mg = milligrams = x10^-3 ug = micrograms = x10^-6 That makes the article make no sense. 80mg per 100ml in Scotland. 80ug per 100ml in England. You can't possible be within the limit in England and over the limit is Scotland!

So I decided that I had a 2 year old phone, 2 versions behind the current, and could be happy swapping to an older phone that I already had... I followed these instructions. ifixit-guide-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/guide_22167_en.pdf and the phone now works. so hardware issue it definitely was, but since it's now fixed there isn't a huge worry about how I'd have proved that to the phone vendor and had them fix it.

Hello, Yes, I found a thread on Apples support forum, where a person had a good icloud backup, the apple support agent (as they must have paid for after 1 year support) suggested that they reset network settings, and it didn't work, then suggestted that they reset the phone back to factory. when they have reset they cannot connect to wifi and hence cannot restore... (the apple person at this point said that they should just buy a new phone!) I made (and would suggest anyone trying this makes) a backup in Itunes first! I tried resetting my network settings -no change I tried resetting the whole phone (erase contents and settings) to start again. There is still no wifi connection, - in fact during the setup proceedure the phone doesn't even ask if you want to turn on and conenct to wifi (this is usually the third step after selecting language and country) to enable icloud restore. Ordinarily I would agree that it appears to be a software issue (it only occurred for me on the very latest IOS update), -but various sources are suggestting that apple staff are telling people that the update has caused their wifi chip to "burn out" and that they need a new logic board in the phone at a cost of hundreds. other sources are suggesting that the chip may be swapped or simply re-flowed as said above. Also some phones have been experiencing issues since IOS V6, which would suggest that Apple have been making changes to the way in which the wifi module is used for quite a while, and despite their incremental updates and tweaks to the way that it's used keeps apparently breaking phones they continue to tweak things. From what I gather, or am able to surmise, it's like their software updates are turning up the volume of the wifi, they started turning it up a little while ago, and despite complaints [that hardware breaks] are continuing to turn it up. These incremental increases in the operating parameters are breaking peoples handsets in the order of thousands.

