zoomraker Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Landlady The reason I don’t want to continue my tenancy is because I did not understand what the actual situation at xxxxxxx was. Before signing the contract you told me in an email it was a houseshare but since moving in you have told me that “you like to run the house like a schoolâ€. I have only now been made aware of your rule that I am not allowed any guests after 11pm. This was not explained to me before I signed the contract. This situation does not fit my understanding of a houseshare. I also think you are in breach of the contract in several areas: Section 2.1 states that “The Landlord agrees that the tenant may live in the [Property][Designated Room and Shared Parts] without unreasonable interruption from the Landlord.†I would argue that the fact you(The Landlord) seem to spend most days and evenings in the shared kitchen constitutes an unreasonable interruption. Also the fact that I am unable to lock the door from my room to the garden will invalidate Section 2.2 of the contract which requires you to have contents insurance, because your insurance will be invalidated. I also think it is unreasonable to expect me to keep my belongings in a property that can not be secured. Section 4.1 of the contract states that I am allowed to find a replacement tenant after three months, if I can find someone suitable. I would argue the definition of suitable would be someone in permanent employment with references form their previous Landlord. Given that in your last email to me you claimed to have 7 people interested in the room but none of these were suitable and that you have stated to me you exclude people based on their ethnicity I think If I am still here in 3 months we will have very different ideas of what is suitable. I think that the situation is sufficiently different to what I was led to expect to give me grounds for vacating immediately. I therefore request your agreement for me to vacate today and would like my deposit and 3 weeks rent refunded in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Henson Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear LandladyThe reason I don’t want to continue my tenancy is because I did not understand what the actual situation at xxxxxxx was. Before signing the contract you told me in an email it was a houseshare but since moving in you have told me that “you like to run the house like a schoolâ€. I have only now been made aware of your rule that I am not allowed any guests after 11pm. This was not explained to me before I signed the contract. This situation does not fit my understanding of a houseshare. I also think you are in breach of the contract in several areas: Section 2.1 states that “The Landlord agrees that the tenant may live in the [Property][Designated Room and Shared Parts] without unreasonable interruption from the Landlord.†I would argue that the fact you(The Landlord) seem to spend most days and evenings in the shared kitchen constitutes an unreasonable interruption. Also the fact that I am unable to lock the door from my room to the garden will invalidate Section 2.2 of the contract which requires you to have contents insurance, because your insurance will be invalidated. I also think it is unreasonable to expect me to keep my belongings in a property that can not be secured. Section 4.1 of the contract states that I am allowed to find a replacement tenant after three months, if I can find someone suitable. I would argue the definition of suitable would be someone in permanent employment with references form their previous Landlord. Given that in your last email to me you claimed to have 7 people interested in the room but none of these were suitable and that you have stated to me you exclude people based on their ethnicity I think If I am still here in 3 months we will have very different ideas of what is suitable. I think that the situation is sufficiently different to what I was led to expect to give me grounds for vacating immediately. I therefore request your agreement for me to vacate today and would like my deposit and 3 weeks rent refunded in full. Does your landlady live in the house? If she does it is not a tenancy, it is a lodging and there are no laws that apply to lodgings, you can walk at a moments notice and she can throw you out as she pleases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomraker Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 Does your landlady live in the house?If she does it is not a tenancy, it is a lodging and there are no laws that apply to lodgings, you can walk at a moments notice and she can throw you out as she pleases. she doesn't officially live in the house but has a room and an office there, she also seems to spend about 9 hours a day there and I have signed a six month contract. Main concern is getting deposit and advance rent back. what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Henson Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 she doesn't officially live in the house but has a room and an office there,she also seems to spend about 9 hours a day there and I have signed a six month contract. Main concern is getting deposit and advance rent back. what do you think? It would be easy to prove its a lodging arrangement but you should never pay a deposit for a lodging as there are no laws to protect you. I suspect by sending that letter you have shot yourself in the foot and lost your money, it however she is insisting it is a tenancy the deposit should be placed in the deposit scheme. What sort of agreement to you have? is it an AST? or just a lodging contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomraker Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 It would be easy to prove its a lodging arrangement but you should never pay a deposit for a lodging as there are no laws to protect you. I suspect by sending that letter you have shot yourself in the foot and lost your money, it however she is insisting it is a tenancy the deposit should be placed in the deposit scheme. What sort of agreement to you have? is it an AST? or just a lodging contract? AST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Henson Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) AST And is the deposit held in a protection scheme I suspect she has tried to cook up an AST looking lodging agreement, I very much doubt it is legally binding if she has a room in the house and still use the property. Also she cannot make unreasonable rules under an AST you are entitled to what is known as "quiet enjoyment" and can do as you please with your room including have friends to stay. Edited July 3, 2009 by Matt Henson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomraker Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 And is the deposit held in a protection scheme The contract states it should be but I don't know if that is actually the case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Henson Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The contract states it should be but I don't know if that is actually the case You need to find out, ask for the reference number, if she has not, you have her over a barrel and yoru deposit should be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGuffin Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 What an utterly disgusting woman your landlady appears to be. You have my sympathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LettingsLady Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Landladythe fact that I am unable to lock the door from my room to the garden will invalidate Section 2.2 of the contract which requires you to have contents insurance, because your insurance will be invalidated. I also think it is unreasonable to expect me to keep my belongings in a property that can not be secured. I think more important than the risk to your personal belongings is the potential risk to your person. I just don't see that this is acceptable at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomraker Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think more important than the risk to your personal belongings is the potential risk to your person.I just don't see that this is acceptable at all. yes that's true, the door can't be locked because she doesn't has lost the key and has not changed the lock. Can I use this as leverage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Financial Hack Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 yes that's true,the door can't be locked because she doesn't has lost the key and has not changed the lock. Can I use this as leverage? She does need to provide a secure home for you, and clearly it isn't. Unbelievable really, a new lock hardly costs a lot of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 She does need to provide a secure home for you, and clearly it isn't.Unbelievable really, a new lock hardly costs a lot of money. christ on a bike, do people actually pay someone to ;ive in these circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) You need to find out, ask for the reference number, if she has not, you have her over a barrel and yoru deposit should be safe. Before you get too excited about this, the deposit scheme only applies to ASTs. If she is resident there, it CAN'T be an AST. See shelter's list of non-AST contracts: Your landlord lives on the premises If you share accommodation (such as a kitchen, bathroom or living room) with your landlord you are likely to be an excluded occupier. If your landlord lives in the same building as you but you don't share accommodation you are likely to be an occupier with basic protection. For example, this would apply if your landlord has a separate bedsit in the building you live in. This doesn't apply if the building is a purpose built block of flats http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/r...he_tenancy_type Whether the LL is resident in the legal sense is a question of fact: How exactly is a landlord considered to be resident in law? For lettings started since 15 January 1989, the important point is whether you are using the property as an only or principal home, both at the start of the letting and throughout it. It is accepted that, for short periods, a landlord may not live in the property yet still be considered to be resident: so long as he or she intends to return and this is apparent, for example if he or she has left belongings. However, only a court can say for certain whether a landlord has maintained enough residence in the property to count as a resident landlord: if not, then it is possible that the letting arrangement may be deemed to have become a regulated or assured tenancy, depending whether it first began before or after 15 January 1989. The definition of residence for determining how the landlord must give notice or can evict an occupier is slightly different. http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dt/browse/l...7&aid=34304 Does the contract say it's an AST? Edited July 5, 2009 by cartimandua51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.