I think half the rent is a bit much. You have had some incursion into your right to quiet enjoyment of the property, and a small portion of the flat is effectively out of bounds. I would have said a 20% reduction for the period in question, no more. (Personal opinion). It is highly unlikely that the installation is being left in a dangerous state - yes, there are some cowboys, but from the images the standard of work generally looks good, so I would be surprised if he is leaving live bare cabling.

I'm not even sure this is TUPE? Surely that doesnt apply if the employer remains the same? It merely sounds as if the OWNER of the employer has changed?

Proceed to court, to enforce them to place the deposit in a scheme - but legal action will almost certainly trigger eviction proceedings. You say you have contacted them - have you done this formally, in writing?

Would advise the following. - I dont think you have a lot to gain from the law centre that we havent already told you. Not because they arent valuable, but because this is pretty clear cut. - Start documenting EVERYTHING. When the landlord turns up, exactly what he says and when, method of communication, etc etc. I have a slight suspicion this may go the route of unlawful eviction as opposed to delayed lawful eviction. - To clarify - you have had NO deposit protection information? I would text back at this stage and advise, simply and to the point, that the notice is insufficient and that you will not be vacating on that date, and that a formal letter will be following. Do you have his address? I presume so. If so, we can look to draft up a letter to formally respond (after this last text, would advise putting everything in writing). Also, do you have a copy of your original tenancy agreement?

No, and you cant, would be my guess. I would advise a full structural survey is carried out, as well as some "test" home insurance quotes.

Given recent case law, I am absolutely amazed that you won actually.

That almost certainly makes the contract unenforceable, yes.

I would like to at this stage get back in my box and apologise. I have misunderstood the situation a bit, and I do now agree that this is an error on the part of the LA. I dont feel that the legal position neccessarily changes, but you do have my sympathy now as I have opened my blinded eyes and seen the light.

Explain taking it lying down? You are staying after the end of your tenancy, why would you expect to stay for a time rent free??? with the greatest of respect, it is you who has got it wrong here not the landlord.

I doubt that Fitness First, or the law, will find it as being a material and continued breach of contract that they have overcharged on one occassion. I would have said almost certainly it is NOT grounds for cancellation.

UNLESS of course the representative EXPLICITLY agreed with you that that is the moving date AND no further rent is due. I suspect that the agreement was simply on moving date.

Rent is due in any event. You are obligated to pay the rent due until you vacate the property. The arranged leaving date does not change that.

It will ultimately depend upon the credit check, but if you have no CCJs then I wouldnt be overly concerned.

Actually, do you think the government of Greece should come onto the forum asking for debt advice?

Its highly unlikely they are setting up their own physical exchange. I guess what you mean is what is called LLU (local loop unbundling)? This may well shift the kit responsibility to Talk Talk. I would, at this point: - Cancel any Direct Debit (should you have one set up). - Write to Talk Talk, politely but firmly, stating that you wish to have a response within 3 working days as to when you will have service restored. Also, that you expect them to refund you fully, pro rata for the days whereby you have had no service.

Gareth, I am having the same issue currently - not sure why formatting is bust! I think you may be on a hiding to nothing here. Your only next step will be to begin legal proceedings in small claims court, but I think you are going to have a virtually impossible job proving the claim. Moreover, I am guessing that 40 litres probably only about half fills a tank for such a vehicle...? Therefore you may struggle to prove that the tank was virtually empty when you filled up. I have to say, I'm no mechanic, but I do struggle to believe that this could have come from the garage in any event - although clearly your logic is correct. Did you ask your mechanic for an opinion on the source? Was this an independent filling station, or a chain?

Dont you mean a Belgian speaking Russian HB?

Darren - dare I say that if you are still so rigid as to ONLY be able to assist via Twitter or Facebook, then your presence here is pretty useless? I think that is the gripe. You seem to be here merely as an advertisement for your other communication portals, whereas my understanding of the purpose of the official company helpers on this forum is to assist (where possible) with the SPECIFIC areas raised, not just a generic "please go to Facebook". Dare I also say that you could learn a lot from Vodafone in this regard - who, for all their faults, appear to have genuinely made a commitment to resolving issues for users of this forum. In any event, it is not really my place to say - ultimately this is site team territory. But I will add my voice to those others who would say that your contribution has been lacklustre at best.

9 days is unusual but not unheard of for a line fault based at exchange to be resolved. There does not appear to be any MSO at the exchanges in your area. The relationship between AOL and BT will allow for an SLA. It is very unlikely you will have this communicated to you, however, the ECO portal (which is what they will use as a service provider, almost certainly) will give a time slot for the engineer visit from BT. Suggest you ask AOL to tell you WHEN the next step is to occur. Usually engineer time slots for exchange visits occur within about 24-48 hours of fault. As there does not appear to be an MSO, this would seem like a simple line card reset or replacement to my mind, which reinforces my surprise at the time taken thus far.

Lol speaking of spammers! Reported.

Just out of interest, where are you located geographically?

I'm not sure what else there is to say - this is a pretty standard breach of contract, that you may need to sue to enforce - but enforcing can certainly be done (on the face of it, and with the info you have provided).

I would have said that this will depend upon the terms of the loan contract initially signed. It sounds (to me) like he is chancing his arm somewhat. I would have considered it unlikely (although not impossible) that the contract contains reference to the capital gain on the property. For him to see this value, it would have been more likely that rather than be a loan per se, that he effectively "bought" 28% of the property at purchase time. The absolute key here is the contract, and you need to get sight of it.

OP I have totally neglected the other consequence of what the tenant has done. As he has no legal right to remain in the property at the expiry of the notice, "holding over" comes into effect. This in theory (at least) means that DOUBLE rent is payable from the point of expiry of notice, until such a point that he actually vacates. You need to make this crystal clear to him: - That the notice, once served and accepted, could not be rescinded unilaterally by one party. Only with the agreement of both parties. - That as the notice is still in place and valid, he has no legal right to remain in the property following the expiry date of the notice - he will, in effect, be a trespasser. - That following the expiry of the notice, double rent is legally due due to "holding over" and that you will immediately proceed to court for possession and rent payments.

Hi all, Just been doing some catching up as I have been out of the loop for a while, in particular to do with EDs excellent standard advice on the TDS case laws. From some personal reading, it would appear that that three main case laws are Tiensia, Gladehurst and Potts. My current high level understanding of the consequences of these case laws are as follows: - A claim for three times the deposit due to failure to protect must ALWAYS fail following the ending of the tenancy. - A claim for three times the deposit due to failure to protect must ALWAYS fail if the deposit is protected prior to the hearing. This basically means that in practical terms, it is effectively impossible to enforce a three times penalty due to non protection - unless you sue at the start of the tenancy, and the landlord is dumb enough not to protect by the hearing. So, at this stage, my understanding is that there is no real case law as of yet for 213(5) - i.e. prescribed info, so this may be the only avenue of enforcing the three times deposit penalty. Am I correct in my surmisation? If so, then I have to say that I am delighted this has become the outcome. I had argued since day one that the 3x penalty was an unneccessarily draconian step, and something of a precedent within law. Although, undoubtedly, it is down to the terrible way in which the HA2004 has been written, I believe that it has brought the TDS areas back to what it should have been - enforcement only, which is still allowed. Any thoughts from anyone..?