My phone has developed a bit of an issue, Basically the situation is that I applied the IOS 7.1.1 update to an Iphone 4s and just like a lot of (though not all) iphone models this update has somehow changed something and caused the WIFI chip/module to "burn out". The update was installed about a month ago, and in that time the phone has become progressively more unusable, freezing, randomly restarting, dropping off of wifi networks, until now it just won't connect. To say it's burned out is probably a bit wrong, as I've found that if I turn off the WIFI for a few days, when I turn it back on, it's available and can even see networks, but only for a few seconds before it decides that it can't find anything. If I try to turn wifi on from the settings menu it's often just greyed out. If I try to turn it on from the quick pull up menu I get a message saying that WIFI is unavailable. It seems to be a reasonably well documented phenomenon with some people saying that a chip needs to be replaced, or re-flowed. (where re-flowing is a process where "basically" the solder attached to the board is reheated and remelted such that it re-establishes a good connection.) basically, what's happened is it seems that the latest update has somehow upped the juice to the chip, or somehow changed it's parameters, what this had the effect of causing was: The corner of the phone where the wifi chip is got hot, (and I assume that the wifi connection was/should have been better). but as things get hot they can expand? and this seems to have caused some kind of issue like dry joints cracking. Long story short, as far as I am able to ascertain, this is a manufacturing issue, either with the chip being underspecified and unable to handle the changed parameters within the update, or the update has uncovered a weakness in the manufacturing process (something similar to how you used to get dry joints in TVs). So that's the problem, does anyone have any idea what the solution is? I bought the phone as an upgrade with a new 18 month contract from O2 in February 2012, so the phone is now 27 months old. Over the course of the contract I've clearly paid for the phone in full, it's mine, I've also left O2 when my contract expired in favour of going to their daughter company Giff Gaff for a cheaper Pay as you go deal. I'm on a limited data plan, so this not having Wifi thing isn't really working all that well for me. It is my opinion that the phone is faulty and obviously has been faulty -though that fault has been hidden from new. Clearly as I'm just outside of the two year window that the European sale of goods act. I believe that (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1677034/Two-year-warranty-EU-law.html) " The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.' As with UK law, a seller is not bound by the guarantee 'if the (fault) has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer'. But the EU rule does not require the buyer to show the fault is inherent in the product and not down to their actions. The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule." Basically, if this had happened in December it's have been nice and easy, I could take the phone back to an o2 shop and say "look it's faulty, and I think that you should replace it...(please)" but as it's over two years old I'd need to ask for a repair under the SOGA? where I may have up to 6 years to claim, although as 6 months have long since elapsed it would be up to me to prove this was a manufacturing defect? Which seems a little crazy to me... (well it's crazy for this situation!) Basically, I don't want a new phone. what I want is my existing phone to be repaired to a state where it is working. the reason it is broken appears to be because of a manufacturing defect, or a substandard part. how would I go about proving this? Can I say, Just do a search on-line there are hundreds, possibly thousands of people with this issue, so many people with this issue that apple actually started removing threads on their forums! Do I need to get the phone inspected? if so how do I get that inspected? where do I go? Is it enough to take it to the apple shop and have them say that "yeah, we've seen this before and it's broken" will the "genius" guys confirm that this is a known issue affecting handsets made with poor quality components? -would they give me this in writing to take to an O2 store? Or would I need to find an engineer to take the phone apart and prove that it is broken in this fashion? -if so what is this likely to cost?? Even if I had a good enough reason, be it just look at the thousands of others who have this issue, the apple genius said this, or said paid engineer said that in this report... what exactly will O2 say? I don't want money off of a new phone, I just want my existing phone to work! will the entertain the idea of fixing this phone? and if I had gotten an engineers report would I be refunded for that? I.e would O2 say, I'm sorry we sold you a defective product, here let us repair it, and here let us reimburse your expense of getting a report to prove to us that it was faulty? Or would I spend hundreds of pounds trying to get o2 to perform a fix that a 3rd party repair shop might do for £60? (Approaching Apple seems to be a crazy idea, other than as a starting point to say is the phone broken yes/no??)

The scheme (at least the Acpo one run by Drivetech) has a two year time restriction. so for example, I was caught speeding in March 2008. I went on a speed awareness course. I was caught speeding in August 2011, I went on a speed awareness course. (as it was more than two years since my last offence I was eligiable for the course. I was caught speeding in January 2012, so I get points on my license. (because it's less than two years since I went on the course) Does that make sense?

the only thing that I'd add and I will pre-face this with saying it's hearsay, and might not be a fact. I'm sure I read somewhere that some insurers don't like helmet cameras, a search of you tube for helmet cam shows that these are mostly used by people who think that they are some kind of racing driver on the public roads. Much the same as insurance companies don't like car drivers having dash mounted stop watches or timing gear. Check your insurance small print, you could find use of some sorts of equipment invalidates your insurance. -and that would make it illegal because using that equipment means that you;re driving without insurance.

it depends doesn't it. what if the original fabric was Italian? what if the fabric was end of line, and the only remaining fabric in the world were in Italy? what if the fabric used was actually second hand or end of line? -so it's not like the landlord even has a new sofa out of this, -that'd avoid claims of betterment also. You're right, IF I were adjudicating this, I wouldn't look favourably upon the landlord... it seems very open/shut... that's not to say it is though. and that's why I've suggested making sure that anything you do is whiter than white, make sure that there isn't anything for anyone to grab hold of... any adjudicator shouldn't be at all bothered about the kind of person that you are or character types, likewise they shouldn't be bothered about the kind of person that the landlord is either. they should be only interested in the black and white. did you cause damage, and what's a fair amount to compensate for that damage. going to court and saying, "he's a bit of a dodgy geezer who tried to keep all the money, so now I don't deserve to have to pay anything/should get everything back" won't be a good argument at all.

