lastlaugh

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant, but this is WRONG, and plainly absurd. If you have been served a S21 notice, and you stay on beyond your 2 months notice, you DO NOT have to give any notice to quit whatsoever. You can simply pack up and leave! I have done exactly this and there is nothing a LL can do about it. Indeed a few years ago, LAs used to routinely issue a S21 notice at the start of a tenancy, and some stupid ones still do. It's stupid because there is then nothing to stop the tenant leaving on or after the S21 date without giving any notice. My advice to the OP is to use this to your advantage. By all means negotiate a reduction in rent beyond the S21 date, but use this time to find somewhere else to live and move at our own convenience. A clued up LL or LA will not formally agree to anything beyond the S21 date anyway. It would leave you in a legal grey area wrt your tenancy and could potentially expose your LL to a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant, but this is WRONG, and plainly absurd. If you have been served a S21 notice, and you stay on beyond your 2 months notice, you DO NOT have to give any notice to quit whatsoever. You can simply pack up and leave! I have done exactly this and there is nothing a LL can do about it. Indeed a few years ago, LA used to routinely issue a S21 notice at the start of a tenancy, and some stupid ones still do. It's stupid because there is then nothing to stop the tenant leaving on or after the S21 date without giving any notice. My advice to the OP is to use this to your advantage. By all means negotiate a reduction in rent beyond the S21 date, but use this time to find somewhere else to live and move at our own convenience. A clued up LL or LA will not formally agree to anything beyond the S21 date anyway. It would leave you in a legal grey area wrt your tenancy and could potentially expose your LL to a lot of problems.

Very well done, mate! That's exactly how to deal with EAs in this situation. The other poster is correct - in a Periodic Contract a LL must give you 2 months notice on the monthly anniversary.

You are quite right. You rent your garden from your LL, who cannot build in it until either your tenancy is lawfully terminated or he comes to some other negotioted agreement with you. Personally I can't stand the noise of building work. I don't mind music or aircraft noise, but building work drives me insane. You have to figure out your own acceptable price to stay put. Remember though that you are in a good negotiating position. Your LL can't start work while the property and the garden has a tenant. Likewise he will find it hard to let a property that has a building site in the back garden. He is in a Catch22 position. And he knows it, which is why he has only just let you in on the plans he has had for a year. In my mind he is trying to stitch you up and make you the fall guy. Don't take it personally, it's just business, but he could have been more honest with you all along. What it does mean though, is that you don't owe him any favours! If I was in your position, and if I could stand the building noise, this is what I would do. I would offer to pay half the rent for the duration of the building work and agree that your LL can start whenever he likes. I would get a written agreement, and if possible an entirely new tenancy agreement. If I was your LL, and you were a reliable tenant, I would accept your offer.

Because it is a tenants home, and a tenancy agreement grants sole and exclusive access of a property to a tenant! Many people don't understand how the law works wrt tenancies. In laymens terms, there is Statutory Law, and there is Contract Law. As a tenant you should make it your business to know the statutory aspect to your rights as a tenant, that way you wont have the wool pulled over your eyes by a LL or LA. Statutory Law always overrides Contract Law. In other words, just because something is in a contract, does not necessarily make it enforceable. In the example of the OP, I don't believe, and very much doubt, there is any mention specifically of keys in Statutory Law. What it does say, however, is that a tenant has sole and exclusive access and must be left to enjoy their home in peace by a landlord. It also says a tenant must grant access to a landlord for essential maintenance. There is obviously a conflict of interest at some point, but the law leaves it up to the landlord and tenant to work out the details. And rightly so! What it means in practice is that the landlord must negotiate with the tenant to get access to the property. The landlord cannot just let themselves in, and likewise the tenant cannot keep refusing the landlord access. Now a contract may state that the landlord can keep a set of keys, and the tenant must not change the locks. However, a set of keys is pretty useless to the landlord, as a tenant can insist that a LL never ever uses the keys to lets themselves in. A contract may try to grant access to a landlord at their convenience. This is unlawful, even if you sign it, because it would undermine your Statutory Rights. If presented with this clause in a contract I suggest you get this clause removed, find another home, or prepare yourself for an awkward relationship with your LL or LA. Now, in the real world, at the start of a tenancy, you have no way of knowing whether the LL has kept a set of keys or not, they are not obliged to tell you. If they do tell you, its best not to be too paranoid, generally it is only for the LL's piece of mind. It's probably worth politely pointing out at this time that they are welcome to visit the property but that you insist on being at home to let them in when they do this. Ask them to contact you in advance so you can arrange a mutually convenient time. If after this, the LL or anyone working for them ever lets themselves into your home without your permission, then you are now well within your rights to change the locks. The LL cannot evict you or charge you for this, but they may not renew your contract when it expires. In my experience, most landlords are somewhat ignorant of the law or simply trying it on for their own convenience. A little bit of polite assertiveness has always been sufficient to solve the keys and access situation. Hope this helps.

