15:55 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago 74
Text Size
We’re a professional couple with a limited company which provides a technology solution to the NHS. It suits our circumstances to rent at this moment in time.
We had a 4-year rental of a lovely apartment until last Summer, when the owner decided to downsize and move back into the property. It was a good relationship, we had treated the property as if it had been our own investment and we parted as friends – with our deposit paid back in full.
After much searching we found a 3-bed town house which appeared to offer us everything we needed. The letting agent was a member of NAEA/ARLA and appeared to be respectable. There were some agreed remedial works to be dealt with and we were given assurances that these would be attended to in due course. We moved into the property in late August 2012.
Sadly, by the beginning of November, it was apparent that the property had some significant problems. There was extensive water penetration upstairs and a rising damp problem to the ground floor. The letting agent was informed immediately, with photographic evidence and a request for urgent assistance. We moved our furniture from the 3rd bedroom.
A ‘trades-person’ appeared in due course, with a notepad and pencil but with no damp meter. A report was promised, but was not forthcoming. The letting agent promised to send another contractor. This one only worked weekends and couldn’t agree a time to call; that visit never took place.
I called the landlords contractor to arrange the remedial work to be completed – missing doors, exposed wires, etc. He visited early November, measured up, made notes, promised to return – but failed.
We spent the most horrendous Christmas and New Year in the house. There was serious damp penetration, black mould which was constantly being removed. Slugs were climbing the walls. The house was very cold and the more that we heated it – the worse the damp became. We telephoned, wrote, sent photographs, yet the letting agent did nothing; there were plenty of replies – unbelievably stating that they were attempting to do everything as quickly as possible. We initially resigned ourselves to getting out of the house at the end of our AST.
In early-February, I wrote the strongest letter to letting agent with photos. A survey was made by Peter Cox, a pretty damning report which agreed with our complaint – serious damp and rain penetration. I wrote again, asking for compensation and a reduction in rent. This was refused. The letting agent had said that the landlord was absent; it transpired this wasn’t the case.
We tracked the landlord down and demanded a meeting. The landlord appeared, agreed with us in full and said that it was the first he knew of the problem. He agreed that we should be compensated and that this was the letting agents responsibility. Our landlord sat in our home, apologising and promised us both that this would be resolved. He remarked how clean we kept the property. The next day he had changed his mind and said that our grievance was with the letting agent. The following day – the EHO (Environmental Health Officer) inspected. That week, the missing doors and exposed electrics were attended to. We sent 2 requests to the letting agent, for the landlords address – these were refused.
A week later we received a section 21 notice to quit. The landlords address was given as c/o a family member in the South – presumably to thwart a legal action by us.
It turned out that the landlord had known of the problems. He’d applied for a grant for roof insulation, in my name – without my knowledge – and prior to our first meeting. It transpired that the letting agents were not members of ARLA or NAEA and we contacted both organisations and Rightmove to get these false affiliations removed. The letting agent claimed an oversight.
We spoke with our MP who has written to the CEO of the local authority, in order to push the EHO. The EHO wrote to the letting agent and the landlord but there was no response. We then began to receive threats from the letting agent to enter the property to inspect and allow viewings; we made a formal complaint to the Police and this is logged with a fast-track number in the event that they continue. We threatened to change the locks and the letting agent replied that this was not necessary.
We defended the section 21 notice on the grounds of incorrect dates and continued to pay the rent. We were not going to be forced out and subjected to costs or inconvenience due to their incompetence. The weather had improved and the house was drying out for the summer and we would tough it out now – having gone through the worst. We have since redecorated all damp affected walls as it is unnecessary to be reminded every day.
Our MP has pushed for resolution; this has mustered a stronger letter from the EHO. There has been no response other than a second section 21 notice. The dates are once again incorrect. The letting agent has put our deposit into a DPS but did not provide the Deposit Protection Certificate or prescribed information until we requested it after five months of tenancy. The prescribed information appears to be incomplete. I doubt that any s21 is valid until deposit is returned and the landlord might be liable for 3x under the Localism Act? Our claim should also be for a reduction in rent back-dated to 11/2012 and should provide compensation for immense stress and upset – particularly to my wife – for the repeated inconvenience, small damage, etc.
