Can I get out of my tenancy agreement?

[JeffW]

He has, although if he can prove he has made at least a single payment to Mrs Patel, would that not prove that she had accepted him as a tenant (even if there was no written agreement), meaning that only a court could evict Billy?

 

You would have thought that, as a Mitchell, if there was one thing Billy would know about, it'd be the law, although criminal law is probably more his forte!

 

Jeff

 

I was wondering this myself though hasn't Billy got into arrears of late after losing his job for taking an afternoon off to go fill in housing benefit forms?

[MrShed]

Haha love this question! Yes she would have to go to court though

 

Absolutely correct. Even when you are out of the period of your tenancy agreement in fact.

[JeffW]

Thanks.

 

So what extra rights, if any, does the gobbledegook I quoted earlier give my landlord?

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether that clause was inserted merely to confuse and intimidate, and it seems to be a bit self-contractory, saying in effect: 'The tenant gives the landlord the right to repossess his property in the event of arrears, although he does not give up his statutory right not to have the property repossessed'!

 

Jeff

 

Absolutely correct. Even when you are out of the period of your tenancy agreement in fact.

[FUBARUK]

Course she wouldn't go to court, she wouldn't be that silly....afterall this is the MITCHELLS we're talking about....I wouldn't you'd probably end up at a pig farm in Norfolk.....

[Aequitas]

JeffW said:

She therefore argues that the agreement is null and void, as it was with the previous owner of the flat.

 

The argument is entirely misconceived. A tenancy is a legal estate in land and is therefore good against the world. Mrs Patel bought the flat subject to the tenancy and is bound by its terms even if she did not know it existed - she merely steps into the shoes of Phil Mitchell and has exactly the same rights and oblgations as he had. The status quo is preserved. Of course if the tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy she can serve a S.21 notice or take any other appropriate step if there is a breach of the tenancy terms.

 

So next time the question comes up when you are watching Eastenders with family or friends simply say: "She can't do that! A tenancy is a legal estate in land and is therefore good against the world."

 

What you have is a "forfeiture" or "re-entry" clause. It is a perfectly standard clause found in virtually every written lease or tenancy agreement of whatever type of property and has not been inserted to intimidate you.

 

A forfeiture clause should not be taken at face value. The right to forfeit is hedged round with restrictions protecting tenants whatever the type of property. In particular, a tenancy of residential property where the tenant is in occupation cannot be forfeited without an order of the court.

 

A forfeiture clause is not an unfair term. Without it a landlord of residential property could not legally take back possession in a case where a tenant in arrears had abandoned the property.

[MrShed]

I disagree entirely Aequitas...

[onlynameleft]

I agree entirely with Aequitas. The Housing Act 1988 actually makes specific reference to such clauses when it says that no section 8 notice can be used to determine an AST during the fixed term unless there is a provison for re entry.

Entirely standard in any well drafted agreement but subject of course to the restrictions on re entry governed by section 8/section 21.

[Aequitas]

See S.7 (6) of the Act, which says:

 

(6) The court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house to take effect at a time when it is let on an assured fixed term tenancy unless -

(a) the ground for possession is Ground 2 or Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act or any of the grounds in Part II of that Schedule, other than Ground 9 or Ground 16; and

(b) the terms of the tenancy make provision for it to be brought to an end on the ground in question (whether that provision takes the form of a provision for re-entry, for forfeiture, for determination by notice or otherwise).

[onlynameleft]

The argument is entirely misconceived. A tenancy is a legal estate in land and is therefore good against the world. Mrs Patel bought the flat subject to the tenancy and is bound by its terms even if she did not know it existed - she merely steps into the shoes of Phil Mitchell and has exactly the same rights and oblgations as he had. The status quo is preserved. Of course if the tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy she can serve a S.21 notice or take any other appropriate step if there is a breach of the tenancy terms.

 

So next time the question comes up when you are watching Eastenders with family or friends simply say: "She can't do that! A tenancy is a legal estate in land and is therefore good against the world."

 

I was saying exactly the same thing last night; very sloppy scriptwriting.

