verbal agreement lodger, left house now being threatened court by landlord

[feduplodger]

Hi I shared a house for a year with a live in landlord.

We made a verbal agreement. I paid one month's deposit.

I agreed to pay share of gas, electricity and cleaner. All other charges to be included in rent.

7 months into rent, landlord asks for back payment of 6 months of council tax.

I disputed this and did not agree to pay it or to change our agreement that it was to be included in the rent.

It turned out he had just had a final demand. He didn't force the issue or ask me to leave but I knew he wanted me to change my mind.

In the beginning of February the boiler went for the second time.

It had not been fixed for three weeks and LL could not give me a date for repair, awaiting parts.

Also the kitchen cooking surfaces were filthy with mouse droppings. No form of pest control had been tried.

After 3 weeks no heat I gave notice, but this was 10 days short of the agreed 1 month notice.

Knowing that my LL was very short of cash and really just living off my rent I didn't think I would be

able to get my deposit back.

I offered landlord all of my deposit to pay for shortfall in notice and outstanding gas bill, we had moved on to electric key by now.

 

He was not interested in this offer. He claims that I owe council tax and a water bill that he only mentioned after I gave notice.

These bills were to be included in my rent according to our verbal agreement. He disputes this.

 

He is also saying that the deposit was now invalidated because he had waited some time for me to move in originally.

At the time he had said I could move in at any time. It was not in any way described a special favour that was covered by my security deposit payment.

 

Also before the period which my last rent ended but after I had taken my possessions from the house but before I had cleaned the room, he asked for the keys back and said I would need permission to enter the property from then on. I gave keys back and haven't been back since.

 

I've explained my position to him but he is not taking it on board and threatening to take me to court. He hasn't served any papers yet.

He says that legally I have to give him my new address. Do I?

 

Do I legally have to pay the gas bill even though I know he won't pay me the deposit back, or is it ok for me to say "take it out of the deposit?"

 

I would appreciate any advice you have for me as I'm feeling very anxious about the situation.

If I could reason with him I would but he is difficult to communicate with and adamant about his position.

One last thing. All the payments I have made to him for rent and bills have gone into an account of his ex-wife.

He uses her bank card to access this money.

 

Many thanks for reading and offering advice.

[totiesquoties]

Hi I shared a house for a year with a live in landlord.

We made a verbal agreement. I paid one month's deposit.

I agreed to pay share of gas, electricity and cleaner. All other charges to be included in rent.

7 months into rent, landlord asks for back payment of 6 months of council tax.

I disputed this and did not agree to pay it or to change our agreement that it was to be included in the rent.

It turned out he had just had a final demand. He didn't force the issue or ask me to leave but I knew he wanted me to change my mind.

In the beginning of February the boiler went for the second time.

It had not been fixed for three weeks and LL could not give me a date for repair, awaiting parts.

Also the kitchen cooking surfaces were filthy with mouse droppings. No form of pest control had been tried.

After 3 weeks no heat I gave notice, but this was 10 days short of the agreed 1 month notice.

Knowing that my LL was very short of cash and really just living off my rent I didn't think I would be

able to get my deposit back.

I offered landlord all of my deposit to pay for shortfall in notice and outstanding gas bill, we had moved on to electric key by now.

 

He was not interested in this offer. He claims that I owe council tax and a water bill that he only mentioned after I gave notice.

These bills were to be included in my rent according to our verbal agreement. He disputes this.

 

He is also saying that the deposit was now invalidated because he had waited some time for me to move in originally.

At the time he had said I could move in at any time. It was not in any way described a special favour that was covered by my security deposit payment.

 

Also before the period which my last rent ended but after I had taken my possessions from the house but before I had cleaned the room, he asked for the keys back and said I would need permission to enter the property from then on. I gave keys back and haven't been back since.

 

I've explained my position to him but he is not taking it on board and threatening to take me to court. He hasn't served any papers yet.

He says that legally I have to give him my new address. Do I?

 

Do I legally have to pay the gas bill even though I know he won't pay me the deposit back, or is it ok for me to say "take it out of the deposit?"

 

I would appreciate any advice you have for me as I'm feeling very anxious about the situation.

If I could reason with him I would but he is difficult to communicate with and adamant about his position.

One last thing. All the payments I have made to him for rent and bills have gone into an account of his ex-wife.

He uses her bank card to access this money.

 

Many thanks for reading and offering advice.

