white.

Which is exactly the issue. Nothing is black and white, yet people have been advising OP to respond to his LL as if it is.

GM said it as it is, if it went to court, it is likely (and therefore not certain) that the judge would rule in their favour.

BUT that means OP going court, and then crossing his fingers. He had an opportunity to take an offer, I really hope his decision not to wasn't based on what he was told here.

Some people thrive on stressful situations, maybe it is the case of OP, but clearly not the case of his wife. I feel sorry for her to be caught in this position.

mrginge

FBaby wrote: »

Which is exactly the issue. Nothing is black and white, yet people have been advising OP to respond to his LL as if it is.

GM said it as it is, if it went to court, it is likely (and therefore not certain) that the judge would rule in their favour.

BUT that means OP going court, and then crossing his fingers. He had an opportunity to take an offer, I really hope his decision not to wasn't based on what he was told here.

Some people thrive on stressful situations, maybe it is the case of OP, but clearly not the case of his wife. I feel sorry for her to be caught in this position.

With respect, I'm not sure you've quite grasped the point of this forum.

G_M

iammumtoone wrote: »

What I don't understand about this 'clause' is am I right in thinking a break clause works both ways. LL and tenant can end early.

With this clause the LL seems to relying on its only one way, just the LL can end early, surely that can't be right/be allowed?

Post 470 above:

A Break Clause is generally considered to be unfair, and unenforcible, if iit does not provide equal rights to end the tenancy to both parties.

But of course that relies on the decision of a court, and judges' decisions cannot be taken for granted.

However it is likely a judge would not consider this a fair Break Clause.

This time for additonal clarity I've underlined the relevant word.

As Miss S (finally) correctly pointed out

A[n] unilateral break clause isn't explicitly forbidden by any statute.

so it is up to a judge's interpretaion of (unfair) consumer law.

leslieknope

i'm eagerly awaiting an update on this. somehow i've become very invested in the outcome!

molerat

Surely, in the absence of any specific break clause, if the LL is relying on clause 50 in the agreement it must be sub clause c) as the other 2 don't apply and he has already stated why he wants possession. In this particular case "any other ground provided in the act" would be S8 G1 which cannot be used in the fixed term.

karcher

Any update on this OP?

CM66

Come on OP - dont leave us hanging!!

Guest101

rentmekid wrote: »

please don't encourage him, I'm glad he's gone

Must've had a profound impact on you in the 8 days you've been a member...

MobileSaver

Guest101 wrote: »

Must've had a profound impact on you in the 8 days you've been a member...

Looking at some of rentmekid's other posts, seems they're just a wannabe troll; is it half-term?

baldelectrician

Any update on this ?