Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should I go to see the CAB or something? I just don't think I have the strength or brain capacity to deal with all of this. The mess I have gotten myself into is bad enough and now this on top. My head hurts. What should I do?  It's all very horrible, I feel genuinely scared and stressed because of all this. I don't understand what is going on   I have raised a dispute with Santander to see if they have done something. I have just explained my situation, what is happening and that it all seems to have started when I told Santander I was struggling, had approached StepChange and transferred my direct debits etc to Starling. It was all going well with Starling, I actually really liked it, but now everything has just gone to !!!!!! and I feel sick to my stomach  
    • Hi All,   I was going to post an update after a month had passed since I sent my SN but didn't get around to it, after about two weeks I received a letter from Highview letting me know the opportunity to appeal had been missed, Shame, lol! .... Anyway, on Sat 13th (the 13th! Aaarggghh! 🤣) I received a Claim Form from DCB(L) .... seems they wish to pursue the matter through the courts! These people really are tiresome ....   Details to follow ....   (EDIT: just noticed this is the 13th post as well! .... not that I'm superstitious, lol! 😂)
    • I have just checked Experian too and there is nothing on there about CCJs or any other suspicious or adverse info that would impact me like this, other than my present situation of course.   Bankruptcy, CCJ or IVA This includes court judgments (CCJs), debt relief orders, bankruptcies, individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) and other public records recorded against you. You have no public records. GAIN (Gone Away Information Network) Lenders use GAIN to tell each other about customers with unpaid debts. If in the past you’ve left unpaid debts when living at a previous address, you may appear on GAIN and so lenders may be less likely to give you credit. You have no GAIN records.
    • I think I might have had a CCJ but it was way longer than 7 years ago and I have been able to apply and get loans, credit cards etc. I have been pretty fine with my finances until now, until this mess I managed to get myself into this year   There is nothing showing on the TransUnion credit report about an old CCJ. Is there another place I can look to see if there was one and if so how long ago?  I have signed up to TransUnion and on there it says (in Search History):   ORGANISATION PURPOSE DATE Transunion Consumer Id Check (Ml)   Identity Check for Credit 15 Apr 2024   Nationwide Building Society (Sr,Tac,Ct,Cval,R) Nationwide Building Society Bav (Cval Ml) Anti-Money Laundering 11 Apr 2024   Monzo Bank (Cosmos, Cr, Sa, Ar, Ct Batch) Monzo Bank Limited 2 (Cosmos Ar) AF 10 Apr 2024   Monzo Bank (Cosmos, Cr, Sa, Ar, Ct Batch) Monzo Bank Limited 2 (Cosmos Cr Bsb) Quotation Search 10 April 2024 I think AF means a financial association with someone or something, but I have just read that that could be something as simple as sharing an address with someone (which I do).    Public Information Details of any Bankruptcies, Insolvencies or Court Judgments that are in your name in relation to settlements of money. Bankruptcies and Insolvencies You do not have any Bankruptcies or Insolvencies on your credit report. Judgments You do not have any Judgments on your credit report. There are no Cifas markers registered against you. You do not have any Notices of Correction on your credit report. Does any of this make sense? I don't mean the information I have provided above, I mean why I am being rejected by every bank I have applied for, except Monzo (so far) Every loan I have ever taken out has been paid and settled on time, I have never missed payments on things. The only things I have outstanding at the moment are the ones I listed at the start of this thread when I completed the budget planner. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Unauthorised person in flat


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6015 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have 'evicted' a tenant under section 21 after finding that an unauthorised person had moved in and was residing in her room. The rent included all bills. The unauthorised person has therefore created additional costs to me during their 4 months unauthorised residence. Additionally, the person attracted complants from other tenants.

 

I am holding the tenant deposit. However I intend to charge the former tenant an additional rental sum at a rate of £100 per month for the unauthorised occupation that she allowed (in contravention of the tenancy agreement), and the additional utilities costs. I will deduct this from the deposit and refund the difference.

 

Have other forum members had experience of this type of situation, and am I within my rights to make these charges retrospectively?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the response is that you may be entitled to your loss if you can prove that you suffered one.

 

But how much of the 100 pounds were you planning to pay the other tenants who were the ones who actually suffered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 'evicted' a tenant under section 21 after finding that an unauthorised person had moved in and was residing in her room. The rent included all bills. The unauthorised person has therefore created additional costs to me during their 4 months unauthorised residence. Additionally, the person attracted complants from other tenants.

