I'd just ignore her then. If she's stupid enough to take this to court, I (or someone else) will help you get it thrown out. She doesn't have a leg to stand on because she can't prove the condition of the items when you moved in and therefore cannot prove that they were damaged by you.

Sorry, but...

Does the inventory describe the condition of the things she's claiming for and did you sign it?

Has the deposit been protected?

She's a right comedienne isn't she?

The management company issue isn't relevant, although I accept it was probably irritating at the time. You're quite right about the quarterly checks though.

If you can answer the other two questions I'll draft a reply for you.

When was the last time you signed a tenancy agreement?

When you moved in did you sign an inventory that described the house and contents?

Oh and;

Is the property in England or Wales?

Is the annual rent less than £25,000?

You say the utility bills "were" in her name. Who's name are they in now?

Citizens Advice are taking the view that you are both "jointly and severely" liable for the bills. This means that either one of you or both of you can be held responsible for the debt. Whether you are or not will depend on who's name is on the bill I would've thought but I'm not certain on this.

It sounds like the agent doesn't want to give a reference. Why not try the landlord?

In terms of the £160 charge, just ignore them. They cannot take it out of the deposit although they'll almost certainly try. It's a simple enough matter to get it out of them via the county court and there are plenty of people here that can guide you through the simple process if and when it becomes necessary.

The washing machine seal is certainly fair wear and tear but even if it wasn't the most she could claim is the cost of the new seal and it's fitting. She can't get you to pay for a brand new one!

The fridge door you might be liable for if it was broken through misuse (and the landlady can prove it), but again she can't replace it with a brand new one. What exactly is wrong with it?

I'm surprised she isn't trying to charge you for the new hob. Any chance you can scan the letter and post it here minus the personal details. It probably isn't going to make much difference but it'll almost certainly give me a laugh.

When was the last time you signed a tenancy agreement?

When you moved in did you sign an inventory that described the house and contents?

I'm confused. How many keys are there and who has them now?

I think under the circumstances that you should move out as soon as you can. You'll be liable for rent and bills until the end of the fixed period but after that there's nothing that anyone can do. Provided you leave on or before the end of the fixed period (i.e. the day before the anniversary of the agreement) there's no need to give notice.

In whose name are the utility bills?

The only thing after that is the return of your deposit. Did you sign an inventory when you moved in and has the deposit been protected?

We'd need more information but if there is a CCJ the creditor can get what is known as a third party debt order. Basically this is where someone that owes you money (typically a bank where the account is in credit) is forced to pay the money that you owe to the creditor

We have had confirmation from the DPS to state our deposit is now 'closed' as the money was released to the letting agent 'Modo homes'. [...]

The land lord has not held the deposit with the DPS, MyDeposits or the TDS.

Which is it? Either the deposit was protected by DPS (and subsequently released to the landlord) or it wasn't

Can you please elaborate what you define as an "excluded tenancy"?

Excluded from the the majority of the protection from eviction act. There's a whole section (3A) on excluded tenancies that includes the following

"(2)A tenancy or licence is excluded if—

(a)under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with the landlord or licensor; and

(b)immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises of which the whole or part of the shared accommodation formed part."

Having said that, further down it also says

"(5)In subsections (2) to (4) above—(a)“accommodation” includes neither an area used for storage nor a staircase, passage, corridor or other means of access;"

That seems to cover the OPs friend, although the shared electricity (and presumably water and gas as applicable) do undermine the point as MrShed says

The Protection From Eviction Act is here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770043_en_1#pt1-l1g4

I agree that the landlord is behaving disgracefully but his behaviour regarding the electricity has no bearing on the ease or difficulty with which he can evict. The OP's friend has an excluded tenancy by virtue of the landlord living in the same property. That being the case, the OPs friend has no more protection than a lodger, i.e. virtually none and the landlord can evict on a whim provided that he gives "reasonable" notice

Good spot Surfer.

Agreed (although technically the landlord cannot be fined).

If they are paying the rent I doubt it somehow.

Doubt it as much as you like, it doesn't change the facts. Because the landlord lives at the same property, the tenancy agreement is a common law tenancy and the protection provided by the various housing acts does not apply. The only legal protection the OP has is the protection from eviction act, which requires that the landlord gives "reasonable" notice.

Can you clarify why you believe that "It is illegal for the LL to charge more than what they are charged and can result in a very big fine".