that is basically saying that when you cause them to do work, you would pay for it. so if it takes them 2 hours to photocopy and mail out renewal contracts then you'd expect to pay 2x hourly rate. (because you admin fee only covered the ones signed when you moved in.) If you consistently are late with rent payments, causing them to have to send you letters, or causing them to have to do some work, means that the work would be paid for by you, not by the landlord -since it's you that has caused the work to need to be done. What I don't understand though, if that they've agreed that the property has been mismanaged, and they've agreed that you don't need to pay £15 of your rent, because of their shoddy service, why are they now chasing you? do you have this agreement written down? I also don't understand why you think that this hourly charge for work being done with be applied all day everyday to the tune of £600 a day? I read this as a charge for every time they send you a letter, not an hourly fee. I also think that this is in addition to the interest which they want to charge for late payment. so if they send you a letter on monday an amount that is (rent arrears interest) + (letter fee) is added to the amount that you owe them on Tuesday, if they don't send any letters as they are just sitting waiting for a response, the only extra thing that you'd owe then is more interest on the rent arrears. So far as everything else goes, yes, do complain you shouldn't have to live in a place where there is broken windows (not secure) or where water is leaking from light fittings. and they should have arranged to have these fixed promptly. have you had any contact with the landlord, do they know what is going on? if you can, try to talk to them and see what they think about the situation, they will be paying these agents a hefty monthly fee for them to manage the property, and they clearly aren't doing it. getting the landlord involved means that she/he will also pressure the estate agents into getting the work done. as well as you putting pressure onto them. (Can I assume that you have been keeping your deductions from rent in a separate account? so if this plan all goes wrong you can afford to pay immediately?) and have you been keeping a diary/log of the correspondence that you've had with the letting agent?

I might be misunderstanding, but since they are all just the same company under lots of different banners, why did you want to go with one part of a big organisation but not a different part of the same big organisation. You're being taught by the same instructors, in the same sort of cars, in the same area under the same conditions.

That's what I was alluding to earlier, the trouble is that you (OP) already sent emails agreeing to a deduction of £75 agreeing that the damage was done. if/when the landlord brings this proof that you agree that damage has been done, what do you think this will do to your claim for all the money back? what light will you be seen in if you've agreed that you damaged the place/furniture/fittings, yet a little later you're saying that you want all the deposit back? what I'm saying is that the magistrates are just normal people, it's their opinion, and what they believe that they see that is important. I think that this would make me think that you were trying to be a bit dishonest. I don't see a reason that you couldn't write £400 on the claim, and if the judge in your small claims case decided that there is no evidence that the landlord should get to keep any money at all, why they shouldn't award you the full £475, even though this is more than you originally asked for. -Seek some real advice on this though, perhaps go to citizens advice, or phone the court and talk to them. Also, don't forget to ask for costs, (if you do win) it's not cheap going to court, and you shouldn't be out of pocket for that either. I don't think that quotes are irrelevant though, the landlord would have a duty to mitigate costs for the tenant, (it's not his money he's spending) -that doesn't mean using the absolutely cheapest. it does mean that if there was some hoovering to be done the landlord couldn't employ a family member, and claim to have paid them £2000, he also would be on a hiding to nothing even if he produced a receipt for £2000 of cleaning work for (just) the hoovering of carpets. (in a normal sized flat) Without receipts and without doing any work I think that they'd be on a bit of a sticky wicket also, especially if the tenant was contesting the check out assessment. the situation I'm thinking is: inventory says, additional cleaning required. tenant says that no cleaning is required. Landlord agrees that no cleaning is required, but charges anyway. In that case cleaning isn't required, and it's empirically obvious that the landlord agrees that no cleaning was required (because they never had cleaning done) and would be trying to keep the deposit as a windfall, which is exactly what the tenancy deposit schemes are meant to stop. But, there are other situations where it's valid for the landlord to keep money without work being done, where damage has been done, in this case the charge isn't for the direct replacement, but a contribution towards the cost of renewal based on the normal lifetime of an item and how much you have shortened it.

