Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


512 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Post 37 was addressed to Post 37 was addressed to you rather than the OP as in post 36 you said I had read the thread on LLZ incorrectly and that my opinion was wrong. I have no problem with that as I am sure it was what you believed to be the case. Post 37 was to persuade you that I had read the post correctly and that my opinion was sound. I set out what I believe to be a cogent argument that the law was as I said it was. You expressed the view that I was confused and I responded with further clarification to which you have not responded, which of course you have no obligation to do. If you still believe my opinion is incorrect then I refer you to this article in the New Law Journal written by a barrister and professor of law. The status of the lease is something of a side issue, but still important. If it is the case that Mears do not have a lease valid at law it has to be worth the OP mentioning it to them. One would hope they would back off if they realised they had an invalid lease. Ignoring the status of the lease: Without doubting your good intentions and with respect to you and others who have commented, you have not homed in on the key issue and have made suggestions which are inappropriate. The key issue is that Mears have not followed the procedure set out in the lease they drafted and therefore nothing is payable. That is all that needs to be said, at least to start with. If you ask for invoices to justify the amount demanded you are in danger of conceding you owe something. At a later stage, if Mears come up with an arguable case, it may be appropriate to query the amount, but if you do you need to do it carefully so that it is clear you deny you owe anything.
  2. Why is it necessary to read the sections as enacted? What is relevant is the law at the time the document was signed. There have been no changes to the sections since the document was signed. In any event such changes as have been made do not affect the question of whether a deed is needed for the grant of a tenancy exceeding 3 years to be valid at law.
  3. If you have already written imposing a time limit then wait for a reply or until the time limit has expired. If they reply and concede then all is well. If they do not reply or maintain their position, write and say that since writing your previous letter you have taken legal advice and been informed that the agreement is void to grant a term of five years and otherwise as suggested in post 46.
  4. The status of the tenancy, whilst not strictly relevant to the rent problem, is otherwise relevant. If the grant of the tenancy was void it does rather pull the carpet from under Mears' feet. Legal opinion is divided on what the position is on the purported grant of a tenancy for more than three years not made by deed. The possibilities advanced include: · There is no tenancy at all. · If the tenant goes into possession there is a periodic tenancy. (There is a question mark in this case as to whether Mears are in possession. Possession includes collecting rent from a subtenant, but is it not clear if Mears grant tenancies to the asylum seekers.) · The purported grant operates as an agreement to grant a tenancy. Whatever the position, Mears have a bit of a problem. Apart from the above, Axil23 does not want to be asking any questions as he may give a hostage to fortune by implying that he agrees he owes something. He should write to Mears saying: 1. The agreement is void to grant a term of five years as it was not made by deed. 2. I do not owe you anything as, apart from anything else, you have not followed the procedure set out in the agreement. 3. If you do not pay the outstanding rent forthwith I shall terminate the arrangement. Nothing else needs to be said. Important rule in correspondence: Never say more than you need to.
  5. Two points of clarification for axi123: Whether a tenancy is an AST depends entirely on whether the statutory conditions are met. You cannot make a tenancy an AST by saying in the tenancy agreement that it is an AST. Equally, a tenancy can be an AST without the tenancy agreement saying it is, though it is possible to provide for a tenancy not be an AST by including in it a statement to the effect that it is not an AST. The agreement with Mears could not have led to an AST because the tenant under an AST must be an individual. If A grants a tenancy to B, B can grant a tenancy of the same premises or part of them to C so long as the term is shorter than the term granted to B. the second tenancy is subtenancy.
  6. I have a text book entitled "Introduction to Land Law" published by Butterworths, a recognised legal publisher. In an introductory chapter under "Terminology" it says: As regards the granting of a lease, the term "to demise" is sometimes used as an alternative to "to lease". Similarly, as regards the interest granted, a lease is sometimes termed a "demise". A lease may also be termed a "tenancy". Generally "tenancy" is used in connection with a shorter period (e.g. weekly or monthly tenancy); "lease" for a longer period (e.g. a seven-year lease). But a lease, a demise and a (leasehold as opposed to feudal) tenancy are in law all the same creature. The first paragraph of a later chapter headed "Leases" - note "leases" not "tenancies" - says: L grants T the right to occupy land in return for an agreed sum of money. Provided that certain conditions are satisfied, the right which L has granted T is a lease. I think the above makes it clear that, when talking about the interest granted, a tenancy and a lease are the same thing. If you are not convinced, Section 52(2)(d) refers to both leases and tenancies. So, even if you insist that the OP granted a tenancy and not a lease, it must apply.
