Steve, I've seen some pretty bad cases of condensation - it can really manifest like that. The fact that it is only occurring on the outside walls (i.e. the cold walls) would really back this up in my opinion.

Worth mentioning that the court case mentioned applies to a very specific subset of tenancies, and even then only in specific circumstances. Not that I am unsympathetic but I have to agree with Coniff that council/local authorities do not evict overnight, so it is short sighted to blame rent arrears merely on HB/JobCentre issues. In any event - what is your monthly rent and what is the current level of arrears?

I agree with mariner. You have no legal obligation to give him your new address. Just tell him that if he wants anything more from you he can take you to court. End of discussion. Hes bluffing.

The agent is just that - a legal agent working on behalf of the landlord. Legally, you may as well have paid the deposit directly to the landlord. The landlord is legally responsible.

Certainly sounds like a condensation issue to me. Is it ground or first floor flat? Are the damp patches all on the same wall (e.g. one external wall) or throughout? Is there any mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and/or kitchen?

Thats it - I think at this stage it comes down to your personal choice. Any judge is likely to frown upon the timescales that have resulted due to the tenant. However, it doesnt form a point of law so although frowned upon it SHOULDNT affect the judgement. You are likely, after the time delay and on the basis of some of the emails bandied about, to find it very difficult to prove damages and reductions - and the onus would be on you to prove. As such, and as I am a fan of an easy life(!), I personally would be inclined to draw a line under the whole sorry saga and take the offered money.

When did you move in, and was the deposit not protected by a tenancy deposit scheme?

I think at this stage (without obviously being in possession of the check in/out paperwork, and without seeing the property myself) you may well be wise to simply accept the offer and move on. Alternatively, you could invite them to sue - some of the things they are saying are ludicrous, such as rent being due (from re-reading on the basis of dilapidations, which would just be a no go at this stage for them) and blocking their attempts to retrieve/dispute the deposit, which is again plain silly. It depends upon whether the agent will release the deposit though.

I think that they have added to the muddle as well. If you havent made good you cant claim from the deposit - the deposit is only there it cover ACTUAL financial losses incurred.

Sorry to multi-post.... The issue has changed somewhat here as well from initial posting. We are now back to a "standard" dilapidation dispute. As such, you now need to quantify the damages that were caused by the outbound tenant. Was the "quoted" work carried out?

In addition, I notice they talk about you "preventing the use of a dispute scheme" - on what basis are they saying this, and have they given any explanation as to why they have only decided to try and pursue this some 2 years later?

Can you clarify what they are talking about re: refund of rent? Also, was the agent performing a full management service or a find a tenant service only? I suspect the former.

Simple answer (in my personal opinion). Rent is an absolute essential outgoing, more essential than debt repayment.

As it stands legally your ex has no less right to be in the property than you do. Have you not considered moving elsewhere yourself?

There is no legal obligation to provide a tv aerial.

Just be wary of paying any rent to anyone before you have received a formal Section 20 notice informing you of the legal new place to pay rent.

Legally - the landlord can absolutely do this I'm afraid. Moreover if the mortgage company doesnt allow HB, she MUST do this. Sorry but there really isnt much of a way around this...

Apologies mariner, I misunderstood that particular sentence.

Stu just for some clarity to your post: - The word "must" in terms of 24 hours written notice is a little bit pointles hence why I have intentionally avoided it. They dont really have to, there is nothing mandating this in law. Moreover, agreements can be made between agent and tenant to allow access other than this. Also, if you look at it from the agents perspective in the interests of fairness, giving 24 hours written notice every time they want to view a prospective tenant would make it quite restrictive for them. In any event, 24 hours written notice cant be physically enforced in any way. - Whilst I agree changing the locks shouldnt be done lightly, that is only in order to prevent getting the LLs back up. There is no requirement for written permission, nor do the keys have to be provided. Of course, they should be advised in writing that you have done so. Sorry to pick apart the post, not meaning to just correcting/embellishing a couple of points.

That is what I mean by a single joint AST, sorry - basically, that they are all on the one tenancy, not each with seperate. Personally, I would put it to the agents not the LL - it is the agents who are actually entering not the LL. But...likely to have the same result in any event tbh.

OK so it is a single joint AST? In that case, my personal opinion would be simply to write to them, politely but firmly, stating that they have no permission to enter the property without a tenant being there and allowing access. I wouldnt go to the stage of changing the locks before this.

Your tenancy would still stand. The landlord would become the new owner. In theory the new landlord could attempt eviction via the Section 8 process, but it is unlikely to succeed. As it is being advertised with sitting tenants, I would consider even such an attempt very unlikely. In terms of your original AST fixed term being honoured, I wouldnt be too concerned.

Lets be absolutely, 100% clear on this. The facts are thus: - The tenancy is a single tenant (mother of OP). - The tenant (the only legal entity of any interest here) is still resident in the property. - No formal written notice of any form has been issued. The tenant has an absolute legal right to reside in the property until such a time as notice has been validly served, AND said notice has expired. Moreover, she can still remain until a court order of possession is granted to the landlord. ANY ACTION BY THE LANDLORD to circumvent or otherwise attempt to enforce the removal of the tenant from the property, be it through explicit eviction attempts or intimidation (including the withholding/cancelling of utilities) is a criminal offence. Clearly there are various issues here regarding arrears, but as per the original query, they are neither here nor there. In addition, the landlord has absolutely no right to unilaterally change rent amount or payment day. (As an aside, to query an above post, I have never heard of any legal right of the landlord to have some kind of written debt repayment schedule. This is certainly not laid out in any statute law. If this is indeed the case I would be interested to see the legal basis.) All that said, if the landlady wants the tenant out, she will (eventually) succeed. If they do not follow the correct process first time round, this could yet take many months - all the same, the tenant should now consider the very real prospect that they will have to move at some point in the future. That point however, is NOT within the next 7 days - or, realistically, the next 7 weeks.

Just to be clear... Is this a student house with seperate lockable rooms and a communal area? Or a house let in its entirety to 1 group of students?

OK I would communicate now only in writing with the landlady. I would send a simple letter back to her stating that the property has not been vacated by the tenant (i.e. herself) and that she still has occupancy of the property, as per the tenancy agreement. See what the response is. Further actions by the landlady after this point are likely to cross the line into unlawful eviction.