The process you are describing sounds wrong. Normally you pay a "holding" deposit, say £200, which is usually in cash. At this point the agent checks your references. This gives you time to suss out the landlord too, feel free to ask for refernces from the landlord. When you actually pay the full deposit, it is normally in exchange for a contract. You also pay a month in advance at this point too. There is nothing wrong with a cheque or bankers draft at this point. I've heard a growing number of cases in the USA of bogus agents ripping off prospective tenants over non-existant lettings. ie. Getting access to a property with out the knowledge of the owner, showing round tenants then running off with deposit. Sometimes several deposits at once. I've never heard of it in this country yet, but it is an easy scam to replicate. I'd be very wary of using an agent not registered with ARLA. Not that you get much protection from ARLA anyway. The only way around it is to get the name of the owner from the Land Registry, it is available online for only a few pounds. Contact them directly and get written confirmation that they have instructed that specific agent to let their property. That way, once you have handed over the fat deposit in exchange for a contract, if the agent runs off with all the money then, legally, it is the landlords problem and not yours. ie. the contract is valid and the landlord must honour it or buy himself out of it. Look up the "Law of Agency".

I agree with this post. The fee is a scam. If the deposit is protected then they CANNOT deduct it from the deposit. They can ONLY persue it through the court. I recommend doing nothing. You will have your SPT by default. ONLY communicate with the LA via email, that way you have a record. If they ask you for money, then politely refuse, tell them the clause in the contract is unlawful and that they must stop harrassing you.

Hi Duncan. I think you said somewhere that you haveto make a 300 mile round trip to make a viewing? This puts you in a bit of a weak position, but all is not lost! Firstly, don't believe a word of anything a LA says. They will say and do anything to get you to make that viewing and then sign up. They wont care if they tell you that children are welcome for you only to find out that's not the case after you've travelled 150 miles. That's their excuse to show you another property and you are putty in their hands then. If I was in your position I would consider 2 options: 1. Use gumtree, etc, to contact landlords direct. If you see stuff on rightmove you like then by all means call the LA. Explain the children thing to the LA and that you have been misled before, and insist that before you make the journey the Landlord personally contacts you directly by phone or email to discuss your rental. Treat it as an interview, you want to know they are a suitable landlord as much as they want to know you are a suitable tenant. I have done this twice myself, the first time resulted in a wonderful 5 year tenancy, the second time I smelt a rat and walked away from the deal. LAs may get a bit sniffy about it, but if they are genuine they have nothing to lose and will accommodate what is really a reasonable request. And you have nothing to lose too. 2. Accept that you are too far away to easily secure a good deal. Either get the best place you can as a family for 6 months or one of you live in digs down there for a while. When you are in the local area you will get a better sense of what is going on and will be able to respond quickly when the good places come up. OK, you will have to move twice, but it could be better than a dozen fruitless 300 mile round trips. Remember there are 3 aspects to negotiating a good tenancy: 1. The property. 2. The Price. 3. The Landlord. Most people get unstuck because they ignore item 3, the Landlord!

I suspect you can only sue the Agent. Check out the Law of Agency. Until the landlord has signed anything your arrangement is only with the LA. If you have suffered a financial loss then there is nothing to stop you suing the LA. They accepted your offer and took your deposit. That is an agreement in its own right!

I rent and I have a family (11 and 20). It's tricky, but it's possible, and it can be very fruitful. Firstly, don't waste your time on viewings that wont lead anywhere. Try and deal direct with landlords. EAs will ******** you. Many Ll will prefer a family. Sniff them out. Go for a very long term let, 2 years if possible, that will sort the wheat from the chaff. It's a slow process, but have patience. Somewhere out there is a good property with landlord who wants the stabilty of a family.