That original inventory is going to be vital to your landlord to show the condition of the property when you moved in. if he can't show the state of the property when he moved in, then he can't really have a claim to keep any of the money. (without an idea of the state of the place when you moved in, how can he prove that you damaged it). I guess that the landlord gave you a typed copy and you amended that copy with hand written notes and gave it back to him. did you keep a copy for yourself? (you want a copy because what if he produces only the un-amended copy?) The emails you have from him saying that the flats in a good condition you need to keep safe. -it'll show how he's changing his story later. the fact that he did the inventory without you doesn't matter, you should have made sure you were available, he obviously wants to turn around the flat as quick as possible, and that doesn't account for your holidays or business trips or whatever. you don't have to be there, there is no requirement for you to be there. as for how much you should claim when taking him to court. the 3x penalty is pointless trying to claim for, you just won't get it, nobody gets it any more, certainly not after they've moved out. if you think that it's reasonable that he had cleaners come in, and you knew that was £75, then claim for the deposit less £75 if you know that the oven needed cleaning too take that off of the deposit too... Be fair. A court won't be impressed by him trying to keep it all, but they similarly aren't likely to be impressed with you saying "yeah, I caused damages but because he's bad I don't want to live up to my responsibilities." no, you saying that there was a throw over the sofa won't help. you can't prove it, it wouldn't stop the sofa getting stained, and you already agreed with his email to spend £75 getting a cleaning company in. if you thought that the stains didn't exist you should have fought that at the time. If I were you I'd go with claiming £400, it shows a willingness to be fair. on the other hand you could be greedy and go for the whole lot, unless he can show that there were dilapidations above and beyond normal wear and tear he'd have a job convincing anyone that you owed anything.

Except he's not at all at risk of that any more. your tenancy started in September 2010 and the inventory from this time is the one that matters, the second inventory is pretty pointless. indeed how could a decent inventory have been performed during a time that you were living there? (how can they see the condition of the furniture (say wardrobe) when it's full of your clothes, etc) If you were to take the guy to court, it's not tremendously likely that you're going to get all your deposit back, after all, you say that there is an original inventory, and that there is damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, (stains from spills etc). what you might do is get some of it back. it's not reasonable for him to say that he's had to send a sofa back to Italy to be re-upholstered in fabric, because that has improved the sofa, from when you moved in, (unless the sofa was new when you moved in). -the landlord has a right to expect that the furniture that he leaves in the house would be looked after, and returned in a similar condition, the only differences being what would be reasonable due to normal wear and tear. who did the original inventory? do you have any photos of your own from when you moved in or when you moved out?

good news and bad news... Good news is, if you were still the tenant you probably could sue for the deposit and the 3x penalty for non-protection, it's only failing for so many people now as when you move out you stop being the tenant. apparantly it still might succeed if you were still the tenant. -the idea is that for it to succeed you'd have to start proceedings when you were the tenant. Bad news is that you're arguing black and blue that you're not the tenant! so you don't want to start an argument that you are the tenant! AND if you were taken to court the landlord could just protect the deposit before it got to court and they might still be OK (for them). But at the end of the day, that money is still yours, if the landlord were to refuse to give it back either to your partner, or his ex, (without a good cause for repair of dilapidations) you could take him to court to get it back... I guess the question is how much the deposit is, and how much you really want it, how much you want to fight for it etc... (I'm not asking, I'm saying you should ask yourself those questions!)

