Yes he can seek possession, but if he uses section 21 then he has to give you 2 months notice to quit the property, and even then he has to allow you to be in the property for a minimum of 6 months. If you pay your rent monthly, shouldn't it not be due until the 27th march? If that is the case then it won't be 14 days overdue until the 11th april. By which he cannot seek possession as it won't be 14 days overdue on april 3rd. Don't panic. If he was going to get stroppy about the rent being a little late you would have heard something by now, since you left messages on home and mobile phones and emailed him too. I'm sure he would have got at least one of the messages by now.

Artee, ignore the PPC troll peternet. Read a few of the sticky's on this forum and if you need clarification post in a thread of your own and knowledgeable people will advise you. Their "fines" are nothing more than penalty charges which are irrecoverable in court, so don't worry. I've had three tickets from three different companies in the last year, and, despite never telling them I was not the driver, not one has had the balls to take me to court yet. I live in hope that one day one of them will......

zzzzz

To be honest, I don't know. This all depends on whether it states anythig in your agreement about keeping the outer door locked at all times. Personally, I'd be inclined to remove the lock and take it with me, but I can't recommend that you do it.

Congrats. Just the result you needed. Best go give your decision on the new job now then. Good luck.

Fair wear and tear need not be a clause written into an agreement. A LL cannot withhold any of the deposit for anything that could be construed as "fair wear and tear". But I think at the end of the day this would be something that would have to be decided on by a judge as to whether the indents in a floor caused by heels can be construed as damage or FWAT. I agree with what you say regarding the fact that if the floor cannot withstand heels then it is unsuitable for the purpose.

In light of the fact that it was changed when the LL knew the tenant was in the property I don't think they could use the excuse that the tenant did not collect the new key. If you have paid rent and been given a key to your flat, then you now have an agreement, irrelevant of whether you have signed anything. Though I would have thought he would have given you the agreement to sign by now. From what you have said I would guess that your rent is £500pcm? If this is so, then you owe him less than one month's rent. Totally unacceptable behaviour for that amount of arrears. But, as said before, by accepting money and giving a key you already have an agreement. He cannot get you out now for the next 6 months. I would recommend that you offer him the deposit and make up the rent and try to talk to him to calm him down. He has acted very unreasonably in regards your arrears, but this may calm things down. If you have any mitigating circumstances for the late payment it might help to tell him. If this doesn't work then I would suggest going to seek advice from CAB or Shelter regarding the matter. Either way, you may want to prepare to move out after the 6 months are up.

Different mortgage companies have different ideas regarding buy-to-let property. Where one will insist that you have a certain type of mortgage specifically tailored to the letting market, others will allow the letting of a property on whatever mortgage you have. There is no set standard.

This is a totally unacceptable way for any LL to behave. You do have some rights regarding what they are allowed to get away with. The Landlord, though some think otherwise, is not God where his property is concerned. A little more info here may be helpful. What tenancy do you have? Is it an assured shorthold or has it rolled onto a periodic? How behind are you in rent? When and for what reason did the LL change the lock on the outer door?

There is no legislation that allows for any compensation for a failure to provide hot water to a rented property. You do have an obligation to ensure they have it, but it seems that they have agreed to a £100 reduction in rent by way of compensation. If they are withholding due rent claiming it as compensation for the inconvenience, then they are breaching the terms of the agreement and you would be entitled to claim it back in a court. But whether you would get it would depend on several factors, including how the judge saw things relating to your dealing with the problem. I think that your current agreement of compensation is fair, but I'm not a judge. However, what they are doing is a definite breach of a standard AST whereby the tenant agrees to pay the rent on time. Try talking to them about it and letting them know that what they are doing is a breach of their agreement, and that you have already agreed to compensation for them. Looks like they are trying it on to see how much they can get out of you since you readily agreed to a £100 reduction. In future, I would not recommend letting property to friends. It doesn't make for good business practice.

Sorry, the link may not work as it is just a copy of the info from company house website. Just write to the address.

What did your LL say about it when you spoke to him yesterday? If he isn't willing to give you any leeway in letting you out of the contract then maybe there is something in his agreement we can use. Do you have your copy of your agreement?

As Steve said, they HAVE TO protect your deposit if you have renewed the tenancy. To quote the Deposit Protection Service's own website: "This is a new AST and so TDP will apply. The deposit previously paid under the earlier tenancy is repayable to the tenant at the end of that tenancy, so it should be returned to the tenant. Alternatively, if the landlord wishes to continue to hold it as security in respect of the new tenancy it must be protected."

Yes you are probably right, it is an oversimplistic view, but one that can be used in a great many cases. If there never has been any form of inventory then the LL has no proof as to the state of the property when the tenant moved in, and there can be no comparison to the state when the tenant moves out. So why would a judge award the damages to the LL if he can't prove it? I think that in a lot of cases where an inventory is present it will be up to the judge to decide on whether any signature, or lack thereof, is proof of the state of the property. I've been involved in court cases: 1. where we have had an inventory done and it was found to be proof that the damage had occurred during the tenancy which we won and 2. where, through a mistake of my own, an inventory had not been signed and returned and when we tried to claim against the tenant the judge decided in favour of the tenant due to lack of proof. Looking at the case you specify, as you say, it was the paperwork you had to prove that the inventory was done and that not returning deemed the inventory correct that won you the case. In my experience, I would always recommend any LL has an inventory done professionally, as I do now every time. The case i lost cost more than just the damage repairs. In the case in this post I would say that the inventory that was done, whether it was signed or not, was somewhat overly detailed in that it included half empty bottles and rotting food. Personally, I would challenge it's relevence in court due to the fact that it has been prepared by someone who is obviously incapable of preparing any form of valid inventory as can be seen by the amount and validity of the items included, and the fact that the inventory was disputed by the tenants prior to them agreeing to sign it, but the agents did not re-evaluate the contents of the inventory being disputed and did nothing about the tenant's complaints.

I would advise that you phone your LL and let him know that, since the plumber he called to do the job hasn't and it is getting increasingly inconvenient for you to not have heating and hot water, that you would be grateful if he could contact someone a little more reliable to have the problem sorted out as quickly as possible to the benefit of all concerned. Looks to me like the plumber he got is trying it on a bit, probably charging for every callout at some extortionate rate and stringing things out to get more money. Take note that, whoever he gets to do it MUST be CORGI registered before they can carry out any work. With regards compensation, it's good that he has offered compensation, but it's something you'll have to agree with your LL yourself.