+1 The LA are just stalling for time by saying they will contact the TDS. THEY WONT. Do it yourself, it's easy and they are very helpful.

Whatever! The point to the OP is that you wont find any regulation that forces a LL to have windows that open. Double-glazed or otherwise! Heck, a fire alarm isn't even mandatory on certain properties!

Ah, but all months end up being equal when a monthly rent is calculated and needs paying. A LA simply multiplies the weekly rent by 52 and then divides it by 12 to get the monthly rent. Why not just quote this monthly figure in the first place?

Hi Zeb, I doubt there is any legislation or regulation referring directly to windows. I'm certain you would smash the window to get out in a fire. I assume the windows look like they should open, and when you were shown around the property it was never pointed out that the "BTW the windows don't open". Likewise, if you saw a radiator in the bedroom it would be fair to assume that it worked. Thus you rented your home expecting ventilation and opening windows. It seems either your landlord or LA has lost the keys or just being awkward. This is what I would do. Write a simple letter to whoever manages your property, LL or LA. Point out that the property has windows that open and you rented the property on this understanding. Insist that they rectify the situation and give them a timescale in which to do this. Tell them that if they do not comply then you will get the locks replaced and deduct the cost from the next rent. Only discuss the issue in writing now so you have a record. Be firm but always very polite. If they don't fix it you have 3 options: 1. Do nothing and put up with the locked window, at least you'll know the calibre of LL and LA you are dealing with for the future. Use the locked window as a bargaining point when the tenancy comes up for renewal. 2. Change the locks at your own expense. At the end of the tenancy take the keys with you. As they've "lost the keys" they'll have no way of showing you've changed the locks and squeezing any money out of you. 3. If you think it's worth the hassle, then change the locks and deduct the bill from your rent. They will probably just admit defeat and carry on as before. They may out of spite or delusion make your life hard and insist that you pay. They may even take you to court. It will help your case if you have offered them the chance to rectify the situation, and if you then fix it yourself you have made an effort to keep costs to a minimum such as getting a couple of quotes. You will probably win your case on the grounds it was reasonable to expect that the windows opened when you signed your contract. You might not win though, the law is rarely black and white. Don't let the consequences of option 3 put you off. LL and tenant issues are best resolved by honest discussion and negotiation. However when that fails it sometimes comes down to standing ones ground and calling a LL or LA bluff. They might huff and puff, but if they are as good at business as they think they are then they will conclude that they are on shaky ground and treat you with a bit more respect. Good luck.

I'm curious as to why most LA, in London at least, insist on quoting a WEEKLY rent and not a MONTHLY rent. Most people get paid monthly, and most rent is paid monthly. A landlord's mortgage is paid monthly. It helps everyone in a negotiation to use monthly figures, so why this obsession with weekly rent. I had a rather bizarre negotiation recently with a very dippy Foxton's agent who couldn't cope when I insisted in discussing only the monthly rental values. She had to keep transferring everything backwards and forwards between the two values. It really confused her, but it should have been her bread and butter. I appreciate it makes the numbers look smaller, but surely only the very gullible fall for that trick?

Hi. It's not clear from your post what exactly you were granted when you "extended" your contract. When an AST ends you can either renew for another and seperate fixed term, or the tenancy rolls over into what is called a Periodic Tenancy. In a Periodic Tenancy the tenancy rolls on with 2 months notice for the Landlord and 1 for the Tenant just as in the clause you describe. The thing is, you can't have a new fixed term with a break clause of less than 6 months. It's not legal, and it can never be overridden with a clause in the contract. Were you issued with a completely new tenancy agreement? If so, then you have a minimum fixed term of 6 months. If not, then you are on a Periodic Tenancy. WRT giving 1 months notice, your LA is either trying it on or just plain wrong. The fact that your L has given you 2 months notice never stops you giving your 1 months notice. The problem is that if you did receive a new contract then technically you can't give your 1 months notice prior to 6 months either. A contract can only be ended prior to the fixed term if one party "buys out" the other. This is how I would play it. If you never received a new contract then just give your 1 months notice and leave. If your deposit is protected then you will get it back no problem. If you did receive a new contract then and you wish to leave sooner rather than later with minimum fuss then write to your LA. Point out that you "agreed a new AST with a statutory minimum term of 6 months", but that the Landlord wishes to terminate early and not you. Tell them you will agree to the early termination as long as you can leave on the date of your choosing with no obligation from either party beyond that date. Tell them if they find this unacceptable then the Landlord must see out your minimum fixed term. From now on just communicate in writing so you have a record. The fixed term in an AST is designed to prevent exactly the problem you are having. Your LA is bullshi##ing you. Don't let them maipulate you. Hope this helps.

