LL Advice please regarding Letting Agent

CB1979_2

well i'm going to see my accountant tomorrow, and a solicitor i've used before is in the office below, so i may well pop in and see if i can grab a free 5 mins of his time.

the main topic was what is deemed as "tenancy" whether it be occupancy or actual tenancy agreement.

moneysavinmonkey

RabbitMad wrote: »

No CB1979 applies to get the case dismissed as the LA has no real evidence that tenancy has been extended without saying it hasn't been.

Obviously CB will need to speak to proper solicitor rather than the armchair variety like ourselves which might make this an economically unviable proposal. However bluffing this might mean the LA backs down.

you are one mad rabbit! CB1979 can not 'bluff' that the tenants do not live there. The lettings agents will easily be able to prove that they do, and in any case the judge would just ask him!

I would say it is a bit of a rip off but that is letting agents for you. they will probably argue that they found you a 'quality' tenant that stayed on for more than 6 months so that is what you are paying for.

Check your contract & terms + conditions for what it says about VAT

By all means ask your solicitor the meaning of 'tenancy'
Moral of the story is never sign anything without reading it carefully.

RabbitMad

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

you are one mad rabbit! CB1979 can not 'bluff' that the tenants do not live there. The lettings agents will easily be able to prove that they do, and in any case the judge would just ask him!

:T Thanks! But I am not poor so I prefer excentric!

The point I am trying to make poorly is - CB applies to have the case struck out long before he has to speak to a judge, just fills a form in stating reasons why it should be struck out and sends it back. It all depends upon the case
that the LA files but I doubt they'd include proof that the tenancy had been extended.

To prove that there is a tenancy and that CB owes them the money the LA would need to show CB still owned the property after the initial 6 months and that the same tenants were still in the property and were still paying CB rent. Knowing something and being able to prove it are 2 different things.

However as I said before the cost of the necessary legal advice is probably way more than just paying up (unlike the case of Mark East and the East Street Market Lottery syndicate's non £7 million win).