 

 

 

 

Hi feduplodger,

on reading your post, i would say because it was a verbal agreement, you can advise your ex landlord if he went to court he has no case, as this is only "hearsay", as no contract signed by you and him, so comes under "hearsay", if you therefore try and come to some agreed payment both of you would be happy with, otherwise let him take you to court, it is your word against his, and because it was verbal you did not agree in writing to giving him anything and you are not obliged to give him your new address, you should have been given a rent book or some proof of payment recorded and trust you were given this by him, he should also have given you a contract with all its terms and conditions in it, and usually signed by you and him, but since he did not, with everything outlined what you were paying and the amount, this has all fallen apart, this is only my opinion and i am not legally trained, but from what knowledge i have gained, hope this is helpful. totiesquoties.

Edited March 8, 2011 by totiesquoties
CHECKING

[mariner51]

Toties

OP is a lodger, app accepted by his/her screen name. As such most L&T legislation does not apply and OP has few rights.

From your limited knowledge you should realise verbal agreements are legally binding, but harder to prove.

Hearsay is evidence from 3rd party not directly involved, does not apply in this case. Hearsay is often allowed in civil or common law disputes. Even with an AST a rent book is only required for weekly rent payment periods and I do not believe there is a requirement for LL to sign it for each rent payment received. It would be for both sides to prove whether rent was paid & received, maybe by signing a receipt.

As for heating problems etc, the lodger is suffering the same living conditions as the LL/property owner, if these are unacceptable he can easily move out.

The LL/property owner with an adult non-student lodger may be liable for full C Tax. That discussion is between him & Council, but IMO any adult lodger should recognise they could be liable to 25% C Tax if LL would otherwise be entitled to single adult rebate.

Given the LLs app dubious financial arrangements your basic premise to OP is sound

'That is my offer, accept it or se you in Court'

No doubt someone will outline lodgers rights I have overlloked

[MrShed]

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.

[ashmk]

I agree totally with MrShed.

He is calling your bluff.

[totiesquoties]

Toties

OP is a lodger, app accepted by his/her screen name. As such most L&T legislation does not apply and OP has few rights.

From your limited knowledge you should realise verbal agreements are legally binding, but harder to prove.

Hearsay is evidence from 3rd party not directly involved, does not apply in this case. Hearsay is often allowed in civil or common law disputes. Even with an AST a rent book is only required for weekly rent payment periods and I do not believe there is a requirement for LL to sign it for each rent payment received. It would be for both sides to prove whether rent was paid & received, maybe by signing a receipt.

As for heating problems etc, the lodger is suffering the same living conditions as the LL/property owner, if these are unacceptable he can easily move out.

The LL/property owner with an adult non-student lodger may be liable for full C Tax. That discussion is between him & Council, but IMO any adult lodger should recognise they could be liable to 25% C Tax if LL would otherwise be entitled to single adult rebate.

Given the LLs app dubious financial arrangements your basic premise to OP is sound

'That is my offer, accept it or se you in Court'

No doubt someone will outline lodgers rights I have overlloked

 

sorry to disagree, even though verbal is legally binding, can actually mean nothing, anyone can say anything, and also hearsay is not third person only, it can be the claimant and the defendant, hearsay because no contract signed, and verbal, i know this for sure.

[feduplodger]

thank you very much everyone for your contributions

[MrShed]

sorry to disagree, even though verbal is legally binding, can actually mean nothing, anyone can say anything, and also hearsay is not third person only, it can be the claimant and the defendant, hearsay because no contract signed, and verbal, i know this for sure.

 

Thats not true.

[MrShed]

sorry to disagree, even though verbal is legally binding, can actually mean nothing, anyone can say anything, and also hearsay is not third person only, it can be the claimant and the defendant, hearsay because no contract signed, and verbal, i know this for sure.

 

To clarify a little bit more.

 

A verbal agreement is legally binding, and is in fact as legally binding as a written contract.

 

The issue is proving such a contract.

 

As a small claims court claim is done on the balance of the evidence, NOT beyond reasonable doubt, this will ultimately come down to, given the other circumstances surrounding the case, who the judge believes.

 

Hearsay ONLY REFERS TO a third party quoted by one of the litigants. The two parties involved describing their version/understanding of the verbal contract (from the first person) is NOT hearsay.

[totiesquoties]

hi mr. shed,

sorry to disagree,

although a claimant and a defendant, and the judge ruled he did not disbelieve the claimant, it was only hearsay, and the case i know was lost on this precise thing, even though it was verbally legal but no contract was in place, this is a case that actually happened, tq.

