Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • diddykong
    • By diddykong 11th Jan 18, 2:30 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 2Thanks
    diddykong
    Renting, moved out, still responsible for house, landlord gaining unauthorised entry
    • #1
    • 11th Jan 18, 2:30 PM
    Renting, moved out, still responsible for house, landlord gaining unauthorised entry 11th Jan 18 at 2:30 PM
    I was hoping that I could get some advice with regards to my rights as a tenant...

    We have recently purchased a new house and therefore moved out of an old rented house. The rented house is leased via an agency. Unfortunately, we still have a lease on the rented property, which could potentially run until the summer. We have agreed to pay the rent plus landlord costs up until the time a new tenant is found. We do not have a problem with this.

    Despite not actually residing in the rented house, we are still responsible for it, pay utility and council tax bills, and are yet to complete a check out report with the letting agency.

    We have recently spent several hundred pounds to have the rented house deep cleaned, in order to bring the house to a suitable standard for future tenants. It was our decision to have this done and again, we were more than happy to pay for it.

    Yesterday we discovered that the landlord has been allowing contractors into the rented house, without informing us. It is not clear whether they even told the agency. The contractors have totally stripped the bathroom, leaving no sink, shower or toilet. It looks a mess and there are now dirty marks on the carpet, which were not there after the deep clean.

    We are still paying FULL RENT, which means we expect to have access to a bathroom. This may seem petty, as we are not living in the house, but we were actually hoping to use the facilities, while the bathroom in our new house is unavailable, due to renovation. As there is no access to a shower, we are paying for something that isn't available.

    As we are paying for energy, any gas and electricity used by the contractors will be paid for by us.

    Finally, we are generally upset with the way people and contractors are entering a property we are paying for, without our knowledge. On no occasion were we told of these works being carried out. If we were, we would have, of course, agreed.

    We are still effectively tenants, paying full rent and all expenses. I understand the landlord's desire to renovate their house, but have they done anything wrong in granting entry, without informing us? Where do we stand on the dirty carpet and gas/electric usage? I am worried how the work will affect our check out report.

    Thanks for any help.
Page 2
    • pimento
    • By pimento 7th Mar 18, 2:00 AM
    • 5,391 Posts
    • 7,023 Thanks
    pimento
    The landlord is in the wrong and you have a case for a refund of rent from the moment that the landlord 'ended' the tenancy by taking repossession of the property.

    However, as a landlord, if I was in that position I would be far from happy with someone taking a lease on my property and leaving it vacant. Apart from the risk of the unhealthy attention that empty properties can attract from the low-life of this world, properties do not benefit from heating and plumbing systems not being used for long periods of time - particularly during the winter months. I am also fairly certain that my mortgage and insurances will have clauses in them requiring that the property is not left empty for extended periods.
    Originally posted by MEM62
    The landlord can't have it all ways. If they don't want the place empty (which it would be during void periods anyway) they should let the tenant negotiate an early exit.

    The OP should definitely have changed the lock and should do so now if they haven't already.
    "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." -- Red Adair
    • Mahsroh
    • By Mahsroh 7th Mar 18, 8:03 AM
    • 339 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    Mahsroh
    Just cannot understand the LL's stance on this.... I've done it once before.... with the outgoing tenants permission, I.e:

    Tenant: We've give our notice which takes us up to the 28th, but we're physically moving out on the 14th.
    Me: No worries - do you have any objections to me going in between the 14th and 28th to do some repairs / upgrades?
    Tenant: No problem at all.

    SIMPLE! It's amazing how far a little bit of communication can go. In this case the LL wants to have their cake and eat it.

    Personally, i'd just write a strongly worded letter advising than they took possession of the property on XXXXX and therefore, your obligations have ended and no more rent is due. The end! Leave the ball in their court. they'll have to go legal to recover the rent but won't get very far!
    • MEM62
    • By MEM62 7th Mar 18, 10:18 AM
    • 1,610 Posts
    • 1,230 Thanks
    MEM62
    The landlord can't have it all ways. If they don't want the place empty (which it would be during void periods anyway) they should let the tenant negotiate an early exit.

    The OP should definitely have changed the lock and should do so now if they haven't already.
    Originally posted by pimento
    I absolutely agree, the landlord should have agreed early termination and, in this case, is very much in the wrong. My comment re vacant periods, is my personal feeling on the subject. I lease my property because I want someone living in it - if I want it sitting empty I can achieve that quite easily.
    • lookstraightahead
    • By lookstraightahead 7th Mar 18, 1:26 PM
    • 245 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    lookstraightahead
    This type of landlord gives landlords a bad name. Tenants donít babysit their property by staying in it all the time. Within the year we will be buying but I will certainly have a transition time to make life easier. Iím allowed not to be sitting in the property - itís no business of the landlord. Appalling behaviour.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 7th Mar 18, 1:55 PM
    • 2,785 Posts
    • 7,441 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    Just cannot understand the LL's stance on this.... I've done it once before.... with the outgoing tenants permission, I.e:

    Tenant: We've give our notice which takes us up to the 28th, but we're physically moving out on the 14th.
    Me: No worries - do you have any objections to me going in between the 14th and 28th to do some repairs / upgrades?
    Tenant: No problem at all.
    Originally posted by Mahsroh
    But did you also expect them to pay up until the 28th?
    • Mahsroh
    • By Mahsroh 7th Mar 18, 1:59 PM
    • 339 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    Mahsroh
    But did you also expect them to pay up until the 28th?
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    I didn't INSIST that they pay up to 28th, but they did. They gave 1months notice and paid their last months rent but then moved out earlier than planned. In fairness I gave them their deposit back in full where there was a couple of things I could have easily deducted. We had a good relationship... swings and roundabouts - we were both happy at the end of tenancy.... ultimately borne out of good communication between the two of us.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 7th Mar 18, 2:07 PM
    • 2,785 Posts
    • 7,441 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    I didn't INSIST that they pay up to 28th, but they did. They gave 1months notice and paid their last months rent but then moved out earlier than planned. In fairness I gave them their deposit back in full where there was a couple of things I could have easily deducted. We had a good relationship... swings and roundabouts - we were both happy at the end of tenancy.... ultimately borne out of good communication between the two of us.
    Originally posted by Mahsroh
    So you took possession back but carried on charging rent.
    • Mahsroh
    • By Mahsroh 7th Mar 18, 2:18 PM
    • 339 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    Mahsroh
    So you took possession back but carried on charging rent.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    In reality, no. I didn't refund a final payment that had already been paid and instead returned their deposit in full rather than make deductions that the tenant had acknowledged. Ultimately we robbed Peter to pay Paul. Rather than me refunding £200 then taking the same £200 off the deposit. We had a SENSIBLE CONVERSATION where we agreed that solution as a final settlement. The point I was making was that all this was agreed sensibly and amicably through communication between the two parties - rather than a landlord just doing what he pleased.

    But, yeah, if it makes you feel better then scrap the above - i'm a horrible nasty landlord...... Thankfully my tenants didn't think so.
    • ripplyuk
    • By ripplyuk 7th Mar 18, 2:35 PM
    • 1,736 Posts
    • 1,614 Thanks
    ripplyuk
    I would just stop paying rent. The landlord will throw a hissy fit and probably threaten court action. Let them. I doubt theyíd win once a judge hears the whole story. You have already bought a house so you donít need to worry about getting a good reference from the agency/LL.

    If you want any money back from the landlord, youíll probably have to go to the small claims court.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

131Posts Today

1,359Users online

Martin's Twitter