 

Billy and Honey should go straight to the Police as Mrs Patel's harassment amounts to criminal conduct.

 

Cam on Phil; sort it aaahhhhttt.

[sequenci]

Interesting as The Scriptwriters usually come to my day job employers for advice in matters like this.

[demon_x_slash]

The buyer would have taken the property with 'sit-in tenants', and the tenancy agreement and all its provisions would hold.

 

Not the first time the BBC muffs it up; just look at Cars, Cops & Bailiffs (not advisable if you have a weak constitution)...

[Aequitas]

I should like to point out that it is just a character that holds misconceived ideas - perhaps another character will put her straight.

[onlynameleft]

I should like to point out that it is just a character that holds misconceived ideas - perhaps another character will put her straight.

 

Are you saying it's not real?

[Ed999]

As to the damage you did to the shower, read this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/117572-unfair-deposit-deductions.html

 

It explains what the law is in relation to damage to the property, caused by the tenant; and it explains what the landlord is entitled to charge for the necessary repairs.

 

 

As to the rent deposit you paid, read this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/tenants/117280-tenancy-deposit-scheme.html

 

It explains how to find out whether your deposit is being held in a statutory scheme, and what you can do if it is not.

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

Aequitas is perfectly correct in everything he has said.

 

The clause in question is a standard clause, written into every tenancy in the land. It is a bit of legal jargon, but it merely means that if you don't pay the rent on time the landlord can evict you.

 

The 1988 Housing Act provides that he must give you written notice before doing so, and must get a court order. In practice, this process takes about 2 months.

 

For more information, read this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/tenants/116385-shorthold-tenancy-posession-eviction.html

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

Landlords frequently try to evict tenants unlawfully, and tenants frequently don't know their legal rights.

 

Television scriptwriters are not lawyers, and anything which occurs in the fiction of a tv show must not be taken seriously as representing the state of English law!

 

In point of fact, a tenancy for a fixed term not exceeding 21 years takes effect as an over-riding interest, and binds the property in question even though it is not registered (nor registerable) at H M Land Registry.

 

A purchaser takes his title to the land subject to all over-riding interests, whether or not he knows about them.

 

It is for him to make suitable enquiries of any occupier; and he is bound by the provisions of any existing tenancy of that nature.

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

[Joa]

It is only a silly, misery-laden soap but I shiver when I think that some people may actually take some storylines on a face value. Honey and Billy's eviction was so totally over-done and a fact that the landlady was of Asian origin was a dangerously stupid detail.

Funnily enough, there is a very serious discussion forum for social security specialist; 19 posts on Janet's Disability Living Allowance and the mess the writers made of it!

OK, so do Eastenders have any public responsibility to at least get this kind of information right or does the artistic license take priority?

 

Personally, I was frothing and spitting like an outraged camel

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

A few points:

 

1.The eviction in this case was not only unlawful but illegal!

 

2.The tenancy was legally binding on Mrs.Patel when she purchased the flat from Phil Mitchell.

 

3.Mrs.Patel could possibly use the Ground 8 for rent arrears to evict but then only with a court order which would normally take her well into the New Year.

 

OR

 

4.Evict using Section 21 governing shortholds providing that the tenancy has come to the tend of the fixed term or to to be issue exactly 2 months prior to expiry.No eviction would be possible if Billy and Honey remained in occupation after the 2 months expire.Mrs.Patel would need an "Accelerated Possession Order" and she would get it provided she served all the correct paperwork.

 

5.Also,Mrs.Patel's nephews used violence to break into the flat and assaulted Billy.

 

6.However,to migitate - Billy was lunging at Mrs.Patel and it

looked like he wanted to attack her.

 

ALSO...

 

7.Billy and Honey would qualify for damages 1000% under the Housing Act 1988 for the unlawful/illegal eviction regardless if they had rent arrears or not.

 

8.If this case reached a criminal court,Mrs.Patel and her nephews would get fined.

 

Personally,I think it is a very bad bit of TV watching BECAUSE...

 

It makes tenants who have no knowledge of their rights think that in reality they have no rights.

