Cancelling contract before move in date, lodger taking me to court

Zyphi

Hi everyone,

Recently I signed a contract with a potential lodger, with a move-in date of July 1st.

The contract was signed on the 14th of June, with the deposit paid. I cancelled the contract on the 22nd of June and returned the deposit on the same evening.

The lodger in question has now served me a letter of action, stating she is claiming compensation equal to a month's rent for 'trouble and distress', due to my breaching the contract. The contract did state that we each had to give the other a month's notice to void the contract.

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days). I feel that giving notice on the 22nd of June is reasonable, as her move-in date was on the 1st of July (10 calendar days later). I understand typically a month is given, so that you literally aren't throwing someone out on the streets, however, I am neither evicting her nor asking her to vacate the room - as she has yet to move in - I am simply denying her entry in the first place.

The reason for me to cancel the contract is that there has been a dispute prior to her moving in. She has requested to adopt a kitten about 2 weeks after her move-in date, I have told her through texts that I don't wish to allow that on the property, due to potential damage to the house. However, she has fought me hard on this, continually asking if there is any way to work around it (even insisting on keeping her kitten trapped in her room so that it doesn't damage the house, however, I am sure a kitten would damage her room if it was to be left unattended while she is at work (6-8 hours a day). Furthermore, she specified an untrained kitten, this also gave me serious pause at the time. Overall I feel this is quite cruel (to keep an animal locked in a small double room all day), and I am a large supporter of animal welfare.
After this chat, I told her I feel she should seek lodging elsewhere, and I didn't feel comfortable inviting her into my property due to this serious disagreement (she would not accept no for an answer). I felt that even if she moved in without the cat, she would seriously resent me for not letting her adopt the kitten, and while she may or may not do anything malicious, I wouldn't feel comfortable living in the same house as her (none of the rooms, including my own, have locks). This is what led me to cancel the contract.

As far as I know, the compensation scheme in small courts is to return the affected to their monetary position (it is not to punish the defendant), as if there was never a breach. However I have returned her the deposit and have not taken any other money from her, therefore I feel she is in the same position as prior to my breach. She is claiming the month's rent figure (over £600), for trouble and distress. I am not sure how she has come to this figure and how it is quantified, as far as I can tell there has been no loss to her due to the contract being cancelled.

I feel the law should protect me in this instance, as I don't believe it would force a live-in-landlord to invite a hostile guest into their home. However, I am wondering if anyone has had an experience similar to this, as I cannot find anything online, even after trawling for hours.

If I can provide any further information, I am happy to.

Best,

Zyphi

sevenhills

Zyphi said:

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days).

That is correct, but you signed an unnecessary contract.

comeandgo

Was there not a long running post regarding similar and when taken to court the householder lost and had to pay?

MaryNB

Zyphi said:

Hi everyone,

Recently I signed a contract with a potential lodger, with a move-in date of July 1st.

The contract was signed on the 14th of June, with the deposit paid. I cancelled the contract on the 22nd of June and returned the deposit on the same evening.

The lodger in question has now served me a letter of action, stating she is claiming compensation equal to a month's rent for 'trouble and distress', due to my breaching the contract. The contract did state that we each had to give the other a month's notice to void the contract.

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days). I feel that giving notice on the 22nd of June is reasonable, as her move-in date was on the 1st of July (10 calendar days later). I understand typically a month is given, so that you literally aren't throwing someone out on the streets, however, I am neither evicting her nor asking her to vacate the room - as she has yet to move in - I am simply denying her entry in the first place. You specified a month in the contract so that's the notice period required. She may have given notice on her current rental and therefore has to move out by the 1st of July. If that is the case she now may have no where to live on the 1st if she cannot find somewhere in 10 days (where I live that's very difficulty given the rental market). I don't think 10 days is reasonable at all. 

The reason for me to cancel the contract is that there has been a dispute prior to her moving in. She has requested to adopt a kitten about 2 weeks after her move-in date, I have told her through texts that I don't wish to allow that on the property, due to potential damage to the house. However, she has fought me hard on this, continually asking if there is any way to work around it (even insisting on keeping her kitten trapped in her room so that it doesn't damage the house, however, I am sure a kitten would damage her room if it was to be left unattended while she is at work (6-8 hours a day). Furthermore, she specified an untrained kitten, this also gave me serious pause at the time. Overall I feel this is quite cruel (to keep an animal locked in a small double room all day), and I am a large supporter of animal welfare.
After this chat, I told her I feel she should seek lodging elsewhere, and I didn't feel comfortable inviting her into my property due to this serious disagreement (she would not accept no for an answer). I felt that even if she moved in without the cat, she would seriously resent me for not letting her adopt the kitten, and while she may or may not do anything malicious, I wouldn't feel comfortable living in the same house as her (none of the rooms, including my own, have locks). This is what led me to cancel the contract. Was a no pets clause specified in the agreement? If so did it state breaching this clause would terminate the contract? Even if it does I'm not sure it would be allowed but if you haven't noted it I don't know how you can use this as an excuse. 

