Categorically this lies with the tenants contents insurance.

Issue being here that they had in fact received confirmation that the property had been vacated. Can you please tell me the name of the HA?

Agreed.

My thoughts on your position aside, the LL/agent thing is a red herring and you are focussing too much on it. From your perspective, and the legal perspective, the agent and the landlord are the same entity.

Simple answer is no, not really. The deductions are likely to be enforceable after this point. However, only a court could decide.

But in reality that makes no difference. I still dont understand why you wish security of tenure without actually going through the actions to follow this up?

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you seriously overplay your hand. If you do not sign the fixed term, then the landlord/agent can indeed basically put the property back on the market, find a new tenant, and evict if they so choose. You cant have the security of the tenancy without actually signing up for the security of it - and thereby ensuring that the LANDLORD has no security. In terms of viewings, you can refuse them if you so wish. But, in my personal opinion only, I think you are actually being somewhat unfair in your position.

You really need to give a new 2 month notice IMHO. Such notice must be absolutely clear and giving notice but then varying from the written terms of the notice by verbal conversation may well have invalidated the notice.

As I have said, I dont think there is any chance of damages based upon "lies" about the lease, as the lies did not constitute a binding legal contract. I would strongly advise to consult with a solicitor on something a) so complex b) so important.

A contract has to be specific. Someone saying "long term" does not constitute something legally enforceable. Moreover, the liability on repairs will depend upon the terms of the contract, but generally speaking repairs liability lies with the TENANT in the case of commercial lets.

Do you have a receipt for the monies you paid?

The simple answer is, no there is no legal obligation for an agent to let to you, or to accept any particular terms.

Well made up!

Well you have signed no break clause, then the S21 cannot be used in this way. Simple as that.

That is spot on. Basically, the "tenancy" element has never commenced and cannot itself be enforced. However, the "contract" element is still in force - and the OP will be liable for the actual financial loss to the landlord for the termination of the contract.

You can but ask. For what reason is it unsuitable for raising a child?

Agreed with BF in everything else above bar this - this action would not in any way (unless property was legally uninhabitable) render the contract breached or cancelled.

*cynical hat on* I dont understand why you would view a property, decide on it, pay a deposit and then look to query such items. *cynical hat off* To answer the question, I dont THINK that you can enforce this - building regs may well apply, but only for new installs, not retrospectively.

Mariner your calcs are correct. BUT. The OP has stated they gave TWO months notice. Unfortunately, this will stand if it is what has been specified in the email. As such, in any event now, my calcs reckon that earliest departure date is 19th of May.

There is nothing preventing you from sharing your experience, but I would be extremely careful of saying anything that is a) not absolutely factual b) not provable. OK - its unlikely - but you could find yourself in civil court for loss of earnings due to slander.

You can do that but I would advise against it, and I would also advise you that forgoing the deposit for rent does not remove any liability from you for damages/dilapidations, which you can still be persued for, deposit or not. BTW - I should stress that I understand the frustration of the situation. My outlining of the legal position does not neccessarily mean that I believe it is wholly fair.

You have none I am afraid its as simple as that. The agent and landlord cannot be held responsible for third party works on third party property. Nor are they obliged to tell you. You have zero LEGAL grounds for compensation.

Would have to agree with Steve by the way. You risk being left high and dry. Sounds as a minimum like tax avoidance - at worst, like a [problem]. *EDIT* OK apparently I cant use the word $cam?

They can really charge whatever they like for a service provided to you. It is up to you whether you want to pay it or not.

But bear in mind that the insurance has no obligation to cover the damage. That is my point.