 

Also,it makes landlords /landladies who also lack knowledge regarding their rights and responsibilities think that they can behave in such an appalling manner.

 

Anyway,thats my 2p's worth!

[JeffW]

The BBC often do seek expert advice to make their plots as realistic as possible. The risk is therefore that tenants and landlords will assume that they have also done their homework with this plot.

 

Jeff

 

Ed999 said:

Landlords frequently try to evict tenants unlawfully, and tenants frequently don't know their legal rights.

 

Television scriptwriters are not lawyers, and anything which occurs in the fiction of a tv show must not be taken seriously as representing the state of English law!

 

In point of fact, a tenancy for a fixed term not exceeding 21 years takes effect as an over-riding interest, and binds the property in question even though it is not registered (nor registerable) at H M Land Registry.

 

A purchaser takes his title to the land subject to all over-riding interests, whether or not he knows about them.

 

It is for him to make suitable enquiries of any occupier; and he is bound by the provisions of any existing tenancy of that nature.

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

I have a 6 month assured shorthold tenancy agreement. If I leave early, will I be liable for the rent I would have paid had I stayed a full 6 months, or will I just have to pay the cost of finding another tenant (assuming, of course, that my landlord is able to find another tenant during my notice period)?

 

Thanks

 

Jeff

[MrShed]

If they can find another tenant, the latter. If not, the former.

[JeffW]

Thanks.

 

In order to claim money from me, would my landlord need to show that he had made a resonable effort to find another tenant?

 

Jeff

 

If they can find another tenant, the latter. If not, the former.

[MrShed]

Erm....there is some debate on this currently. I still feel that the landlord must attempt to mitigate his losses(in effect, exactly what you are saying). However, there is recent case law that is applicable that would imply that they do not. The safest current course of action is to assume that the landlord has NO obligation to mitigate losses.

[JeffW]

Thanks.

 

If I can argue successfully that the noise coming from the guy who lives upstairs (who is also my landlord's tenant) is interfering with my quiet enjoyment of the property, would a court consider this reasonable grounds for leaving early?

 

The problem is that I cannot prove that there is a problem with noise.

 

Jeff

 

Erm....there is some debate on this currently. I still feel that the landlord must attempt to mitigate his losses(in effect, exactly what you are saying). However, there is recent case law that is applicable that would imply that they do not. The safest current course of action is to assume that the landlord has NO obligation to mitigate losses.

[MrShed]

No, as the landlord is not responsible for this issue. Have you pursued all avenues available, such as contacting environmental health and the landlord regarding the noise issue?

[Aequitas]

Even if the landlord were responsible for the noise this would not be grounds for termination; a tenant's remedy is to sue for breach of covenant. In fact, a tenant can never unilaterally terminate a fixed term tenancy unless the agreement gives him the right to do so.

[JeffW]

I owe my landlord 80 pounds for a breakage. I made an initial payment of 10 pounds today, along with a note explaining that this was all I could afford and promising to make further monthly payments of 10 pounds. My landlord left a note in reply saying that he would not carry out promised repairs until the full 80 pounds was paid.

 

Is this is a breach of contract and, if so, does this remove my obligation to complete the full 6 months of my tenancy agreement before leaving?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

Jeff

 

I rent a flat in a 2 flat house. There is a shared front door to the house, and separate locakable doors for both flats. The other guy who lives in the house, Neil, is in the habit of leaving the front door unlocked when he goes out, as he can't be bothered having to unlock the door when he returns. I have asked Neil if he can stop doing this, for security reasons, but he is a bit of a Neanderthal, and isn't interested in my concerns

 

I don't want to lock Neil out, as I could do without the conflict, but I'm concerned that if the house gets burgled because the front door is left unlocked, then I would be liable for any resulting thefts. If I'm last out, and lock my flat, but not the front door, and there's a break-in, would I be liable for damages?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

Jeff

[MrShed]

No it doesnt - you cannot unilaterally end the contract because of this. Worst comes to worst, you can force the repairs by using your right of offset, and deduct the cost of the repairs from the rent. However, I cannot advise this without the full details of the repairs and situation behind them etc.

 

Quite probably yes.