It's possible that the EA was taking bids "Off the Wall". ie. inventing "some guy", in order to get you to raise your offer. It works like this: You made the opening offer and it was refused. They waited for you to raise your offer, but you didn't. So they used "some guy" to entice you into a bidding war. You lost the bidding war, but the EA now knows how much you are willing to pay and can afford. It's all highly illegal, but very difficult to police. Anyway, their next move is to tell you "some guy" is unable to proceed, and to reopen negotiotion with you armed with the knowledge of your position. If this happens you will have 3 choices: 1. Say you will pay the asking price of £170K and do not budge. You've been tricked into paying more, but it's established you can afford it and are satisfied with the price. The EA and vendor will be satisfied with this. If you hold your ground the EA will get bored and you'll get the property, it's not worth their effort squeezing that last couple of grand out of you. 2. The simplest and best option is to put it all down to experience and walk away. There will be plenty of other good houses to buy and you will be better placed to negotiate armed with your knowledge of EA tactics. 3. This is a dangerous option but could be fun and rewarding. EAs are highly skilled at manipulating you to pay as much as possible. You need to get some practice dealing with these people, so you can use the situation to polish up your negotiating skills. Now that "some guy" has pulled out, tell the EA that your original offer of £140K is back on the table. Spend as long as you can, weeks, months even, keeping as close to your original £140K. Set a price in your head slightly above your opening offer, say £150K and do not ever cross this line. If you stick to your new limit you might just beat them at their own game and get the property at that price. At least you will have gained some valuable experience. The danger is though they will chip away at you until you give in or they get bored, and you could end up paying through the nose again. Good luck!

I've just checked this thread, and you are right, it wasn't you who introduced "paranoia". Please accept my humble apologies!

I would get some legal advice as soon as possible. Do you want to stay there? I have some memory that there is an advantage to paying the receiver. A tenant normally pays in advance, not in arrears. So you presumably owe neither the landlord or the receiver anything? If they accept a payment from you they are in effect accepting a new contract with you. It doesn't have to be full payment just some payment. Thus if they accept, say £100, then they cannot evict you because of repossession, but only for late payment of the full rent, which is a different matter. In other words, the receiver can't have his cake and eat it. Either they consider your contract with your landlord is void and so require full possession of the property, OR by accepting a payment they are accepting your tenure and establishing a new contract with you. Best to get some professional advice in what is a very complex area of the law.

Because your evidence clearly supports the suggestion that the OP is being taken for a ride, yet you describe this suggestion as "paranoia".

There is some very good advice on this thread. With respect to the paper trail, there comes a point where it is appropriate to send formal letters through the post and to get them signed for. Especially when it comes to issuing an ultimatum or breaking a tenancy. That time is probably now.

Flopsy, I think you are spot on. Mildura, you seem like the rare honest and decent EA and your contribution are normally very informative. But surely you can see that your post on the other thread supports the suggestion that the OP is being taken for a ride? Or do EAs live in their own little ethical bubble?

As someone who has rented for 20 years I don't think the organisation you are suggesting exists. Shelter has a fairly wide remit, but I agree it has bigger fish to fry. It's a great idea, and a lobbying group is probably the only thing that will ever clean up this foul industry

Hmm, you might be right. But it doesn't really explain why individuals are paying, say £800K for a property that they could have bought 6 months ago for £700K. That's one hell of a premium to paint the walls. Also, I very much doubt these buyers are making a conscious decision to pay this premium instead of renting. It could well be that we've entered a new paradigm of house prices, but it's a strange paradigm when the medium term total cost of renting is significantly less than buying. I've noticed a significant trend in my part of West London. Much of the property available to rent was bought post 2003. Most of it is overpriced for the local rental market, but the landlords can't drop their rent because it wont cover the mortgage. Even letting agents are admitting this when low, but realistic, offers are made. With rents falling and only the very best or most discounted properties selling I can sense some owners running out of options.

I suspect these people put a premium on ownership because they think it is a route to wealth. It's a speculators premium. After all, "you can't go wrong with property". If rents don't keep up, the speculators are doomed to fail. It's just maths.