perhaps because their fines are imposed with accordance to the law, and your fines are, well... exactly the same as parking "fines" you're saying you'll be sending them a fine if you come knocking on your door, if they come onto your land, after you have removed their access. it's just like a parking "fine"... if you bring your car to my property... except you say agent where private parking firms say car. which is what makes me pretty sure... Oh, and that. it was that part, that tipped me off, it makes no sense, it's circular... you letter promises juicy fines against the licensing authority just for sending inspectors to knock... it's making a promise to people who chose to send this letter, and it's a promise that is just false, and one that won't stand up... -though I suspect that you'd be long gone before the first person is round here asking how they got into a mess of having paid to bring proceedings against the licensing authority that they failed, and had a rather expensive time of it too. search for posts by a guy named freeman of the land [or something like that]. he also claimed that everything was based on common law... to be honest, that was a completely separate debate, and one that doesn't bear any resemblance to this thread, the only thing that's anywhere close is his grasp of what could and couldn't be done. (legally) like your threat of a fine. if you're not sending it to agents of the crown, then why feel the need to make exceptions for your notice for postmen, who never act on behalf of TV licensing? if your use of a TV is watching videos, then fine, don't pay a license fee. if you just play computer games on it, then fine don't pay a license fee. if you use is as an extended monitor on your computer for watching iplayer, then fine don't pay a license fee. The law only covers the reception of live broadcast, (I it used to be operating equipment capable of receiving live broadcast actually, so unless you've actually removed the ability of your TV to receive broadcast you may still be in the wrong... the TV licensing site appears to have changed the language -but I'd happily be proven wrong on that one) Actually, I said that the letter was crazy, and said that you'd have zero chance of fining them. the principal, is an interesting one. you're telling them you have no TV and you don't want their inspectors turning up all the time harassing you. You're right, it's exactly like saying you only want to be dealt with by letter. What I question, is the pseudo legal language of your letter. claiming rights that just don't exist! Also having just read details of a laws regarding nuisance, and the (what I thought was much more likely to apply) laws regarding harassment, I don't think that either can apply to the situation where an inspector comes to your house to make sure that you are living within the law. (I don't think this is the case any more than you could argue a policeman with a speed camera at the end of your road was harassing you. Someone with a banner decrying either you or the people that you work for could be deemed to be harassing you in this situation, because they are in the vicinity of your property, but a policeman, or other official working within the law?) If they were knocking everyday then you might have something to argue about. As I said, concept: interesting. Text in the letter: baffling/confusing -deliberately so to make it sound more legal than it actually is. promises made in the letter: false, and unenforceable.

I disagree. There is no provision that there has to be a written agreement at all (which is why the ex isn't on the agreement) In all other ways the ex is the tenant and has been treated as such by the estate agents and landlord.

I would imagine that you have as much right to charge a fine as private parking companies do. (have a look in the parking tickets section to see what right that is.) Other than that. That letter is crazy. It's just written in some confusing hoping that confusing means legally binding terms. It's a bunch of bull and will have no effect. Who exactly are you hoping to send it to? The letter implies it's a notice to all agents of the crown... Do I assume you're sending it to the queen? (it's written so badly that it reminds me of the similar common law of the land crud that was being spouted by people a few years ago as some kind of excuse to live in a tent in parliament square. They all ended up in court). It's a choice. You either pay a tv license or you don't recurve live broadcasts. (simple as that.)

read what I said again. I said no fault claims affect the premium. I also said he'll have to declare accidents, fault/non fault for the next 3 - 5 years as well... on the other hand, your son failed to notice them turning left. and failed to give them their right of way. I'm still finding it really hard to understand how your son could have completed his manoeuvre, (like you say). and yet a car that was apparently unable to go into the side road because of the 4x4 which had stopped before the road blocking access to the road to the 3rd party letting your son have way, then after your son is in the road, they pull forward over the junction (your son must be fully in the road at this point else the 4x4 would have hit them..., then the 3rd party is able to go into the side road, and somehow hit your son in the side of his car, after he's completed his manoeuvre? but if he'd completed his manoeuvre, (and was fully in the road) how come the other car could even get to the side of his car? this is why I say... how much do you trust your sons explanation of what happened. was the traffic really stopped, or was it just really slow so he nipped into the junction quick. did the 4x4 stop and signal that he could go, or was the 4x4 sort of rolling forward really slowly sort of trying to move with traffic, but sort of trying to be nice and let someone in front of them? you see what I mean? When it comes to convincing people of what happened, the 3rd party will say, it was my right of way, I started into the road and was cut up by your son. whilst your son has a convoluted story about someone blocking access to the junction, waving him on, moving on after he's completed his manoeuvre, (completed his turn meaning he's fully in the road) then getting hit from the side by the guy who's path he crossed and who did have the right of way. like I say... it's an expensive way forward whatever way you go... you can fight this as much as you like even lay 100% blame on the 3rd party... sons insurance will still increase

