Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi With the Section 21 Notice I do hope the Landlord issued you with: Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the Property How to Rent Guide A current Gas Safety Certificate (if gas in the Property) If above have not been provided to the Tenant by the Landlord then they can't use a Section 21 Notice until the above have been provided (note you don't warn the Landlord of this until but put it in your defence) Have a good read of this link: Evicting tenants in England: Section 21 and Section 8 notices - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Information for landlords in England on tenant eviction: assured shorthold tenancies, including eviction notices, Section 21, Section 8, accelerated possession, possession orders, bailiffs  
    • good idea take some pix and put them in a PDF read UPLOAD dx
    • thread title updated moved to overseas debt forum. sadly as they are outside any UK jurisdiction upon DCA rules which state in the UK they must not call employers, there not alot you can do to stop these scammers. make sure you totally make private ALL social media twitter/facebook/linked in etc etc as there no-way for them to findout where you work otherwise so you must have a leak somewhere. find it. your employer details arent even legally available to UK DCA's so how have they found it out to date???  simply write to the BANK informing them of your correct and current address ALWAYS!!. if you want to arrange payment or not TO THE BANK ONLY thats upto you. never ever ignore a Statutory Demand a Letter Of Claim a Court Claimform. if if if any of those ever happen. till then ignore and rewash. dx    
    • Date of issue –   13 may 2024 AOS date 31st may defence filing date 14th june plenty of lowell card claimform threads here use our enhanced google searchbox Lowell card claimform id be reading at least 5-10 threads a day. do NOT MISS your defence filing whatever happens.  
  • 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

Early release from AST due to unlawful entry and heating issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3894 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

My tenancy (london) began 7 days ago and the day we moved in we raised issues regarding the inadequacy of the heating in the living area/ kitchen. We offered to share the electric bill in case extra heaters would be necessary. It was decided that we would wait for a few more days to see if the flat would heat up to sufficient levels as she advised that it felt cold due to the fact that it had been empty for a number of weeks and would get warmer over the next few days. L also said a release would be possible but that she would check with agent what release terms would be.

 

 

On the 3rd day of the tenancy she entered w/o notice and claimed it was necessary in order to drop off the Inventory. I was in my bath towel and did feel shocked at the time since in my 20 years of living in london nothing like this has ever happened.

 

 

Because of the ongoing heating problem and the way in which she made excuses for her entry and did not acknowledge this as a breach on her part (raising the liklihood that it could happen again since she didn't respect this right) we decided that we wanted to leave the tenancy. After we informed her of this she required that we move out within 24 hours and pay 10% of the 6 months rent upfront that we paid.

 

We packed all our stuff and said that we would move in 24 hours (even though it was her breach) provided the 10% fee was waived. She did not agree so we have not moved out and want to get directions from the county court to approve the early release without any penalty due to landlords breach.

 

Also there is no cold water in the flat - it is the same temperature as the hot water.

 

The L has made it clear that we can not leave w/o her taking a 10% fee (for the agent) but in our view she should pay this.

 

Whats the best way to approach this and is there any ADR service that might be useful here?

 

Or can anyone advise the best way to approach this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunatley you dont really have a leg to stand on, the LL entering on one occasion, while annoying is by no means serve enough in the eyes of the law for you to end your tenancy without penalty.

 

If the heating water is still a problem then your LL is obliged to repair this. Set out the issues in writing and the timescales you would like to resolve them in. Add to the letter than 24 hours prior notice must be given and accepted prior to her entering again.

 

I think the LL stance is reasonable - 10% - as your 'breach' of the tenancy agreement, if you do leave, if far more significant than the LL single entery.

 

I cant help feeling theres something more here - your reaction seems compleltey out of propotion to the LLs 'breach'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant help feeling theres something more here - your reaction seems compleltey out of propotion to the LLs 'breach'?

 

I have been renting on and off for 20 years and have never encountered issues like this- I guess I have been exceptionally lucky or maybe I overlooked them previously...the rent here is 1000pw for a 2 bed and I do feel strongly that basic things like hot and cold water should have been checked at the start by the landlord. If I were to go to every viewing and run the taps in every bathroom before I decided whether that flat was right or not I think agents would quickly tire of it and yet this is what it seems necessary to do to play it safe.

 

Its possible I may have reacted alot to the intrusion but it is quite a frightening experience to hear footsteps in your home when no one but you is there just coming out of the shower and not having heard anyone come in..

 

I read on the forum that I am allowed to change locks provided I change them back at the end of the tenancy.

 

Do you know - can I do this after a single breach already? It would give me alot of peace of mind when Im here alone as the landlady said that she did not regard entering part of the flat as a real entry- meaning (at least to me) that she may do it again if it suited her- especially since now there are linked works/ repairs issues (even though these also require 24 hr notice).

 

 

An engineer came yesterday and fixed this a little by closing the valve of the hot water (pressure was too high so was coming back down) and long term measure is to put a non return valve in. I say a little because the 'cold' taps are now giving lukewarm water which when it is run for more than 5 minutes starts to get hot again... sorry I am now rambling into the detail of the plumbing but maybe it helps towards getting an idea of how serious it remains. Whilst the 'cold' water tap water is no longer scalding it is also by no means cold....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the consensus seems to be I do not have a leg to stand on the next question would be - what about compensation for the condition or lack of these basic needs such as cold water/heating - if they can be independently established as inadequate can we claim to pay a lower rent until they are fixed and also for the intrusion by builders that will inevitably necessary to resolve this?

 

Does anyone have any experience of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ten

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will advise as soon as they are available. In the meantime some great advice here:-

 

Thanks and very glad to have come across such a comprehensive forum since the last place you really want to be is taking matters to court but without any guidance/ discussion that doesnt involve heavy lawyers fees it can end up seeming unavoidable. Looking forward to using this site more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is normal that landlords are given "reasonable" time to fix issues - reasonable depends a bit on the seriousness of the issue. Given that you have had one engineer visit within a few days, that does not sound unreasonable, I suppose.

 

Is it possible that the heating problem is related to the cold/hot water problem?

 

Hopefully, the LL has learnt not to disturb you in future...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Just picking up on the thread here. As a consumer surely you still have the statutory rights of 28 days cancellation of a contract or is it the 14 day cooling off period? You could site the water problem as well as the invasion of privacy in that you were not given 48 Hrs Notice. It's quite simple, no I wouldn't be paying anything, I'd site the above & leave. If any money has been paid over then I'd look in to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Within this act is a section on paying money when threatened, in that this will void the contract. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...