** for points marked thus, refer to what it says in your agreement with regards to the LL's duty to repair and replace and get back to me.

Then talk to your LL and see whether you can come to an agreement first.

Yes, if you signed a new tenancy then the LL has to use the TDS. They should also have sent you a notice within 14 days of the signing to tell you where and in what scheme your deposit has been placed. As I stated in another thread on this issue, "Where the landlord does not inform the tenant of the whereabouts of the deposit, the tenant can apply to the local courts. The courts can then order the landlord to either repay the deposit or get it protected. If the courts wishes are not carried out within 14 days the landlord will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to the tenant within 10 days". With regards to the inventory, first, did you sign it? and second, if it states nothing about the bannister then you could argue that the bannister is not covered by the inventory, in the unlikely event that the inventory you have stands up in court. I would say that it would be worth liasing with your LL and coming to an arrangement, and then if that doesn't work go to court. It's always best to try and talk things out first. But remember that since the inventory states that the walls and floors are marked and stained, don't stand for her wanting you to pay to redecorate or replace carpets/flooring.

Non-compliance in this case can only be construed if the deposit was paid after 6th April 2007. If you paid it prior to this date then the LL was under no obligation to use a TDS(Tenant Deposit Scheme). If you paid after and the TDS was not used you are entitled to take the LL to court, even after you have left the property. I would first ask you if the LL had a proper inventory done when you moved into the property? Since you state that the house was not in good condition when you moved in, this would mean that any inventory done would have to take this into account at the time, and then be compared to the check out inspection to ascertain what, if any, damage had been done in relation to the original inventory. If there is no inventory - and there has to be a signed one to submit any decent defence against a claim for return of deposit in court - then the LL has no right to withhold any of your deposit, whether you have caused damage or not. Having said this, even if they do have an inventory, unless it is done by an Inventory Clerk, and both check in and check out are as well, there is only a small chance that it would stand up in court.

Continue on to court. From what you've said, he has no right to wothhold your deposit, especially as there was no inventory, therefore no way for him to prove damage. Good luck.

Yes, a motgage company will allow a person to let a property. If they didn't then there would be no buy-to-let. All you can do in this case is to forward the mail to the address you have for your LL.

As you say, it is difficult to find any guidance of this sort, but as a landlord I would say it is fair wear and tear. There is no expectation to remove shoes in either a tenancy agreement or in legislation. I would say that the only way to be sure on an issue like that would be to get a judgement on whether it would be considered "damage" or not. Personally, in your position i would sue for the return of your deposits less any admitted damage.

I'm not sure on what certain ideas are based in the advise given in this thread, but the tenant should, under no circumstances, make out and send to the landlord/agent their own version of an inventory. It is entirely up to the landlord to fulfil this obligation. As I found to my detriment once, any inventory that has not been made by an inventories clerk MAY not stand up in court if the need to defend a claim for withholding the deposit for damage is made. I had an IC do the original inventory in this case, and when it came to checkout, they weren't available for a few days so I did the checkout myself. The comparison didn't match up due to extensive damage done to the bathroom(ie tiles ripped off, glass broken, toilet actually removed!!!)and that the property had not been professionally cleaned as stated it should be in the tenancy agreement. I informed the tenant I would be withholding their deposit unless they paid for the damage. Next thing I know I'm being sued for the return of the deposit. In court the judge asked who had done the inventory report. I told him I'd done it and he asked if how I, as the LL, and someone not experienced in inventories, could give a qualified and impartial report. He then stated that as I could not be regarded as impartial I could not give an impartial report and found in favour of the tenant. Basically, what I'm saying is, If the LL or the agents can't be bothered to do things properly, then why should you do it for them. Besides which, any inventory you make, if you have a problem at the end of the tenancy, would be no good for them in court, so it would be deemed that no inventory existed, thus making this a completely futile exercise. If you really want an inventory done, speak to the LL and let him know that there is no inventory and he really needs to get an IC to do one ASAP.

It's always been my understanding that a new tenancy means that the deposit is rolled over and is not held as a continuance. But I'll check this for definite and get back to you.

I used offence for want of a better word, but mainly because it was the only word I could think of at the time. Bit brain dead this morning. Ran out of coffee. Some interesting points being brought up though.

