Being taken to court for unpaid rent for 3 months we were not there. HELP!

Debt_Free_Chick

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

ok, my mistake - this is correct, although a previous posters pointed out that this is no grounds for withholding rent.

Typing as you posted, so didn't see this one before I replied to the previous post.

Also - not simply "arguing with you" just trying to clarify the situation for DD24 and anyone else who might be reading

MissMoneypenny

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

It's a common misunderstanding that any failure on the part of the LL to attend to any maintenance/safety issue is grounds for witholding the rent. Unfortunately (for those who misunderstand) it isn't - one still has to pay

Back in 1997 when I sold my house from under my soon to be ex husband and let my solicitor hold the capital, I took my 2 little children to a rented house for 6 months, while I took my ex to court. It was only when I got in that I found out that rentals needed a gas safety cert and it didn't have one. On the advice of solicitor friend who found the rental for me (and who was actually acting for my LL - its a long story) I wrote to the LL and gave him a date to get a gas safety cert or I would arrange it and deduct the cost from the rent. The LL did it and hated me forever.

moneysavinmonkey

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Typing as you posted, so didn't see this one before I replied to the previous post.

Also - not simply "arguing with you" just trying to clarify the situation for DD24 and anyone else who might be reading

agreed - your information was useful to me! symbiotic points IMO!

As for moneysaving advice, unless there is some other information to come from the OP, it seems that the overwhelming consenus is the OP has little basis to defend their county claims action. so some damage limitation advice is needed...

Really should try and avoid a CCJ + may even be worth contacting letting agents to try and settle the case before a court hearing - could perhaps negotiate a figure below the total owed if paid early, or alternative agree a staged payment schedule with them.

moneysavinmonkey

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Back in 1997 when I sold my house from under my soon to be ex husband and let my solicitor hold the capital, I took my 2 little children to a rented house for 6 months, while I took my ex to court. It was only when I got in that I found out that rentals needed a gas safety cert and it didn't have one. On the advice of solicitor friend who found the rental for me (and who was actually acting for my LL - its a long story) I wrote to the LL and gave him a date to get a gas safety cert or I would arrange it and deduct the cost from the rent. The LL did it and hated me forever.

this to me would seem a sensible way to go about it. you have warned the landlord in writing + then would have a receipt from CORGI engineer in order to back up your deduction from the rent.

MissMoneypenny

BobProperty wrote: »

So has issued court summonses for 3 tenants and one guarantor for June July August and part September rent plus additional advertising costs plus court costs.

I have to say to everyone - tell me where I'm wrong and why I don't have a case?

Apart from not being able to charge the tenants for the additional advertising as you are going for the rent for the entire contract, you do have a case. Just wondering if there is more than one way to skin a cat. Hence shelter and solicitor might be able to help. Probably the latter more than the former.

coal9011

"Bravo" MissMoneypenny :T (about post before last)

kunekune

Damage limitation ...

The OP thinks they were evicted. OK, so the paperwork was not done properly, but the OP is a little naive (sorry, OP, but that might be useful to you) and believed that they couldn't stay there any more, even if they wanted to. So, OP mistakenly thought that their liability terminated on moving out and that the moving out was either forcible or, possibly, by agreement because of the financial problems.

LL/agent took no steps to put OP right about this mistake, which was one that the LL/agent had encouraged, and waited until AFTER the rental term had finished before doing anything to claim the unpaid amount (obviously because they wanted to go after the guarantor). They made use of the property being empty in order to carry out some repairs and did not attempt to re-let it until after the AST period was finished ...

Some kind of estoppel?

BobProperty

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Apart from not being able to charge the tenants for the additional advertising as you are going for the rent for the entire contract, you do have a case. Just wondering if there is more than one way to skin a cat. Hence shelter and solicitor might be able to help. Probably the latter more than the former.

OK maybe shouldn't be a "part September" but don't think we know how long the entire contract was. If is was 6 months then no, if it was 12 months then yes and plus the advertising.
Additional advertising? Why not? It's harder to get tenants in July August as they don't turn up until September. Wasted couple of weeks ads in papers. (still in Devil's Advocate for landlord mode here, by the way).

coal9011

kunekune, can't be estopple as something has to be "said" or "implied" by the landlord that he has no intention of carrying through with.

For example:

Landlord says to tenant "you can stay in my property for 12 months"

Landlord says to tenant (after 7 months) "I want you to leave now - here's notice"

The landlord has "estoppled" himself by his first statement!

kunekune

That's the significance of the letter saying they had to leave: if you are evicted before the term ends, then there would be no continuing rent liability. So there is a representation that they are no longer liable. Trouble is, it comes from the agent, not the LL, but there is something in the documents that say the agent can issue notices on behalf of the LL. So it's like the forgiveness of debt cases. Final step: if they had realised the rent liability continued regardless of whether they were in the house or not, they would have stayed put and perhaps found another flatmate - hence a detriment ...

It's not a great argument, but it's the best I can come up with quickly.