As far as I know, the compensation scheme in small courts is to return the affected to their monetary position (it is not to punish the defendant), as if there was never a breach. However I have returned her the deposit and have not taken any other money from her, therefore I feel she is in the same position as prior to my breach. She is claiming the month's rent figure (over £600), for trouble and distress. I am not sure how she has come to this figure and how it is quantified, as far as I can tell there has been no loss to her due to the contract being cancelled. There is if she cannot find anywhere else to live in 10 days! You agreed to provide her with somewhere to live for at least a month. 

I feel the law should protect me in this instance, as I don't believe it would force a live-in-landlord to invite a hostile guest into their home. However, I am wondering if anyone has had an experience similar to this, as I cannot find anything online, even after trawling for hours.

If I can provide any further information, I am happy to.

Best,

Zyphi

See in bold above. 

FreeBear

Did the contract say anything about the keeping of pets ?

If so, you could argue that she was planning on breaching the terms of the contract that she signed.

Take a screenshot of those messages and do a backup of any emails.

canaldumidi

Zyphi said:

Hi everyone,

Recently I signed a contract with a potential lodger, with a move-in date of July 1st.

The contract was signed on the 14th of June, with the deposit paid. I tried to cancelled the contract on the 22nd of June and returned the deposit on the same evening. You cannot unilaterally cancel a legally binding contract. That's what makes a contract a ..... 'contract'

The lodger in question has now served me a letter of action, stating she is claiming compensation equal to a month's rent for 'trouble and distress', due to my breaching the contract. The contract did state that we each had to give the other a month's notice to void the contract. Has she claimed compensation for any quantifable financial loss (eg hotel cost due to being otherwise homeless)?

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days).

1) That applies toan existing licence, not a contract yet to be turned into a licence

2) The 'reasonable notice' requirement is over-ruled by the specific contract clause

 I feel that giving notice on the 22nd of June is reasonable, as her move-in date was on the 1st of July (10 calendar days later). I understand typically a month is given, so that you literally aren't throwing someone out on the streets, however, I am neither evicting her nor asking her to vacate the room - as she has yet to move in - I am simply denying her entry in the first place.

Indeed. In clear breachof the contract you signed. She can claim any consequential losses though ''trouble and distress' probably won't count.
The reason for me to cancel the contract is that there has been a dispute prior to her moving in. She has requested to adopt a kitten about 2 weeks after her move-in date, I have told her through texts that I don't wish to allow that on the property, due to potential damage to the house. However, she has fought me hard on this, continually asking if there is any way to work around it (even insisting on keeping her kitten trapped in her room so that it doesn't damage the house, however, I am sure a kitten would damage her room if it was to be left unattended while she is at work (6-8 hours a day). Furthermore, she specified an untrained kitten, this also gave me serious pause at the time. Overall I feel this is quite cruel (to keep an animal locked in a small double room all day), and I am a large supporter of animal welfare.

When you/she signed the contract were pets discussed (either as allowed or not allowed?

If not, is the kitten a new part of the contract that she has sought to introduce?

After this chat, I told her I feel she should seek lodging elsewhere, and I didn't feel comfortable inviting her into my property due to this serious disagreement (she would not accept no for an answer). I felt that even if she moved in without the cat, she would seriously resent me for not letting her adopt the kitten, and while she may or may not do anything malicious, I wouldn't feel comfortable living in the same house as her (none of the rooms, including my own, have locks). This is what led me to cancel the contract.

Your contract is for her to move in - you cannot simply 'cancel' the contract. However, you can refuse the kitten- if that means she chooses not tomove in then you can mutually agree to rescind the contract.
As far as I know, the compensation scheme in small courts is to return the affected to their monetary position (it is not to punish the defendant), as if there was never a breach. However I have returned her the deposit and have not taken any other money from her, therefore I feel she is in the same position as prior to my breach.

Wel lno. She believed she had somewhere tolive and nolonger does. She may incur costs fnding somewhere else as a result of your actions and she can claim these costs.

She is claiming the month's rent figure (over £600), for trouble and distress. I am not sure how she has come to this figure and how it is quantified, as far as I can tell there has been no loss to her due to the contract being cancelled.

Agreed. She has stuck a finger in the air and come upwith 1 months rent. It is unquantified as you say.