It is illegal for the LL to charge more than what they are charged and can result in a very big fine.

Can you tell me the act that prohibits this? I've never heard of it before

No more paymenst until they shoudl you a recent bill as they cannot evict you.

As the OP has an excluded tenancy they can be evicted very easily

I am in england. I am not worried about being evicted but you say she cannot enforce the 2 months notice period? Why not?

Because the law says one month from you two months from the landlord

She could hold the deposit no?

Not lawfully she couldn't. She could, if the tenancy agreement allows, use the deposit to cover one month's rent if you left without any notice at all.

NB all of the above relates to the time after the fixed period has expired.

Another question, I realise I would be in for 6 months minimun upon a new signing, could I give notice inside the 6 months or would it be 6 months + 2 months notice to get out?

If you want to leave at the end of fixed period (1 year in the case of the new agreement) you don't need to give notice at all, although I would always recommend that you do give notice. If you want to leave at the break point or after the fixed period you can give notice to leave whenever you want. Some landlords give their tenants notice as soon as they move in as a matter of course. The only things to remember are that the notice must be at least a month and must expire on the last day of a rent month

Unfortunately, much of what has been said in the blog regarding the Tracker free trial process is both incorrect and misleading.

I presume by "blog" you mean the post above on this message board. If so, which bits do you regard as incorrect and/or misleading

It may be that the there is an argument for trespass (I don't know - I'm not a lawyer) but my concern is that, although the OP has had his quiet enjoyment denied, it isn't the landlord that is responsible. I suppose it's possible to argue that the landlord should have taken the keys back from his father but it's equally easy for him to argue that his father had the keys in case of an emergency.

I certainly wouldn't want to be going into court with this alone

Ive told the LL that we have a receipt to prove how much we have paid and confirmation from the DPS, but they dont seem to want to listen to this.

In that case you should be able to get the whole lot back. If you don't, come back here and let us know. There are loads of people (me included) that can guide you through the process of getting it back via the courts

Was a check-in inventory done and, if so, did you sign it? If there is no check-in inventory then it doesn't matter who does the check-out inventory; the landlord cannot show that any dilapidations were caused by your being there. In other words you should get the whole deposit back.

The money that changed hands between the landlord and the agent is not your concern. If the landlord has only been given £550 by his agent then it's for him to sort out, not you. Are you sure the £940 is all deposit and not £550 deposit + £440 agent admin fees?

Assuming that you're in England or Wales and that the rolling lease is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement, then yes, she can ask you to sign a new lease. You can, of course, refuse. If it's the notice period you're concerned about, even if you sign the new lease the landlady couldn't enforce the two months notice (although she would have to give you two months notice if she was to want you out).

Be aware that if you sign you are committing for a minimum of six months, regardless of the notice period required

I'm afraid that, unless there is a break clause in your lease, then you are liable for rent until the end of the twelve months. On the face of it you're getting off quite lightly with £680.

You say you've told the landlord that you're leaving because of a breach of the tenancy agreement. What was the breach? (I don't think the landlord's father entering without permission is sufficient on it's own)

Are you suing them for just the deposit or the deposit + 3 X deposit penalty for failing to protect it? The £1500 could be just deposit or four lots of £375

Does the landlord live in one of the other flats?

When was the last time you signed a tenancy agreement?

What dates does your tenancy agreement contain? (I know it seems like a random question but it could be important)

3. We did report to the police, but they said it was a civil matter. The whole thing is driving her nuts.

I think planner is talking about the dvds. That isn't a civil matter, it's a criminal one, even if he threw them away.

It's not for them to tell you what to do. It's interesting that they say don't tell the media though; a) because the information contained in the letter is obviously going to be interesting to a large number of people (otherwise the media wouldn't be interested and b) they obviously haven't got, and doubt that they would get, a gagging order (otherwise you'd have been sent that rather than a letter)

It all depends on the landlords circumstances and finances. Is he employed, does he have money in the bank etc. To find these things out you can apply for an order to obtain information. Form ex324 explains this http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex324_0309.pdf

Alternatively, you do know one thing about the landlord - he owns property, so going for a charging order may be preferable, especially if he isn't paying you because he has no money. A charging order means that you get paid out of any money that the landlord makes when he sells the property. It will also make it much more difficult for him to remortgage (assuming that the proprty is mortgaged)