Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About BoopDMX85

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Steve_M, Thank you for your reply. I wholly agree that the law is not logical. The view that the judge took was surprising. The case was about rent increase and the landlord did claim that the rent increase took place via the note, so yes, we would all think it would be a case of rent increase agreement without AST. However, the Judge did give reasons why he said he considered a new AST was created. Right now I just can't remember all of them, but the prevailing one reason I do recall was about the actions of the parties involved and their intent. It all came down to what the parties did at the time and he considered the continued payment at the new rent amount a new verbal agreement as it doesn't have to be written. I did write on another forum that we could only hazard a guess that the judge may have considered the initiation by the tenant as some factor but who knows? Another random thought by one of my former tenants was that the old written tenancy didn't have certain new information that pertains to the legislation as it relates to the tenancy laws now, who knows? Judges are strange. I think it just depends on the judge's personal view and interpretation of the law on the day of the case.
  2. Hi Mariner, Thanks for posting the link for me. As you can see, Shelter gave some really good advice today and it looks like instead of the LL getting 2250 in rent arrears and 280 in costs, they would have to pay us, hopefully the penalty for non-compliance failures. Talking between us tenants, we agreed that an appeal isn't the way forward. WE hope to take the return of the deposit and 1 x penalty each instead for a total of 5000!
  3. Hi Steve, Thanks for reading the other thread. The Judge considered the note as an initiation by the tenant to increase the rent - the note said (paraphrase) - Dear LL, As you know I am based on secondment to the UAE for an indefinite period of time. I intend to continue with this particular assignment overseas for a while and I anticipate that at some point I would not have sufficient funds in my account to cover my rent and have increased my standing order to 350 per month to cover my rent while I am away. I shall tally up with you on return to the UK. Regards - Tenant P - the tenant also spoke to the LL. The Judge stated that as the tenant continued paying the higher amount of rent, he constituted this was an increase in rent. Interestingly enough, the judge actually said he would not have taken that position if the tenant had decreased his standing order to a smaller amount at some point during the tenancy as that would have shown intent that it was not an increase. It seems the advice received that new rent amounts dont equal new AST wasn't considerd by the judge. We are pondering if the judge stated that the new verbal ast was created because of the fact that the tenant initiated the rent increase. We can't seem to find any other reasoning that can be applied??
  4. Hi Mariner, I honestly cannot answer that question about the differences in the written and the verbal, as we honestly didn't know we had a new verbal AST commencing in 2012. The judge seemed to base his ruling on the fact that one of the tenants made an agreement to increase his rent, therefore, the upshot was a new AST was created as an result of the conversation he had with the LL and the note he posted.
  5. Hi Mariner, Thanks for the quick response! The background to the story is on another forum here: (sorry I can't post the link as I am a new member) but you have responded to my other post on the other board Mariner - I have the same username on both boards. If the judge was wrong to opine that the rent increase alone constituted a new verbal AST after the written one, what other reasons could there be for him to assert legally that the note severally made all the tenants liable for a rent increase? I'm baffled myself, as effectively, this has left the door open for us tenants to claim for non-comlpiance with the Housing Act under a new verbal AST agreed in 2012. The LL says we owe upwards of 2200 and the deposit is 1250 - which has not yet been returned I may add. So the verbal AST ruling does not really play into favour for the LL does it? It's left them open to a claim for possibly up to three times the amount of 1250, which of course would erode the 2200 plus court costs.
  6. To the OP, please see my new post of today. A judge decided that a verbal AST can replace a written one previously issued. Therefore, it would be my opinion, based on our judgement today that you can advance an argument to say that you had a new verbal AST agreement created in 2009 and this new verbal AST came with an increased rental figure for a 6 or 12 month period, which then turned into an SPT. If I can post a link to our situation from another forum then you would see that our judge decided against us tenants by saying that the agreement to increase the rent in a conversation and via an informal note equalled to a new 12 month AST being created at a higher rent. EDIT: can't post link as am a new member If there is any precedent to support the judge decision, then I would say, based on this judges statements, you can argue that you were given a new AST agreement at a higher rent. Question is, does non-compliance of deposit protection (Serving PI again), apply for the new verbal AST?
  7. Happy 2015 everyone! Hopefully someone can answer this question for me on this forum. The long and crazy background to this question in on another rental forum (can I post a link)? EDIT: Unfortunately, I can't as a new member. Has any tenant or landlord ever been in a situation where they have rented a flat with a written AST, which was then replaced by a verbal AST? The reason I am asking is that the judge found in the LL favour against four tenants stating that a new verbal AST was entered into in 2012 (four tenants signed a written AST in 2011), making all tenants several and liable for a rent increase. The question now remains which baffles me personally, is can tenants who started off with a written AST then enter a new verbal AST while still in the same property????? The judge said so, so it must be true!! I've never heard of any situation where a new verbal AST is created with the same parties in the same property that overwrites the initial written tenancy??? Has anyone ever heard of this? Any anecdotes, advice or pointers toward legislation would be appreciated. Thanks, BoopDMX85
  • Create New...