We’ve spoken with experts in Landlord/Tenant issues, they’ve seen our file which is very complete and have passed it onto Barristers to evaluate. We have a strong case apparently, but would incur costs of circa £7k to seek compensation/enforcement of duty to repair; we’ve been told that there is little likelihood of being awarded costs – if successful. That’s an expensive ‘point of principle’ for us.
It seems a dreadful situation. We actually like the house and the worst of the problems could be so easily resolved. We must now consider vacating the property before the bad weather sets in again – to remain longer would weaken any case against the landlord and the letting agent. The landlord is inexperienced and his conduct and concern for our welfare has been quite despicable. The promises that he made to my wife and I were instantly forgotten and we would like to do whatever might be done, so that he is taught the lesson.
Please accept our apologies for the long post, is there anything that we could do, other than what the landlord and letting agent expects – that being to vacate and walk away? I feel that someone needs to make a stand here, to create some solid case law if necessary – to protect others faced with similar problems in the future.
Thanks in advance
Roy and Tania
Previous Article
Prohibitive Covenant restricts occupancy
Joe Bloggs
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:49 AM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Roy and Tania" at "14/08/2013 - 11:39":
hi
youre welcome. im being devils advocate, but:
peter cox are not independent experts as they are a business reliant on obtaining damp remedial work contracts. most of those 30 plus pages will be standard blurb.
EHO's are not building experts and are often very biased against landlords.
a non-condensing tumble drier can cause a lot of mould even if it is in a garage, assuming there is a communicating door.
condensation is often confused with rising and penetrating damp, especially if the ground floors are of concrete.
john cheshire
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:50 AM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by " " at "12/08/2013 - 16:12":
I agree, this is good advice. There is little point continuing to deal with agents and landlords like this. Legal action can backfire, cost a lot of money and take ages.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:00 PM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Roy and Tania" at "14/08/2013 - 11:49":
email winging is way to you both 🙂
.
Joe Bloggs
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:01 PM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "14/08/2013 - 11:42":
hi ben
Grand v Gill clarified the law on plaster. however, most legals always considered that plaster was part of the s.11 definition of structure, e.g. Staves -v- Leeds. however, the damage to plaster must either be a s.11 cause or be very severe for the LL to be responsible.
Roy and Tania
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:10 PM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Joe Bloggs" at "14/08/2013 - 11:49":
yes of course - but there's sufficient detail in those 30+ pages to identify the causes and the salt penetration in the brick etc.
The ground floor is timber on joists which sit on brick dwarf walls. A lot of the joists are damp where they meet the dwarf walls and the floor substrate below is still wet. An upstairs bedroom has not been used as a result of damp penetration through the brick and eaves.
The garage is not accessible directly from the house.
-------
Thanks Mark
Joe Bloggs
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:26 PM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
sounds like condensation is not a significant factor. good luck! may be a leaking pipe under the floor rather than rising damp, but that would also be a LL responsibility.
Roy and Tania
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up22:45 PM, 14th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "14/08/2013 - 11:42":
Many thanks Ben - for calling this evening. Some very useful advice received. Also Giles from NearlyLegal has given us a great #NE contact to follow up with.
Very appreciative of the support - thankyou all. Will update in due course!
Roy and Tanya
andrew townshend
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:45 PM, 18th August 2013, About 11 years ago
while i can understand the view of people saying this landlord and agent needing to be taught a lesson, as tenants, and these people sound like good tenants, why would you want to live in these conditions, if i were in your shoes i would have found better accommodation and vacated, refusing to pay any further rent, and claim the full deposit back, i don't think you would have had any problem in doing this.
Roy and Tania
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up20:23 PM, 18th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "andrew townshend" at "18/08/2013 - 14:45":
unfortunately,if we had taken this approach, we would have found ourselves totally liable for all outstanding rent - regardless of our apparent impotence in getting the situation resolved. We didn't want to live in the conditions which we were subjected to, but the law is quite clear in this.
Jay James
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up20:36 PM, 18th August 2013, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Roy and Tania" at "18/08/2013 - 20:23":
The law is also quite clear that where a contract is broken, the party not breaching the contract is no longer bound by it.
From what you say at the outset of this thread, the LL broke the contract early on in several ways.
Thus you could have exited the situation early on.
If memory serves right, this point has already been made on the thread, albeit less explicitly.