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

coal9011

kunekune wrote: »

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.

Would cost the tenant £££££££££££££££££££££££££££'s to use that arguement (and the LL to defend it). Solicitors are always the winners!

moneysavinmonkey

to play devil advocates to BobProperty's devil advocate!

in the op's favour we have....

no gas safety certificate - assuming there were gas appliances in the propert this would be criminal. Not a grounds for defence in court.

agents do not appear to have taken immediate action to relet the property - appears that property was left vacant whilst new windows + doors were fitted, therefore possible question over the amount of rent after 11 July which the op must pay. hypotehtically - It could have been that if they had advertised the property immediately it would have relet straight away.

the OP believed that they were leaving by mutual agreement + the landlord thought that the agency was waiving any requirement for rent for the remainder of the term.

---

i don't think i would like to have to bring any of these points before a judge as most are pretty weak - but could well be used to help the OP agree a settlement . ie they could agree not to bring criminal charges for the gas certificate thing - that may even be enough to get Agency to drop the whole thing.. especially if it was mentioned you had a friend in the local paper who might be interested..... I think that this is their best chance.

BobProperty

doodledoodle24 wrote: »

....We have a headed letter dated 3rd July from the agency stating that we should have moved out of the property on the 30Th June....

This is what you will need to back up Kunekune's approach to your defence. Not knowing any better, you thought you had to be out by 30th June. Paying rent to either 30th June or 11th July could be argued to be "reasonable". Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, you will need to be damn good to argue it in court and / or need a solicitor.

BobProperty

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

....agents do not appear to have taken immediate action to relet the property - appears that property was left vacant whilst new windows + doors were fitted, therefore possible question over the amount of rent after 11 July which the op must pay. hypotehtically - It could have been that if they had advertised the property immediately it would have relet straight away.....

Nice try monkey but:
Didn't know when the keys were coming back and exactly when all tenants would be out.
Tried advertising but it's quiet in those months and the work was done while advertising for tenants and showing them round.

The landlord only has to take reasonable action to mitigate the loss. It might have re-let next day if they had placed a full page ad in a daily newspaper but that is obviously unreasonable.

Gorgeous_George

You cannot justify withholding £2100 in rent for a £50 gas safety certificate (GSC).

New installations do not need a GSC for the first year.

OP is trying it on. As an MSEer, good luck - you'll need it!

GG

moneysavinmonkey

BobProperty - whether it would have relet or not is a moot point... the letting agents did not relist the proeperty in good time and instead they used the OP's remaining rental period to fix the property up. If they can't show that they listed the property and there was no interest then the you can't proove your opinion of a slow period anymore than i can proove it would have been relet immediatetly...

anyway as stand-in for the agents, what do you say to my offer - I won't report your criminal lack of a gas safety certificate or go to the press and in return you withdraw this claim against me?

coal9011

I'm with you GG. OP's chances are slim to zero!

kunekune

Not familiar with UK system for recovery debts, as my background is in NZ, but the ease of arguing it might also depend on which court it is. Sometimes the lowest courts in the hierarchy have some leeway in whether they apply strict legal rules (eg, small claims is probably like that).

I think the idea of using the various arguments here to try and get a settlement is a good one. It must be costing them more than they will get if this DOES go to court.

kunekune

I wonder ... What if OP puts this forward themselves. The lawyers in the court with them, representing the other side, and the judge, will immediately see what OP is getting at. If the judge thinks there is any merit at all, then it will have to be answered regardless of whether OP is represented.

coal9011

kunekune wrote: »

Not familiar with UK system for recovery debts, as my background is in NZ, but the ease of arguing it might also depend on which court it is. Sometimes the lowest courts in the hierarchy have some leeway in whether they apply strict legal rules (eg, small claims is probably like that).

I think the idea of using the various arguments here to try and get a settlement is a good one. It must be costing them more than they will get if this DOES go to court.

Yes, I think that in English small claims county courts that - on balance - District Judge's are more sympathetic to "tenant's" claims then landlords.

But I don't think that the LL & LA are going to conceed on this one as they know that they have a guarantor (probably with more assets then all the other tenants put together) who the have by they short and curlies.

As said by others, this is a case where a "deal needs to be done". Yes damage limitation, plenty of talk, talk, talk required and pride swallowing if needs be.