dispute over rent arrears

[kidmj]

i am having a problem with my landlord and would like some help please.

My landlord gave me a letter stating that she was giving me 4 weeks notice to evict me, this is in the contract that i signed and have no problems with this, but when looking at this date it appears she only gave me 27 days, the contract also states that if there is a breach of the contract that it is automaticaly terminated. The letter she gave me was dated sunday 6th april and it asked to leave the property by saterday 3rd of may and i am sure if you look at the dates you can see that it is not 28 days, as this breached the contract it terminated the contract from that date and so the rent that occured after that date should not have to be paid. The problem is also that she has returned my deposit in full and is asking for the rent arrears, this has stopped me from disputing it with one of the deposit schemes which im not even sure my deposit is part of.

can anyone give me some advise?

mark

[old_andrew2007]

Hi

Can you possible up-load the letter and if possible your agreement, after removing personal information.

Yes you may be in breach, but the landlord may not simply be able to write giving notioce, I am sure someone with expertise can advise.

Regards

Andy

[kidmj]

i will try and upload the agreement and letter tommorow, when u say 'you may be in breach' do you mean the landlord for issuing the notice late, or me for not paying her the rent even though she has broken the agreement.

[callumsgran]

When did your tenancy start?

Does it say on your agreement that you will be given 1 months notice?

I only ask because usually tenants are given 2 months notice!

[Aequitas]

Serving an invalid notice is not a breach of contract.

Any provision that a tenancy automatically ends on a breach of contract is void.

If you have an AST, then (a) if you are still in the fixed term, if the notice if valid it does no more than end the fixed term tenancy and start a statutory periodic tenancy (b) if the fixed term has ended or it was always periodic then the notice is of no effect.

[kidmj]

i've been doing some reading and im curious about to different things

firstly, are a break clause and giving notice the same thing.

secondly, what is the minimum time that a break clause must be, ive been doing reading and it says that the minimum notice that a landlord must give is 2 months and that any clause stating 1 month, or in my case 4 weeks is void.

am i right in thinking these 2 points, many thanks for those who ha ve been responding.


for callumsgran

my tenancy started on the 22nd september 2007

the contract says either party may terminate the agreement by giving the other 4 weeks written notice

[Aequitas]

If you have a fixed term tenancy, but either party has the right to bring it to an end by giving notice, that is a right to break. As I said above, if the landlord exercises a break clause all it does is bring the fixed term to an end for it to be immediately followed by a statutory periodic tenancy.

If the tenancy is periodic, it can be brought to an end by the tenant giving notice to quit. The landlord must serve a section 21 notice - this does not actually bring the tenancy to an end but is the preliminary step the landlord must take before he can apply to the court.

[kidmj]

i think i understand what you are saying, so when she gave me a letter giving me 4 weeks notice to vacate the property she was wrong for doing so as she then needed to provide a section 21 after it.

as you may have seen yesterday was the exiration date of the notice, and as such i have already moved out and been so for almost 3 weeks, so does that mean it was stupid of me to have left and in doing so i have no choise but to pay her that rent.

on a side note, she has give me my depost back, free from any dedcuctions but is now requesting the arrears, i am certain that it had not been protected by the way it has been issued back and i recently found out that she was to provide me with information reguarding the deposit scheme. is she still liable for not protecting my depost even thouh it has been given back. (it would appear she has done it in this way because she knows that she has failed to secure it an i can take legal action against her, by giving the deposit back i lose the ability to dispute it using the scheme)

thanks for your help

mark

[Aequitas]

No. Despite all I said above, if a landlord serves an invalid or ineffective notice, the tenant can rely on it. The landlord wanted you to leave on a specified date and you left on or before that date. The landlord cannot come back claiming the tenancy has not ended.

[raydetinu]

How can you expect the deposit to be protected if you have it back!! there is no deposit to protect!
You do not have to leave the flat until you are served with a court order to do so. also you do not have to pay any rent unless you want to, that again will be subject to seperate court procedure. You are well protected by the legal system, so use it. If your landlord is harrasing or causing you any problems this will go in your favour, against any subsequent claim.