But there are costs she could claim.....
I feel the law should protect me in this instance, as I don't believe it would force a live-in-landlord to invite a hostile guest into their home. However, I am wondering if anyone has had an experience similar to this, as I cannot find anything online, even after trawling for hours.

Your defense is based on the change she seeks to make to the contract ie to bring in a kitten that was never part of the original contract. If/when you refuse to amend the contract toallow the kitten she could either

* move in without the kitten or

* ask you to mutually rescind the contract soshe can look for accomodation elsewhere

canaldumidi

comeandgo said:

Was there not a long running post regarding similar and when taken to court the householder lost and had to pay?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6328839/lodger-lied-during-application-outcome-on-page-29/p1

Zyphi

For some reason, it will not let me quote and answer the questions asked, so I will shed some additional light via this message:

Her current accommodation is paid up and runs until the end of July, therefore she will not have any extra fees or be homeless that month. 

In the contract, it states that no pets/other animals are to be brought into the property without my written consent, which I clearly denied. 

I understand she may incur costs to live somewhere else, had she not already paid for housing in July. However hypothetically, even if she did not have July housing paid for already, surely renting somewhere else is not an ADDITIONAL cost, as she would have had to pay for rent with me anyway. Would the additional cost, be for example if she rented a more expensive room rather than mine? 

Zyphi

canaldumidi said:

Zyphi said:

Hi everyone,

Recently I signed a contract with a potential lodger, with a move-in date of July 1st.

The contract was signed on the 14th of June, with the deposit paid. I tried to cancelled the contract on the 22nd of June and returned the deposit on the same evening. You cannot unilaterally cancel a legally binding contract. That's what makes a contract a ..... 'contract'

The lodger in question has now served me a letter of action, stating she is claiming compensation equal to a month's rent for 'trouble and distress', due to my breaching the contract. The contract did state that we each had to give the other a month's notice to void the contract. Has she claimed compensation for any quantifable financial loss (eg hotel cost due to being otherwise homeless)?

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days).

1) That applies toan existing licence, not a contract yet to be turned into a licence

2) The 'reasonable notice' requirement is over-ruled by the specific contract clause

 I feel that giving notice on the 22nd of June is reasonable, as her move-in date was on the 1st of July (10 calendar days later). I understand typically a month is given, so that you literally aren't throwing someone out on the streets, however, I am neither evicting her nor asking her to vacate the room - as she has yet to move in - I am simply denying her entry in the first place.

Indeed. In clear breachof the contract you signed. She can claim any consequential losses though ''trouble and distress' probably won't count.
The reason for me to cancel the contract is that there has been a dispute prior to her moving in. She has requested to adopt a kitten about 2 weeks after her move-in date, I have told her through texts that I don't wish to allow that on the property, due to potential damage to the house. However, she has fought me hard on this, continually asking if there is any way to work around it (even insisting on keeping her kitten trapped in her room so that it doesn't damage the house, however, I am sure a kitten would damage her room if it was to be left unattended while she is at work (6-8 hours a day). Furthermore, she specified an untrained kitten, this also gave me serious pause at the time. Overall I feel this is quite cruel (to keep an animal locked in a small double room all day), and I am a large supporter of animal welfare.

When you/she signed the contract were pets discussed (either as allowed or not allowed?

If not, is the kitten a new part of the contract that she has sought to introduce?

After this chat, I told her I feel she should seek lodging elsewhere, and I didn't feel comfortable inviting her into my property due to this serious disagreement (she would not accept no for an answer). I felt that even if she moved in without the cat, she would seriously resent me for not letting her adopt the kitten, and while she may or may not do anything malicious, I wouldn't feel comfortable living in the same house as her (none of the rooms, including my own, have locks). This is what led me to cancel the contract.

Your contract is for her to move in - you cannot simply 'cancel' the contract. However, you can refuse the kitten- if that means she chooses not tomove in then you can mutually agree to rescind the contract.
As far as I know, the compensation scheme in small courts is to return the affected to their monetary position (it is not to punish the defendant), as if there was never a breach. However I have returned her the deposit and have not taken any other money from her, therefore I feel she is in the same position as prior to my breach.

Wel lno. She believed she had somewhere tolive and nolonger does. She may incur costs fnding somewhere else as a result of your actions and she can claim these costs.

She is claiming the month's rent figure (over £600), for trouble and distress. I am not sure how she has come to this figure and how it is quantified, as far as I can tell there has been no loss to her due to the contract being cancelled.

Agreed. She has stuck a finger in the air and come upwith 1 months rent. It is unquantified as you say.

But there are costs she could claim.....
I feel the law should protect me in this instance, as I don't believe it would force a live-in-landlord to invite a hostile guest into their home. However, I am wondering if anyone has had an experience similar to this, as I cannot find anything online, even after trawling for hours.