[MrShed]

But clearly then the judge DID disbelieve the claimant. Simples.

 

Otherwise, the judge in that case was completely and utterly inept.

 

I can assure you that what you have stated, as a general rule of law is utter rubbish.

 

I realise it isnt gospel but I would suggest you read the Wikipedia article on hearsay.

 

Hearsay IS THAT INFORMATION RELAYED VIA A THIRD PARTY. NOT information given in the first person.

[MrShed]

tq - it is important that you do not take an example of what happened in one case and then make this legally correct for ALL cases.

 

If what you have stated above is 100% accurate, then this is an exception - the judge doesnt even know the basics of law if that happened.

[labrat]

mr shed off topic but

 

either stop using "simples" or change your avatar to a jumping meerkat

 

sorry that adverts really really starting to get on my "seed of a verity of trees"'s

[totiesquoties]

mr shed,

hearsay definition:

INFORMATION HEARD BY ONE PERSON ABOUT ANOTHER, HEARSAY IS GENERALLY INADMISSIABLE AS EVIDENCE, IN A COURT OF LAW BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE REPORTS OF OTHERS RATHER THAN ON THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A WITNESS.

my post was not just an example it happened, and a lot a lot of monies was lost, it was struck out because although the judge said he did not disbelieve the claimant, it was only hearsay, (because there was only a verbal agreement, nothing in writing, the dangers of verbal agreements unfortunately, anyone can say anything.

we are here to try and help others, and i was only pointing out this is what happened, FACT, whether you agree or not.

[mariner51]

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.

There are a number of significant exceptions to the hearsay rule.

England and Wales

 

Main article: Hearsay in English law

In England and Wales, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings[4] but is only admissible in criminal proceedings if it falls within a statutory or a preserved common law exception[5], all of the parties to the proceedings agree, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence is admissible.[6]

Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where a) the relevant person is dead; b) the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition; c) the relevant person is outside the UK and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; d) the relevant person cannot be found; e) through fear, the relevant person does not give oral evidence in the proceedings and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are res gestae and confessions.

 

Either Party to a verbal agreement between them, giving evidence under oath as to its provisions. can only be accused of poor recollection or perjury, it is not hearsay.

Judges can make mistakes or inadvertantly misuse terms. Simples (for labrat)

Toties, if you care to post the case you refer to as a seperate thread, I am sure someone someone wil be happy to comment.

[MrShed]

mr shed,

hearsay definition:

INFORMATION HEARD BY ONE PERSON ABOUT ANOTHER, HEARSAY IS GENERALLY INADMISSIABLE AS EVIDENCE, IN A COURT OF LAW BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE REPORTS OF OTHERS RATHER THAN ON THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A WITNESS.

my post was not just an example it happened, and a lot a lot of monies was lost, it was struck out because although the judge said he did not disbelieve the claimant, it was only hearsay, (because there was only a verbal agreement, nothing in writing, the dangers of verbal agreements unfortunately, anyone can say anything.

we are here to try and help others, and i was only pointing out this is what happened, FACT, whether you agree or not.

 

And as I have said - the judge in that case was wrong. The case should have been appealed if what you are stating happened.

 

Hearsay btw is not inadmissable in English civil courts.

 

Also, your definition of hearsay is incorrect.

 

Simples.

 

[totiesquoties]

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.

There are a number of significant exceptions to the hearsay rule.

England and Wales

 

Main article: Hearsay in English law

In England and Wales, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings[4] but is only admissible in criminal proceedings if it falls within a statutory or a preserved common law exception[5], all of the parties to the proceedings agree, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence is admissible.[6]

Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where a) the relevant person is dead; b) the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition; c) the relevant person is outside the UK and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; d) the relevant person cannot be found; e) through fear, the relevant person does not give oral evidence in the proceedings and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are res gestae and confessions.

 

Either Party to a verbal agreement between them, giving evidence under oath as to its provisions. can only be accused of poor recollection or perjury, it is not hearsay.

Judges can make mistakes or inadvertantly misuse terms. Simples (for labrat)

Toties, if you care to post the case you refer to as a seperate thread, I am sure someone someone wil be happy to comment.

 

 

the case was 1995, as far as i can remember, and am sure the paperwork even said struck out because of hearsay, will have to see if can find paperwork, but this was my claim, and i lost a lot of money because of this being the reason, even though i was believed, and i had a witness attended too.