No the LL isnt. A party is only responsible for "collateral damage" as a result of damage to their own property if it was due to their negligence. If I'm honest, this came as a surprise to me too, but it is definitely the case. Even if (for example) the property was unoccupied and there was a burst pipe, causing damage to the property below - the owner would only be responsible IF that burst pipe had occurred due to negligence. If the owner can show things such as, heating left on, insulation in place, etc, he would NOT be liable for the damage. And hi also

As the score they obtain is from the credit ref agency, its just from that.

Tenant negligent. Tenant responsible. Simple.

As Aequitas said. I shall quote, rinse and repeat my above post. The law is absolutely clear on this.

Can you please advise which housing association it is? thanks.

As stated above. Housing Act is gospel, contract is not. 1 months notice is all that is required.

In which case I can only wish you the best of luck, and that I hope that the advice you are receiving is sound. Obviously, I feel unable to advice myself anymore as you have a qualified legal professional giving differing advice, and it would be wrong of me to tell you not to follow that advice. Keep us posted.

I have to disagree with the solicitor and the council. But they are (well the solicitor anyway) proper legal professionals so you are right to take their advice over ours.

And as I have said - the judge in that case was wrong. The case should have been appealed if what you are stating happened. Hearsay btw is not inadmissable in English civil courts. Also, your definition of hearsay is incorrect. Simples.

I dont entirely understand the question to be totally honest. The Housing Act is gospel. You need only give one months notice, to expire at the end of a rental period.

She cant. Its as simple as that. Its just not possible. She cannot mortgage a property she does not own, or insure a property she does not own. Its a ludicrous scheme and I would advise to stay well clear.

You cant use that clause as you proceed to inhabit the property.

Terrible terrible idea.

In which case, only a court can decide on what is a reasonable deduction. But the issue is, you moved back in after declaring the property uninhabitable, without negotiating a reduced rate prior. As such, a court may well deem you liable for the entire amount. Your option by the way should have been a hotel, and charge the landlord for the cost - insured or not, he was liable.

In that case, sue him at the address you do have, and put a charging order on the property you used to live at.

Also - how many storeys did the property have?

I think you are fighting the wrong battle. You should pay the council tax and claim it back off the landlord as a breach of contract civil proceeding.

A rare creature indeed mariner!

tq - it is important that you do not take an example of what happened in one case and then make this legally correct for ALL cases. If what you have stated above is 100% accurate, then this is an exception - the judge doesnt even know the basics of law if that happened.

But clearly then the judge DID disbelieve the claimant. Simples. Otherwise, the judge in that case was completely and utterly inept. I can assure you that what you have stated, as a general rule of law is utter rubbish. I realise it isnt gospel but I would suggest you read the Wikipedia article on hearsay. Hearsay IS THAT INFORMATION RELAYED VIA A THIRD PARTY. NOT information given in the first person.

OK well first things first - yes of course they are two seperate issues. There are plenty of posts re: non protection of deposit so I wont address that in detail here. The other situation is, quite frankly, a mess - and (being very honest here) not just due to the landlord. I understand why you have, but you have basically stated one minute that you are not paying rent due to the property being uninhabitable, then the next you have moved back in and inhabited the property. You cannot have it both ways I'm afraid. You absolutely have my sympathies, and I probably would have done the same in your situation - but that doesnt entitle you to live there rent free. You could try and negotiate a reduction in rent for the last month, but ultimately only a court could decide on the level of reduction - it certainly wouldnt be 100%.

To clarify a little bit more. A verbal agreement is legally binding, and is in fact as legally binding as a written contract. The issue is proving such a contract. As a small claims court claim is done on the balance of the evidence, NOT beyond reasonable doubt, this will ultimately come down to, given the other circumstances surrounding the case, who the judge believes. Hearsay ONLY REFERS TO a third party quoted by one of the litigants. The two parties involved describing their version/understanding of the verbal contract (from the first person) is NOT hearsay.

The LA is indeed in breach of contract, but this does not lessen the ultimate responsibility of the landlord to protect the deposit. He can only protect what is received, but it is classed as being received by the landlord if received by the LA. The arrangements/agreements between LL and LA are of no interest to T.

Thats not true.

Does she have any proof the notice was posted (NOT proof of receipt)?