Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrShed

  1. Give her notice on or before the 5th of the month prior. eg give her notice on the 5th of June to leave on the 5th of July. You only have to give a minimum of a months notice, unlike the notice a landlord has to serve, there are no requirements regarding dates etc as long as the notice is at least one month and it expires at the end of a rental period.
  2. Let him....I'd like to see him prove it!
  3. As cinnamon says basically....sue him after you have paid for the bills.
  4. Not exactly. It depends upon the wording. The landlord cannot enforce something for his benefit unless the tenant is also given the same benefit. However, the landlord can give the tenant the benefit without having it himself. Can you tell us the exact wording of the clause? And the situation causing you to ask the question?
  5. That definitely sounds like fair wear and tear to me. Is there an extractor fan in the bathroom? Did you use it every time you used the bathroom?
  6. The reason for credit checking your partner is because, as she is named on the AST, she could in theory at a later date become responsible for the rent, under a joint and several liability tenancy. As for credit check pricing....you should only be charged the cost of the credit check, plus perhaps a small administration charge. However, there are different levels of credit check, I suspect the one you have found is the bog standard one, and the agents are carrying out a more thorough one. I would probably just bite the bullet and do what they say, if the house is as good as you say....complai
  7. 2 points on this: - No its not 10% of the RENTAL INCOME, it's 10% of the tax paid. - You do not have to use this method, you can claim individual tax back on each repair etc instead of using this method. Needless to say, it would not be a valid argument in court for a tenant to say "well I only caused damage totalling to less than his 10% tax relief so I shouldn't have to pay"
  8. I definitely agree with both pms and Magpies points of view....this is certainly not an immediately obvious answer, and can see both sides of the coin. I just happen to fall on the side of the landlord on this one. Perhaps it isn't entirely fair, but legally I think he could be in the right. Any more opinions?
  9. Unfortunately, as harsh as it sounds, he is pretty much entitled to most of those costs. The scuff marks are not just fair wear and tear, it is actually damage caused(even though perhaps unavoidably) due to your actions. He is also probably correct about the laminate flooring not being able to be replaced strip by strip, especially if the marks were in the middle of the floor. However, he can only charge "like for like", which would include age, so depending on the age of the flooring he cannot charge you the full whack for it. The oven sounds certainly chargable. Unless an oven is cleaned wee
  10. - You must be traced to an address to be served court notice. - I am unsure about the legal expenses question....my guess would be that if he sued you, you would not contest the case as long as he did not contest your countersuit, in which case there would be no charges. If he contests your countersuit and you win, he would have to pay the charges. As far as I know! - Being "unable" to return the deposit does not mean he no longer owes you it. - He cannot evict you due to rent prior to you being 2 months in arrears, which you are obviously not going to be.
  11. A CCJ only occurs if you do not pay up within 28 days or some such similar timescale(I forget exactly) after a court judgement has been made, so don't worry on that front. To protect yourself, simply ensure that the place is in as immaculate a condition as possible. Take photographic evidence and video evidence as much as possible before you leave. If you do this then he will have very little claim against you. Technically, he can sue you for the rent regardless. If he does however, then countersue for the deposit. As long as there are no deductions to be made, then the rule of offset will sim
  12. IMO the old ways are the best. Buy a local paper and look in the classifieds.
  13. I have read it in detail. Mr Crunch's point is that the end result was the correct one, and this is now encapsulated in case law.
  14. Erm...the one you have posted?
  15. No. There isn't a great deal of difference anyway whether the clause says this or not, to be honest. What is the situation that has caused you to think this then?
  16. Actually Magpie I would probably advise to withhold the last months rent. However, I would want to know full details first such as the wording in the AST, and the situation that has led to this view.
  17. What does the term in your AST say regarding the deposit?
  18. With regards the rent I would not be paying it to the LA if they are no longer managing the property....this could cause some extremely serious problems for you. I would withhold all rent until the LL gives you alternate payment instructions. Write a letter to him stating that this is what you will do.
  19. Neither property would have been condemned, or even close. More to the point, the landlords posting on there are clearly concerned regarding whether they are complying with the legal obligations and as such are exactly the opposite of the landlords you are talking about.
  20. If the goods have been supplied with the property, then unless you have signed something SEPERATE from your tenancy agreement, then the landlord/letting agent MUST LEGALLY maintain them.
  21. Just to clarify my answer above. When I said hes right, he is right about the RENT. A lot of the other issues raised certainly sound somewhat dubious at best. For example, the landlord has no reason to withhold the deposit. However, with regards the rent, there is no doubt that the tenant is not entitled to a refund.
  22. Erm....yes he's right! Absolutely....there is still a shortfall in the rent isn't there!
  23. Yes it is there to protect tenants in general, hence why I do not advocate it's use against tenants GENERALLY speaking. I suspect it will be because of unreasonable tenants, just because that specific tenant has not shown himself to be unreasonable yet, why shouldn't the landlord cover his back? No I didn't. I feel I am repeating myself somewhat. I would always give full notice to tenants if they were being evicted for anything that was not entirely their fault. However, should the tenant stop paying rent, become anti social, or cause damage to the property, I would fully support the
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.