Tenants late with rent, again.

coal9011

Should add that I was once the Letting agent for a HMO ....... never, ever, ever again!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

franklee

clutton wrote: »

its my understanding from advice at NLA that if you issue a new tenancy agreement to a pre-existing tenant, then you must protect the deposit.

Yes I think we realise that on this thread already. What I'm querying is by WHEN does the deposit have to be protected? Presumably there is still a 14 day deadline but for the renewal when does the clock start ticking?

1. When the renewal is offered and accepted? In KathrynPenguin's case done well in advance of the expiry of the initial fixed term!

2. When the renewal AST has been signed? (I don't see this is relevant as it is possible to have a verbal contract).

3. When the renewal actually starts? (i.e. at the end of the initial fixed term).

The above dates could be a few weeks apart!

It matters to KathrynPenguin as if the answer is 1. then surely she should have protected the deposit regardless of if the AST was signed and returned by the tenant...

clutton_2

franklee i dont think anyone can answer your questions other than one of the actual tenancy deposit scheme staff - and even they may not know as it was only last month that the first opportunity arose for tenancy renewals. we are all feeling our way under this new legislation

franklee

clutton wrote: »

franklee i dont think anyone can answer your questions other than one of the actual tenancy deposit scheme staff - and even they may not know as it was only last month that the first opportunity arose for tenancy renewals. we are all feeling our way under this new legislation

Any renewal after the TDS came in would have these questions apply provided the tenancy started before the TDS came in. So that's renewals since April isn't it not just the last month. I should think there have been plenty of renewals of this type since April. If anything some recent renewals won't have these issues as the deposit would have been protected at the very start of the tenancy.

thesaint

clutton wrote: »

you cannot let yourself into this property under any circumstances. The tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment. you will be breaking the law if you do.<snip>

Rarely come to this board anymore, but not surprised to see incorrect statements like this still being trotted out. :huh:

clutton_2

the only circumstances in which a landlord can let himself into a tenanted property without the tenants permission is if there is an emergency such as a gas leak or other serious emergency.

Whole books have been written on "quiet enjoyment" by eminent lawyers

guppy

Maybe under any circumstances was a bit far reaching, but I think most of us understand clutton's point in the context.

I've never met most of my past LL's, and if they let themselves in unexpectedly while I was in the house I dread to think what might happen.

thesaint

clutton wrote: »

the only circumstances in which a landlord can let himself into a tenanted property without the tenants permission is if there is an emergency such as a gas leak or other serious emergency.

Whole books have been written on "quiet enjoyment" by eminent lawyers

This is the polar opposite to what you previously said.

If no consent has been given, but no consent has been withdrawn, would a landlord be "Breaking the law" if he went into the property with a Gas man to carry out an annual "Safety check"(Not a serious emergency)?

You carry on reading books by eminent lawyers, if these books cause you to make incorrect statements, I shall carry on being illiterate.

guppy

thesaint wrote: »

If no consent has been given, but no consent has been withdrawn, would a landlord be "Breaking the law" if he went into the property with a Gas man to carry out an annual "Safety check"(Not a serious emergency)?

The tenant can't withdraw consent he hasn't given in the first place.

Its the absolute essence of a tenancy that the tenant is entitled to exlcusive occupation of the property. This is just as fundamental as the requirement for the tenant to pay rent. If the LL or anybody else enters the property without permission they are trespassing unless they have a legal justification.

A LL can enter in the event of an emergency, but so can anyone else if they can justify their actions.

thesaint

guppy wrote: »

The tenant can't withdraw consent he hasn't given in the first place.

Its the absolute essence of a tenancy that the tenant is entitled to exlcusive occupation of the property. This is just as fundamental as the requirement for the tenant to pay rent. If the LL or anybody else enters the property without permission they are trespassing unless they have a legal justification.

A LL can enter in the event of an emergency, but so can anyone else if they can justify their actions.

You misunderstand me, I admit that I did not make myself clear.

If nothing has been discussed with regards to access(i.e.No consent has been withdrawn) would a landlord be acting illegally if he went in with a Gas man on a non-emergency.

A previous post, states that this would be the case.

If people exaggerate the truth, they should state this when stating points of law. :A