Write back. Say that you consider the other party to be 100% liable. You were stationary in the road at the time of the accident (part way through a manoeuvre, and that the raod was clear when you started your manoeuvre) and that you do not believe that the accident was your fault at all. the other driver, was in your opinion distracted from driving by their not properly restrained child in the car, and clearly was not driving with the correct attention as they were unable to stop in time to avoid a stationary object. as you were partway through your manoeuvre the other driver should have stopped and given way. they didn't, they were at fault. That you understand given the circumstances that the insurance company felt that they should have mitigated their losses with regards the potential outcome, but that this was their choice, accepting a settlement without reference to you at all is negligent.

wow... that is a big 'un isn't it. To be honest, most of your answers can be found here and have been discussed over and over and over. the landlord can't evict you inside of the six months. (though can after six). the rent increase can't happen inside of your six month contract either, (has to be at reasonable times). you can however "agree" with the landlord that you'll vacate. (I.e you might both choose to end the AST contract without penalty, for the benefit of the landlord being able to do work, and for the benefit of you, not having a damp wall or living in a builders mess. that is of course assuming that when you say you've signed a 6month fixed term AST and all the other tenants have ASTs that are periodic you mean you all have separate tenancy agreements.

based on what you've said... I would fight it. you were advised wrongly on the phone, it's not "the law" that in a rear damage shunt that it's always their fault. (for example what if the front car reversed into you?) it's not clear cut like that. I'd phone them again and tell them the story again. they should send you a form where you can describe exactly what happened. possibly providing photos, of the damage, of drawn maps of the road. don't write guesses like "the guy was probably frustrated by traffic and so made a snap decision to enter the side road. but do indicate that he was able to turn into the side road via a sort of slip road, and decided not to, before entering at a different place. you should also make it clear that he was able to pull in front of traffic as the traffic was stationary and he was given a right of way by another driver. the question is really... how far do you want to push it? how confident are you that it happened exactly as your son has told you, (Was the traffic really at a standstill,) the description all sounds really measured, if the traffic was that slow or at a complete stop, how come he wasn't able to complete his manoeuvre before someone drove into the side of him. Are you really confident that that's what happened. do you have legal cover on your insurance? do you really want to go to court... Whatever happens, he'll be declaring either a fault, or non fault accident on his renewals for the next few years. both result in premium rises.

ok. I was going on the information posted in the thread that you linked earlier in this thread: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?40369-Question-about-ending-an-AST-where-the-person-isnt-the-tenant/page2 post 18 and post 20 that's the quote in post 20 in order to evict the tenant then they have to occupy the dwelling. according to the estate agents there is only 1 tenant. (emmas boyfriend) and according to Emma, he doesn't live there. (so there are no tenants in the house?) the only people living there is Emmas boyfriends ex, her new partner and a child. and according to the estate agents, none of them are tenants. so they can't be evicted by provisions in the assured tenancy agreement (S21), because they aren't covered by this. (if they had a tenancy agreement then they'd be tenants?) but since they aren't tenants, they surely can't have a tenancy agreement? the only way that they could be evicted by provisions of the tenancy act is if the landlord or letting agent admit that they are tenants. and once the landlord or letting agent have admitted that they are tenants, (and the sole tenants) then that's what emma wants anyway. for them to recognise that her boyfriend is not a tenant there, the only tenant is the boyfriends ex, and they should deal with her, leaving him out of it. I understand that... and that brings us all the way round and back to the question. how do you get HB without proving that you need to pay rent? how do you need to pay rent without being a tenant? the only answer is that she is a tenant, and the letting agent recognised this when they signed the forms. which is why I said in the first post. Go to the letting agent and landlord, tell them just how sticky this situation is. that in all likely hood only a judge can decide who the actual tenant is. (make it clear that a large part of that confusion rests on the letting agents dealings, they knew that she was the only resident, they only deal with her, they signed her housing benefit application) and that an easier way for all that would save a lot of time/costs/arguing would be to change the paperwork into the boyfriends Ex's name releasing Emmas boyfriend from the situation entierly then it's the ex's flat and the ex's problem. if it's a new tenancy then they'll have to wait six months before evicting her, if everyone is agreeable that the tenancy changes names and continues to be the same periodic tenancy, then they just issue s21 when the people actually living there are recognised as tenants.