As above, don't withhold. Pay as much as you can as soon as you can, even if it's in 3 or 4 payments. As for him getting nasty, that is something that only time will tell. But I would say that if he is a decent LL then you won't get that. My former LL from several years back was the same. Never ever spoke to him from one year to the next. And when a problem occurred he understood and was helpful. Believe me, there are actually more GOOD landlords than BAD ones, despite what the number of threads on here may make you think.

Wow. A hugely complex course of events. However, fairly simple at the end of the day, despite the fact it took me three readings to digest it properly. lol As you say, you are technically squatting. And as such they are not obliged to let you stay in the property. However, as they have offered you the property to let then getting you out now could prove vexing for them. I can't believe that the new owners have not asked for rent in any way. It sounds pretty much like the details of the tenancy haven't been fully passed on to the new agents and that any documents were filed and forgotten about, with them coming to light at some clearout or change of filing system. As far as a tenancy agreement goes, they would have to sort out the flat to a good standard and have electrical and gas checks done and any works sorted out before any agreement could be entered into on their part.Since they have never asked you for any rent, nor have you agreed to pay anything to them, then as far as I can see there is nothing stopping you from staying put until they either fix the problems and issue an agreement or have you evicted. It may be that they are dealing with the prospect of having taken on a property that is in need of extensive renovation and are considering whether it is worth doing or selling/leasing to a different agent. Or they could be having problems getting a quote for the work that they are happy with before doing the work itself. Either way, I wouldn't worry myself sick about it, though I would be inclined to make sure you have a contingency plan for somewhere else to go to if they decide to evict. Going back to your original question, since you are not in any contract with them and they have not asked for rent, nor given you an agreement with the section 48 clause in it you are under no obligation to pay any back rent for any period that you have lived there, even once they issue and you sign an agreement. As stated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, without a section 48 notice rent is not lawfully payable. I hope this answers any questions you have had. If you need help at any stage just post here again. And good luck.

This last bit would be my recommandation in a case like this. At least it would mean that you now had 6 months to find somewhere more suitable and with probably an AST leading onto a periodic tenancy, which is better for both parties concerned.

Quite rightly too. If he doesn't address a problem with his tenants then it leaves him wide open to litigation which could end up in him being fined as well. Le us know how you get on.

And whilst this thread may have been created to discuss the moral implications, any legality issues also have a bearing on the subject. I agree with Pin1onu in principle. If the TRO was not in force then the PCN has no weight in law. But if it is then he will be dealt with accordingly. My arguement is about the morality of parking on a clearly marked restriction and trying to find a way out of it after. In my opinion it is just as wrong as trying to wriggle a way out of ANY offence, be it parking or murder. But thankfully, everyong has a right to their own opinion. God help us when that is no longer the case. Pin1onu has raised a lot of valid points, especially the one about it alerting the LA to the fact that a TRO may not be in force.

There's more at stake here than losing deposits Summer. If they break the contract for no reason they will be liable for the remainder of the rent, and the possibility of a CCJ arises if they don't pay. Miggz, Has the landlord specified when the leaks in the roof and the gaps in the walls will be fixed? If there has been a continuous breach of his contractual obligation to repair then we may have a little bargaining power if needed. Talk to him nicely first, and see if you can come to an arrangement. If you can't, come back to me on here and we'll see what your agreement says about his obligation to repair. And compare it to the law. Good luck.

Incidentally, what date in april did you take out your first tenancy? As the start date for the TDS was 6th April 2007. If your deposit was paid after this date they should have used a deposit scheme then.

