Jump to content


Edd999 observation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4632 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

Recently posted by edd999 elsewhere on Forum

 

"Suurpere v Nice [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) was interesting, in that it concerned a case where - although the tenant had moved out - the landlord had not validly ended the tenancy; so the tenant won, on the simple basis that a claim for three times the deposit can succeed if the tenancy is still in existence at the time of the court hearing, something we already knew from the Court of Appeal cases but which it was surprising to come across in a situation where the tenant has actually moved out.

 

I've been nattering on for months in other threads about the need for a tenant to validly end a tenancy, by giving proper notice, not simply move out and hope the landlord will end it by reletting the premises; and here we now have a case demonstrating that it can actually be to the tenant's advantage to fail to end the tenancy!"

 

A valid point IMO. LL cannot legally end T in such cases without Court repo order at considerable cost, withhout risking unfair eviction claim.

Whilst I accept T can currently vacate T, without Notice, on last day of fixed term and avoid subs rent liability OK.I would suggest that without Ts written 1 month notice to vacate on last day of fixed term, the T should be liable for subs Court repo costd

Discuss

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting case, so thanks Ed and mariner. But it is one in which tenant felt forced out rather than wanting to leave.

 

Well done to the judges/appellants for finding a creative way in which the law could properly be enforced.

 

But it's in the tenants advantage to issue a claim for 3x deposit *before* they leave. The liability to rent that would remain should tenant take a moonlight flit would quickly eat up the advantage of being able to get the 3x penalty after moving out.

 

Last I heard some were looking to change the law to close this loophole: landlord would be given 30 (rather than 14) days to protect deposit after which a penalty of between 1 and 3 times deposit would apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...