[kidmj]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

No. Despite all I said above, if a landlord serves an invalid or ineffective notice, the tenant can rely on it. The landlord wanted you to leave on a specified date and you left on or before that date. The landlord cannot come back claiming the tenancy has not ended.

sorry, this is hard for me to get my head around, so although she gave me an invalid notice and i subsequently moved out, if is in effect a legit notice and so i cant go back and claim i was unfairly evicted as she did not go through the correct procedures to do so, as in she relied on the fact i did not know my rights as a tennant.

its only in the past 2 weeks that i discovered that this eviction was not done the way it should have been, she has given me the full deposit back because i think she relaises i can take her to court for not protecting it.

the rent owed is for the last 2 weeks of the notice to leave, she had previously made me pay her using inccorect rent dates, as this contract requres payment every 4 weeks, by this i mean she asked me to pay mid march when i should have paid beggining of april.

thanks again for your help

[Aequitas]

This gets involved. Rules have exceptions. The exceptions to the rules have exceptions.

Rule 1: A notice is only valid or effective if it complies with the law.

Rule 2: If an invalid or ineffective notice is served and the person who receives it accepts it as valid and acts on it, the person who served it cannot withdraw it. He is "estopped" from denying the validity of the notice.

Rule 3: If a person accepts an invalid notice and acts on it relying on information given to him by the person who gave the notice and that information was misleading, he may be entitled to compensation.

What you need to remember is that although the Housing Act 1988 sets out the procedure by which a landlord may recover possession of a property let on an AST, it is not the only way an AST may be brought to an end.

For example a landlord may say to a tenant: "I really would like the property back. Can you move out in a month?" and the tenant says "Only too glad to oblige" and moves out, the tenancy comes to an end.

On the other hand, if a landlord serves what is an invalid notice and says to the tenant: "You have to get out in a month. It's the law. I checked with my solicitor. You can go to the CAB if you like. They won't tell you any different." and relying on that the tenant moves out, the tenancy still comes to an end, but the tenant may be entitled to compensation.

So, if your landlord simply gave the wrong notice and you relied on it and vacated the property, I do not think you have any comeback.

[kidmj]

so in other words i was stupid for moving out and it is going to cost me in the end.

te only other question i have then asan attempt at recieving omething back is ... i read tha if the landlordis makng my living their unpleasan that iam entitle to moveout ... something to d with harrasment ... which i alsoread is hard to prove, as in, she can say she did not realise this was going t causeme to move out early.

the house is a furnised house, incudes all kinds of plates knives, forks etc, she asked one of the tenants to move the to her room so hat i could not steal them
furtherore he contract says that thins such as internet is to be sorted out between tenants, we all agreed that one person would have their name on the internet contract whilst the otehrs paid him, he alone decided to stop me from having access to it, hence the complaint i gave the landlord, she protected him saying hat as i was in his name is his desicion, surely this is a breach of contract, this is my main reason for leaving as the internet is used for everything i do and she stopped me from having any use of it in he house.
she even tried to get meto postdate all my remaning cheques to her in case i tried to leave without gving her notice.
she rang me over he holiday to ask wether i still was living in the premisis as much of my possetions were missing (pc, xbox freeview as i took them home to use over the 3 week holiday) she didnt even have permiion to go into my room, she even went in on the same day the request was given ... so no noice was given.

i no i sound desperate but this is because i feel that i was treated unfairly by her and dont feel deserves those two weeks rent sa it would have ben difficult to live their with her continulay doing things against me ... ofwhich she has not yet denied.

the other membersof the joint agreement have had nosuch treatemen,it was only becasuse i put the complaint in agaist her son who is a member of the joint tenancy.

thanks again for your help

[waterbottle]

I sympathis with your situation.

However, this could go on for a long time. To help get things moving, post your aims in a list. i.e finding a new place, getting some money back etc.