 

I am holding the tenant deposit. However I intend to charge the former tenant an additional rental sum at a rate of £100 per month for the unauthorised occupation that she allowed (in contravention of the tenancy agreement), and the additional utilities costs. I will deduct this from the deposit and refund the difference.

 

Have other forum members had experience of this type of situation, and am I within my rights to make these charges retrospectively?

 

You do not have any grounds to make such a charge, although the tennant has breached the contract you have not actually suffered any loss. As stated above, the other occupants have a case given they are subsidising bills etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prop,

 

I would just like to add:

 

1.You need to quantify your losses before you make deductions and should have backup evidence to prove as such.

 

I disagree totally with anyone that says prop is not a consumer.There are plenty true stories of problematic tenants that need a proper professional and lawful/legal approaches in dealing with such situations.

 

So TENANTS AND LANDLORDS ARE BOTH WELCOME!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed N4B - many of us are landlords ourselves, and can give a balanced view.

 

With regards this specific issue, I don't know if I agree with Maurice(in fact I dont - you clearly have in fact suffered a loss, although whether they are in real breach of contract is doubtful), but I would still very much disagree with the charge you are attempting to levy for different reasons(two in fact):

 

- The tenant is allowed to have guests. These guests can stay for an indefinite amount of time. I think it would be fairly easily argued that he was a guest, albeit for a long period of time.

- The much more important point however is that the £100 a month charge is a gross over estimate of your actual financial loss. On what detailed costings are you basing this rate? Your ACTUAL loss is ONLY gas and electric bills. Maybe water bills, IF the water is metered(not at a standing rate). Therefore, your loss should be calculated by taking a bill prior to the occupation and one after, and the increase is your actual loss per month/quarter(or better, take an average over a few bills before and a few after). I'd be amazed if this came to more than about £30 PM.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no breach of contract, unless the tenancy agreement expressly prohibits the tenant from sharing occupation of the premises.

 

Where there is no breach of contract, there is no right to damages (i.e. compensation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TA usually states the names of the tenants who will make use and reside in the property - it is therefore a clear breach of contract if another person moves into the property and takes residence as appears to be the case here. The Landlord therefore is within their right to terminate the agreement if there is no remedy provision for such a breach (I have never seen one and have 7 previous TA's).

 

The second part of the post related to the charge, I made comment that this was unreasonable given that this was clearly disproportionate to the actual loss.

 

I have checked this with a barrister friend and this is also their view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TA usually states the names of the tenants who will make use and reside in the property - it is therefore a clear breach of contract if another person moves into the property and takes residence as appears to be the case here. The Landlord therefore is within their right to terminate the agreement if there is no remedy provision for such a breach (I have never seen one and have 7 previous TA's).

 

Wrong, on three counts:

 

- They cannot be IMPLICITLY in breach of their contract. They are only in breach if it explicitly states that no-one else can be resident in the property etc.

- It is arguable that such a term would impact on their rights as a tenant to have a guest anyway. Certainly it would be nigh on impossible to prove that they are not a guest but a resident IMO.

- The landlord cannot terminate on this basis - he would have to go to court to get a Section 8 eviction on breach of contract, which would be up to the court to decide whether it was sufficient breach or not. He actually evicted by S21, which does NOT require a reason.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, on three counts:

 

- They cannot be IMPLICITLY in breach of their contract. They are only in breach if it explicitly states that no-one else can be resident in the property etc.

- It is arguable that such a term would impact on their rights as a tenant to have a guest anyway. Certainly it would be nigh on impossible to prove that they are not a guest but a resident IMO.

- The landlord cannot terminate on this basis - he would have to go to court to get a Section 8 eviction on breach of contract, which would be up to the court to decide whether it was sufficient breach or not. He actually evicted by S21, which does NOT require a reason.

 

They would be in clear breach by having another person live at the property. The landlord would have no problem getting a Section 8 order from the court. The contract is explicit in terms of naming the tenants and would cover others residing at the property.

 

I suggest you get your facts right Shed, you are providing misleading information. Go back and read the thread question at the start!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Laving the issue of additional costs which the "unauthorised" person caused to the OP; the tenant is allowed to have guests or house-sitters in their absence. Blanket restriction would be considered an unfair term.

But yet again, we have not got enough information: was the person residing with or instead of the named tenant? Was there a sublet situation?