  7. There is a confusion of terminology here. When it comes to documents granting tenancies they are either described as "tenancy agreements" or "leases". However, though the former is generally used to describe an instrument granting a tenancy for three years or less and the latter to describe an instrument made by deed granting a tenancy for more than three years, they are not "terms of art", that is words or phrases with set meanings. The word "lease", though perhaps primarily used to refer to a document. also refers to an interest in land so that "lease" and "tenancy" mean the same thing, that is a leasehold interest. Any purported grant of a tenancy for a term exceeding three years is void as provided by section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925: All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed. By way of clarification: Section 205(1)(ii) says: “Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will Section 52(2) says: This section does not apply to [...] leases or tenancies or other assurances not required by law to be made in writing That is clarified by section 54(2) which says: Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by parol of leases taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term) at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine (For your information I post as Lawcruncher on LLZ)
  8. Information on the other forum is that the lease is for 5 years but not granted by deed. That means the lease is void. What the tenant has is probably a periodic lease on the same terms as set out in the lease. That should help the OP sort the problem.
  9. I have read the judgement in the case. It can be found here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS&p=4616355&viewfull=1#post4616355 The essence of the judgement is not that the charges raised were intrinsically unfair, but that the manner in which they were applied was unfair. The judge emphasised that his decision was not of universal application, but dependent on the particular facts and circumstances. See paragraphs 41, 51, 57, and 60. The case holds out hope for those who can show that the over all charges debited escalated because their bank allowed a situation to continue longer than it ought to have been allowed to continue having regard to the facts and the customer's circumstances. There is nothing in the case suggesting there is a way of getting round the Supreme Court decision in the OFT case. It is still the case that banks charges are not contractual penalties or subject to assessment as to their level under the UTCCR. It was always the case that a bank could be challenged for the way it operated an account if it gave rise to excessive charges. It is indeed that aspect which the campaign should have concentrated on.
  10. As Snorkerz has suggested, the legal position is not 100% clear as on the whole a tenancy cannot be rescinded. There is though I believe a right to rescind if you get in very early after the tenancy began. However, I think you need to argue that the tenancy did not begin because you did not take up possession and you at least have an argument that you did not do that. So, tell the agents that you have the right to rescind the agreement. If they look like they really are going to do something about the situation then it may be wise to give them time to do so telling them you reserve your position.
  11. Despite the possession order the owner remains an owner and any tenancy he grants is, as between the landlord and tenant, valid. No fraud is involved. However, if the lender secures possession against the tenant the tenant is entitled to damages for breach of contract, though whether it is worth pursuing a landlord who has a possession order against him is another matter.
  12. If you are on a periodic assured tenancy whether shorthold or not, any provision in the tenancy agreement as to notice is of no effect whilst the tenancy is an assured tenancy - see section 5(3)(e) of the Housing Act 1988. If at the end of the fixed term tenancy you were paying rent monthly then you have a monthly periodic tenancy and need to give a month's notice expiring at the end of a tenancy period (possibly but not necessarily the same as a rent period). If your fixed term ended on 10th October your tenancy periods run from the 11th to the 10th of each month and your notice must expire on the 10th or 11th of a month - better to make it the 10th to avoid argument.
  13. The short answer to your question is that a landlord does not need a reason to serve a section 21 notice. The best you can do is to speak to the office and ask them to reconsider.
  14. In the absence of agreement to the contrary: A notice to quit must comply with the common law rules, in the case of residential tenancies as amended by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Ignoring yearly tenancies, the common law rule is that the notice must take effect at the end of a period of the tenancy and must be for a period equal to at least a period of the tenancy. Thus a weekly tenancy requires a week's notice; a four-weekly tenancy four weeks' notice; a monthly tenancy a month's notice; and a quarterly tenancy a quarter's notice - the periods specified being minimum periods. Where the tenancy is residential the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires a minimum of four weeks' notice. "The end of a period of a tenancy" means the first or last day of a tenancy period. Notice can be give at any time so long as the period of notice is sufficient and the correct end date is specified. It is possible to do a belt and braces job and add after the end date "...or at the end of the period of the tenancy which will end next after the expiry of one month [in the case of a monthly tenancy or otherwise as the case may require] from the service upon you of this notice". In the case of an oral tenancy the tenancy periods are determined with reference to the frequency with which rent is paid; so, for example, if rent is paid monthly the tenancy is monthly. The tenancy periods will usually coincide with the rental periods, but that is not necessarily always the case; of necessity the first tenancy period must have started on the same day the tenancy started so that all subsequent tenancy periods follow accordingly.
  • Create New...