I've been told by a friend that HSBC do what's called a passport account, it allows you to have a bank account without necessarily having a UK address, or without having to undergo credit scores. you can't have credit from the account, (of course), but that's ok? any bank is better than no bank right? Another option is to get a pay as you go sim from O2, and register it to your address, that way you'll have a utility bill in your name at the address

how does that work with the house being sublet though? and there being no written tenancy agreements in place, even assuming that the deposit was transfer to the new tenant, it's not registered in her name. I mean, if the landlord issues an eviction notice Emmas boyfreind doesn't even live there. he can't be evicted if he doesn't live there? and Emmas boyfriend can't evict his Ex because there is no tenancy agreement, no protected deposit...? I think starting a new AST is going to be the easiest way really. but how do you convince a landlord to start a new AST when it's clear that they want the tenant out of the house anyway? that's what I understood. for the housing benefit to be paid, it had to be paid to a tenant, so the landlord or letting agent, MUST have signed some paperwork somewhere saying that the ex was the tenant. if the HB is paid in full, it also surely must be that they are listed as the only tenant? as Emmas boyfriend is working, so if he were still living there, or if his name/income were anywhere near the HB forms it wouldn't be being paid? Clearly they (letting agent, or Landlord) didn't either not read the documents, or lie on the documents (cause that'd be wrong, and if you were to ask them if they either didn't read them or falsified the documents then they'd tell you that they knew exactly what they were signing -they'd be in trouble with the council if they didn't!), so they must have agreed to make the Ex the tenant. The forms are pretty explicit, I mean they ask for tenant names, not names of people who may be living there. I don't think that there is anyway that the letting agent, (and possibly the landlord) didn't know what was going on, and didn't agree to what was going on. I think that your ex surrendered his tenancy agreement, the letting agent have implicitly accepted that, and they've accepted his ex is the tenant, and even declared as such to the council. look at the document liked by rebel 11 earlier. section 3.6, does the tenancy agreement have to be in writing?. -short answer: No So they can't even claim that the ex isn't the tenant because there is no written tenancy agreement. -because there doesn't have to be a written agreement. Tell them that you don't care what they do. they can evict the ex. but that they must do it in her name, not your boyfriends as she is the tenant, not him. -and must pursue her for any costs

you weren't paying rent until Monday, the house wasn't yours until the Monday. I agree, but how long do you think the over lap should last? 1 day, 2 days, a week 2 weeks. perhaps they expect you to have kept the place so clean that you could move out without the need for a clean and clear? I don't know their reasoning, but... the problem is, they clearly think that you should be able to do the whole move and clean in a day. you know that's not possible, but... trying to argue that you should be provided with two paid for houses at the same time... I think is a lost cause. as far as I know housing benefit can only be paid to you for your residence. you can't have two residences at once. and housing benefit wouldn't allow to have a primary and secondary residence... What I'd suggest that you do is: Forget about the move in dates, as much as it inconvenienced you, the fact that you were allowed to get the keys two days early was for your convenience of not having to go to their office on the Monday, not so you would have the convenience of a free weekend. trying to make a fuss over it is just going cause you stress, not least because all the council will do is point to the bit of paper saying that your moving date it the Monday, and say it's there, written in black and white. The rent payment on the first house, (old house) if you kept the keys for an extra half a week, you should pay for having use of the property for that half a week, housing benefit just won't cover it, because they only pay for A house, not multiple houses for the same person. I don't think that you'd have any luck there. short of just walking off and leaving the place a state I don't understand what they expected of you. The rent over payment on the new place... you should ask for this back and remind them that with-holding a rent over payment would be illegal. If they ask you to settle the rent payment on the last house, say that you're happy to do this, and ask that they contact you after Christmas. as always, not legal advice, just my opinion on the matter.

Tell them that you're living with friends and have no utility bills in your name. it'll mean that your referencing "score" goes right down, and they may end up asking you to provide a guarentor