Landlord wants us to continue paying rent after we vacate property

Gycraig

Section62 said:

Gycraig said:

Did you even read the link which is an exact example of this, from the company that literally settles / decides tenancy disputes for a living ?. 

They aren't a court though, and the decisions made by them don't set a precedent that courts would have to follow.

There are significant legal differences between decisions made by adjudicators, and decisions made by courts.

Fair, but if the adjudicator says 500 pound and the landlord says 750, I can’t see many landlords spending to have a day in court to try and get 250 back, 

which is why the scheme and the adjudicators exist. They set what is fair according to there guidelines that the tenant and landlord agreed when putting the money into the scheme. 

Can’t personally see a judge being happy with a landlord wasting there time over such small figures after an adjudicator has already given a fair breakdown of his decision along with the logic behind the decision.

Different strokes I guess but if I was the landlord I’d just take it out of the deposit like the adjudicator has set and get on with my life. 

Op if your reading could you take a picture of the sink ? I’m dying to see what it looks like 

GDB2222

I don’t think that the op is complaining about the cost of the repair. Indeed, it’s his own quote for £750, iirc. The op is complaining about the cost of the landlord not being able to let the property until the work is done, which is far more than the deposit. 

Section62

Gycraig said:

Section62 said:

Gycraig said:

Did you even read the link which is an exact example of this, from the company that literally settles / decides tenancy disputes for a living ?. 

They aren't a court though, and the decisions made by them don't set a precedent that courts would have to follow.

There are significant legal differences between decisions made by adjudicators, and decisions made by courts.

Can’t personally see a judge being happy with a landlord wasting there time over such small figures after an adjudicator has already given a fair breakdown of his decision along with the logic behind the decision.

Judges are more interested in the legal principles, not the sums involved.  The purpose of non-binding arbitration/adjudication/mediation is to have low-cost means of dispute resolution without the expense of court proceedings.

If someone feels a non-binding decision is unfair they are free to ask a court to consider the merits of their case. The court won't fetter itself by a non-binding decision.  A situation like the OP's is bread-and-butter work for the lower courts.  If the actions of Party 'A' cause Party 'B' a financial loss then the court will decide whether or not Party 'B' is entitled to redress.

The fact there is no definitive answer in this thread so far (on a forum populated by people with considerable experience of the issues involved) suggests to me that this is one of those cases that many judges would be really interested in examining.... although it is probably more likely to be resolved at solicitor level if things go that far.

Jumblebumble

GDB2222 said:

penners324 said:

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

There’s nothing wrong with it, except that it is not what is being replaced. 

If I write off your car, would you be satisfied with a moped, as they are both ‘transport'?

If I write off your car and pay you the market value on the spot am I liable for anything further ?
( Assuming no personal injury)

GDB2222

Jumblebumble said:

GDB2222 said:

penners324 said:

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

There’s nothing wrong with it, except that it is not what is being replaced. 

If I write off your car, would you be satisfied with a moped, as they are both ‘transport'?

If I write off your car and pay you the market value on the spot am I liable for anything further ?
( Assuming no personal injury)

I can't answer definitively, but you may also be liable for me to rent a car for a week or two, until I have been able to turn the cash you gave me into another car. But, I'd be expected to mitigate my losses, so I'd have to be reasonably quick getting a replacement car.

newsgroupmonkey_

GDB2222 said:

Jumblebumble said:

GDB2222 said:

penners324 said:

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

There’s nothing wrong with it, except that it is not what is being replaced. 

If I write off your car, would you be satisfied with a moped, as they are both ‘transport'?

If I write off your car and pay you the market value on the spot am I liable for anything further ?
( Assuming no personal injury)

I can't answer definitively, but you may also be liable for me to rent a car for a week or two, until I have been able to turn the cash you gave me into another car. But, I'd be expected to mitigate my losses, so I'd have to be reasonably quick getting a replacement car.

No, no you're not.

Once the insurance company pay out, you are no longer allowed a rental car, nor can you claim against the third party for one.

Have a read

https://accidentcourtesycar.co.uk/write-off-no-courtesy-car/

When a car is written off by an insurer, a courtesy car is usually not provided once the vehicle is declared a write-off

canaldumidi

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

GDB2222 said:

Jumblebumble said:

GDB2222 said:

penners324 said:

What's wrong with a b&q sink? Then fund a handyman to fit it?

There’s nothing wrong with it, except that it is not what is being replaced. 

If I write off your car, would you be satisfied with a moped, as they are both ‘transport'?

If I write off your car and pay you the market value on the spot am I liable for anything further ?
( Assuming no personal injury)

I can't answer definitively, but you may also be liable for me to rent a car for a week or two, until I have been able to turn the cash you gave me into another car. But, I'd be expected to mitigate my losses, so I'd have to be reasonably quick getting a replacement car.

No, no you're not.

Once the insurance company pay out, you are no longer allowed a rental car, nor can you claim against the third party for one.

Have a read

https://accidentcourtesycar.co.uk/write-off-no-courtesy-car/

When a car is written off by an insurer, a courtesy car is usually not provided once the vehicle is declared a write-off

But that is simply a term of the insurance policy. The insurer has decided not to provide a courtesy car following write-off.

The legal right of the injured party is different. He can still claim for a car rental directly from the guilty party for a reasonable period of time to compensate for his loss of transport. It's just that the guilty party would have to pay themselves, not claim from their insurer- assuming the injured party to them to court.