I am assuming that you have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy? Unfortunately, no, you cannot force them to put you on a periodic tenancy. It is the landlord's right to be allowed to renew the tenancy after the end of a set term. An increase in the rent can be proposed by the landlord once every twelve months by serving a notice of their intention to do so under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. Not sure whether this applies outside a periodic tenancy as I have never renewed a tenant's AST, just let them roll onto a periodic. You can, however, refer the increase to a fair rent board for assessment. They should have put your deposit into a Tenancy Deposit Scheme at the start of the last tenancy renewal in October. And they should then have provided you within 14 days the following: The contact details of the tenancy deposit scheme selected. The landlord's contact details. How to apply for the release of the deposit. Information explaining the purpose of the deposit. What to do if there is a dispute about the deposit. Where the landlord does not inform the tenant of the whereabouts of the deposit, the tenant can apply to the local courts. The courts can then order the landlord to either repay the deposit or get it protected. If the courts wishes are not carried out within 14 days the landlord will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to the tenant within 10 days. Futhermore where the deposit has not been protected the landlord can not evict the tenant using a Section 21. As you have not yet signed the contract you still have the option of moving out at the end of the current one if you can find somewhere to move to. Though this may not be easy. I would not recommend this course of action. You have the option of either signing or not signing the new agreement. Bear in mind the info given regarding the deposit scheme, and that if you don't get the notice within 14 days of the signing of the contracts then apply to the courts to get it repayed or protected. I hate it when landlords don't keep up to speed on current legislation regarding their tenancies, and especially so when it is an agency. You are under no obligation to tell them about the deposit scheme as it is in your favour if they don't do it and you take them to court.

Hi, Sorry but I am unable to comment on the banding situation as I have had little experience in that sector. Regarding the damp in the property however, the HA who own the property are under an obligation to investigate all complaints requiring repair and must respond to the complaint and make good the property within a reasonable time. The complaints and repair procedures should be available from your HA office and will give you their timescale for repairs to be carried out once a complaint has been put in writing. As stated above, if there seems to be no action being taken the best course would be to go through the local authority and complain to them about the lack of care from the HA. No matter who the landlord is, be it private or Housing Association, they have a duty of care towards the tenant and must rectify any faults in the property causing problems within a reasonable timescale.

In this instance I wouldn't recommend trying to break the contract by using a developing mould problem as cause. You may be left liable for the remainder of the contract. If the mould is becoming a problem then you need to contact your landlord and between you ascertain the cause. Mould in a property may not be a fault of the landlord or even a repairable event according to the lease. An exact cause of the mould needs to be found to see who may be responsible for any repair work or cleaning up. The best advice I can give here is that you talk to your landlord and see if there is a way to break the contract that is beneficial to both parties. Some landlords will allow you to break a lease if you can find them another tenant before you move out, thus giving you the option of ending the contract early. Another option may be to find out if you could sub-let the remainder of your lease with a view to the sub-lessee renewing the lease at the end of the current term. If you break the contract you would be liable for the rent for the remainder of the lease. As an after thought, is there a condition in your lease that allows for an early termination?

If you really don't want the cars and she is not prepared to sign the paperwork to accept them, then I would advise just getting rid of them both. If you think that she may move the sorned one onto the road then keep the keys and make sure the doors are locked before you leave if you can't sell it prior to this.

In this case, the seller hasn't actually completed his legal obligation unless the car is roadworthy. As a business seller, ie dealer, he is legally obliged to ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy before he sells it. A car having an MOT is no guarantee that it is roadworthy as, like you said, "it was 5 months since mot a lot can happen". If the car was not roadworthy when it was sold then the dealer has an obligation to repair the defects and make it roadworthy or refund the buyer in full. MOT's are really just an annual check to assess the oradworthiness of a vehicle. If you get stopped by the police and they find on checking that your car has defects that make it unroadworthy you will still get done for it. Saying it has an mot is no defence.

Not 100% sure on this one, but since it is part of the lease and you have to pay it, I would have thought that you would be entitled to a breakdown of the cost of the insurance in your invoice. I would ask your landlord to get his insurers to send you a breakdown of the block policy that shows exactly how the proportion you pay has been worked out.

Add the blue part if you want, but the part I've highlighted in red I would leave out. Never give them too much information. Other than that looks fine. Let's see how they respond.

I would go back to the man from the HA who said you could keep the dogs and get him to reiterate this to the people who are giving you hassle about it. Also make an appointment with them to speak directly to someone in authority about it, rather than speak to someone on the phone who is less likely to be reasonable about it. Be reasonable, and calm, and explain your position regarding the dogs. Didn't think there were any housing associations that didn't allow pets. Must be behind the times. When we lived in a council house as a child we never had to ask permission to have a dog.