Monty, could you properly substantiate your statement that tenant

would be in clear breach by having another person live at the property.
Have you seen the tenancy agreement? Have you asked OP whether it contaned a clause prohibitting subletting, assigning or guests? What do you mean by "clear breach"?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monty, frankly your statement above is baloney. I cant even be bothered to rise to it. If you really want to continue the conversation, please, feel free to produce case law where a section 8 eviction has been successful based upon an implicit breach by introducing "unauthorised" residents, where there was no explicit requirement not to have other residents, and also where the argument that the resident was legitimate under the right of the tenant to have guests was used, unsuccessfully. Then I will entertain a conversation regarding it.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly your statement above is baloney

yessssss! not only I agree but I am pleased to see that there are other mavericks who like to slip the leash occasionally :lol:

 

Also: Monty, Monty, but you did not answer any of my valid questions, it makes me wanna cry! I suppose you can't really answer them, can you?

Ah, lesson learnt, huh?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q1. Have you seen the tenancy agreement?

 

Q2. Have you asked OP whether it contaned a clause prohibitting subletting, assigning or guests?

 

Q3. What do you mean by "clear breach"?

 

1. Obviously not, but I have never seen a TA that does not clearly specify who the Tennant's are!

 

2. It is very unlikely that there is a provision for subletting. The question did not specifcy guests; I Quote "an unauthorised person had moved in". Clearly not an overnight guest!

 

Perhaps the poster would like to clarify?

 

3. There is clear breach. Any persons, other than the specified tenants will cause this material breach of the agreement. The issue comes down to the remedy provision, if any.

 

Otherwise you cold go and rent a house and move a load of folk in and charge them rent.............get real!

 

I have seen more then my fair share of such agreements and if you think the above is incorrect then so be it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im confused!

Every Tenancy agreement that I have had, has always included a bit about, you may have guests stay, but not for more than 2/3 unbroken weeks at a time.

 

I was told it was something to do with, if a "guest" stayed for a certain unbroken period then they could legally become a tenant of that property. So someone knowing they are being evicted at the end of their first 6 months, could in theory have a mate move in without the landlords knowledge for the last month or whichever qualifying period it is, thus the mate then creates for themselves a new 6 month tenancy agreement by default and cannot then be evicted, for the usual 6 months.

 

could be completely wrong or out of date.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Monty, looks like some people have not read the actual question at the start of the thread!

 

The main point I raised and Monty also, was in relation to the charges, the issue of breach is a no brainer. It is clear there has been!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys, you are looking too black and white - it doesnt matter whether the person is resident or not, it is a matter of what can be proven in court. The tenant is entitled to have guests, it is part of his quiet enjoyment of the property. A guest is not defined in law, as to how long they have to stay before they are no longer classed as a guest. Therefore IMO the only way to prove whether they are a guest or not is to prove that they were having mail delivered to the address, and even this is not set in stone. Not neccessarily the easiest thing to prove in court!

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Otherwise you cold go and rent a house and move a load of folk in and charge them rent.............get real!

 

I have seen more then my fair share of such agreements and if you think the above is incorrect then so be it!

 

Also, this is a completely seperate matter - this is subletting, which there CAN be clear rules against. It is not paying rent which causes the, admittedly, grey area.

 

You realise Monty that probably around 90%, if not more, of tenancy agreements issued at the moment have at least one unenforceable term in them? What a tenancy agreement says, and how many you have seen, is almost irrelevant in a lot of situations. The Lawpack and WHSmith tenancy agreements, some of the most popular, come with unenforceable terms in them!!

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like to qualify that comment with some constructive discussion? Or can you not actually legitimately contradict my points, so you have, rather childishly, decided to descend to personal insults?

 

Well, my dad is harder than your dad.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monty and Maurice; we love inapropriate language and personal attacks. It's because we get to be cool and rise above it and the rude, uneducated posters get to look like frustrated loosers, :lol:

Besides, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, neh neh neh :D

Listen carefully: The issue of charges was discussed and the agreement was reached. As for the guests: tenants can have guest. The guests can stay for undefined period of time. The section 21 doesn't have to give grounds, so the tenant cannot actually be evicted because they have guests. Blanket refusal to allow guest would be uneforceable anyway.

Now, play nice or nobody will play with you :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I try to stay out of the private lives of my tenants, I have an example of two situations that could put an obligation on a landlord.

 

1) The house I rent out is a 3 storey house with 4 occupants. If one of them wishes to move their girlfriend in, I would be required to get a license for multiple occupancy (more than 4 people in a three storey house). Even knowing that someone has unofficially moved in can make me liable.

 

2) In another house I know of, the rent is paid directly from the housing benefit (this was arranged by the agent). However, the "single mother" tenant often has her husband around. Could the landlord be liable if it is deemed that the housing benefit should be repaid because the husband was actually living there.

 

Up to now, a blind eye has been turned...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...