Your defense is based on the change she seeks to make to the contract ie to bring in a kitten that was never part of the original contract. If/when you refuse to amend the contract toallow the kitten she could either

* move in without the kitten or

* ask you to mutually rescind the contract soshe can look for accomodation elsewhere

Please see above

Zyphi

MaryNB said:

Zyphi said:

Hi everyone,

Recently I signed a contract with a potential lodger, with a move-in date of July 1st.

The contract was signed on the 14th of June, with the deposit paid. I cancelled the contract on the 22nd of June and returned the deposit on the same evening.

The lodger in question has now served me a letter of action, stating she is claiming compensation equal to a month's rent for 'trouble and distress', due to my breaching the contract. The contract did state that we each had to give the other a month's notice to void the contract.

Having read up on some background regarding excluded occupiers, I am only required to give 'reasonable notice', with this being based on the rental payment period (1 month) and duration of how long the lodger has lived in the property (currently 0 days). I feel that giving notice on the 22nd of June is reasonable, as her move-in date was on the 1st of July (10 calendar days later). I understand typically a month is given, so that you literally aren't throwing someone out on the streets, however, I am neither evicting her nor asking her to vacate the room - as she has yet to move in - I am simply denying her entry in the first place. You specified a month in the contract so that's the notice period required. She may have given notice on her current rental and therefore has to move out by the 1st of July. If that is the case she now may have no where to live on the 1st if she cannot find somewhere in 10 days (where I live that's very difficulty given the rental market). I don't think 10 days is reasonable at all. 

The reason for me to cancel the contract is that there has been a dispute prior to her moving in. She has requested to adopt a kitten about 2 weeks after her move-in date, I have told her through texts that I don't wish to allow that on the property, due to potential damage to the house. However, she has fought me hard on this, continually asking if there is any way to work around it (even insisting on keeping her kitten trapped in her room so that it doesn't damage the house, however, I am sure a kitten would damage her room if it was to be left unattended while she is at work (6-8 hours a day). Furthermore, she specified an untrained kitten, this also gave me serious pause at the time. Overall I feel this is quite cruel (to keep an animal locked in a small double room all day), and I am a large supporter of animal welfare.
After this chat, I told her I feel she should seek lodging elsewhere, and I didn't feel comfortable inviting her into my property due to this serious disagreement (she would not accept no for an answer). I felt that even if she moved in without the cat, she would seriously resent me for not letting her adopt the kitten, and while she may or may not do anything malicious, I wouldn't feel comfortable living in the same house as her (none of the rooms, including my own, have locks). This is what led me to cancel the contract. Was a no pets clause specified in the agreement? If so did it state breaching this clause would terminate the contract? Even if it does I'm not sure it would be allowed but if you haven't noted it I don't know how you can use this as an excuse. 

As far as I know, the compensation scheme in small courts is to return the affected to their monetary position (it is not to punish the defendant), as if there was never a breach. However I have returned her the deposit and have not taken any other money from her, therefore I feel she is in the same position as prior to my breach. She is claiming the month's rent figure (over £600), for trouble and distress. I am not sure how she has come to this figure and how it is quantified, as far as I can tell there has been no loss to her due to the contract being cancelled. There is if she cannot find anywhere else to live in 10 days! You agreed to provide her with somewhere to live for at least a month. 

I feel the law should protect me in this instance, as I don't believe it would force a live-in-landlord to invite a hostile guest into their home. However, I am wondering if anyone has had an experience similar to this, as I cannot find anything online, even after trawling for hours.

If I can provide any further information, I am happy to.

Best,

Zyphi

See in bold above. 

Please see above

canaldumidi

Zyphi said:

Her current accommodation is paid up and runs until the end of July, therefore she will not have any extra fees or be homeless that month. if you have evidence for this then that's why she's claiming for 'trouble and distress', I doubt this will succeed.

In the contract, it states that no pets/other animals are to be brought into the property without my written consent, which I clearly denied. Then you use this, combined with the evidence of her intention to introduce a kitten, as defence against her claim. She is intending to breach the contract.

I understand she may incur costs to live somewhere else, had she not already paid for housing in July. However hypothetically, even if she did not have July housing paid for already, surely renting somewhere else is not an ADDITIONAL cost, as she would have had to pay for rent with me anyway. Would the additional cost, be for example if she rented a more expensive room rather than mine? 

Yes hypethetically if the only suitable accommodation she could find was more expensive she could claim the extra cost. As I said earlier, in an extreme case she could claim hotel bills.

But not if, as you say, "Her current accommodation is paid up and runs until the end of July,"