Legal Advice: Breaking Letting Contract Early due to welfare concerns

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Right so my lawyer found to the letter that the landlord or managing agent are responsible for knowing who their tenants are and are responsible for their behaviour. Also it is my right to enjoy the property without being disturbed which I am not. This is part of the rules introduced a couple of years ago as mentioned by Wolfie1.

this can only be correct if your landlord is also the landlord of the tenants causing the disturbance
 
  • Like
Reactions: 219
Right so my lawyer found to the letter that the landlord or managing agent are responsible for knowing who their tenants are and are responsible for their behaviour.

I think you'll find that English law isn't as open ended as that.

I think you'll find that the landlord is responsible for taking action to remedy the situation. And it's likely that any specific obligations on the tenant that is causing your problem or recourse agaisnt them by the landlord will also be reflected in your own agreement. So you will in effect have sight of them yourself - so you can judge how effective they may or may not be - and whether there are any time constraints on remedying the situation.

That doesn't preclude the landlord from releasing you from any obligations and allowing early ternination should you make such a request.

Be aware that any advice as to your practical response and strategy as opposed to your actual legal position and any formal legal responsibility may actually be at odds with each other.

An example can be witholding payment - which may actually complicate a legal position - but as a means of forcing a practical solution may be an expedient approach if there is a good chance of it working. The problem with an expedient approach is it may prejudice your position if it fails and things escalate and matters become drawn out.
 
Op,
What was the response to your reasonable initial discussion asking about early termination of the agreement between you two, and what the costs associated with that might be (if any); or,

Has the landlord or letting agent (who don't care and might not have even told the landlord) point blank refused any negotiation or early termination?; or,

Are you just going straight in with legal frighteners from your solicitor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 219
Op,
What was the response to your reasonable initial discussion asking about early termination of the agreement between you two, and what the costs associated with that might be (if any); or,

Has the landlord or letting agent (who don't care and might not have even told the landlord) point blank refused any negotiation or early termination?; or,

Are you just going straight in with legal frighteners from your solicitor?

Landlord is identical, but aparently the other tenants were not brought in with the same managing agent (if any agent at all). Initial conversation was the managing agent insisting he is not in breach and he advised me not to waste my money. It is very obvious they are trying to direct the conversation to they are not at fault. So I am forced to go down the legal route. The lawyer isnt a random one we hired or used formally in other situations. Lets just say the last trial he did for my uncle lasted 10 years for which he didnt ask for a single penny until the end and resulted in taking over properties from the landlord for failing to do repairs on single commercial property.
 
the last trial he did for my uncle lasted 10 years .

Hmmmmm .......

You need to think about what you are doing and what you want to realistically achieve and at what cost (time, effort, disruption, inconvenience).

A good lawyer is one who ensures the client keeps a sense of proportion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 219
The lawyer isnt a random one we hired or used formally in other situations. Lets just say the last trial he did for my uncle lasted 10 years for which he didnt ask for a single penny until the end and resulted in taking over properties from the landlord for failing to do repairs on single commercial property.

sounds too good to be true
 
Initial conversation was the managing agent insisting he is not in breach and he advised me not to waste my money. It is very obvious they are trying to direct the conversation to they are not at fault. So I am forced to go down the legal route.

I think what me and Dryce are trying to get at (apologies Dryce if I'm mis-representing here) is that regardless of who's responsible for what and the strict legal/contractual position, can you not come to some arrangement with the landlord at all to get out early? Surely the landlord doesn't want to keep a tenant who doesn't want to be there if the costs of finding a new tenant are met?

Have you made any offer to cover any of the landlord's potential costs? They might be receptive. The legal route should always be a last resort, and if one party has tried to be eminently reasonable and the other has not, this will likely be taken into any consideration during legal proceedings. Should you need to go that far.
 
Right so my lawyer found to the letter that the landlord or managing agent are responsible for knowing who their tenants are and are responsible for their behaviour. Also it is my right to enjoy the property without being disturbed which I am not. This is part of the rules introduced a couple of years ago as mentioned by Wolfie1.
Until a criminal offence has been committed there is not a lot you can do. It may be advisable to take notes/dates of all occurrences you consider "disturbing behaviours" for reference should you decide any criminal offence has taken place. There is government advice available here on how to resolve neighbour disputes and plenty of websites offering legal opinion such as here regarding the responsibility of landlords and tenant behaviour.
 
Right so my lawyer found to the letter that the landlord or managing agent are responsible for knowing who their tenants are and are responsible for their behaviour. Also it is my right to enjoy the property without being disturbed which I am not. This is part of the rules introduced a couple of years ago as mentioned by Wolfie1.
The operative word is ‘THEIR’ : they cannot be responsible for the behaviour of occupants of properties they do not own .

Even with tenants of other properties owned by them , they can only ask tenants to behave ; the process of eviction is a lengthy one , and while it goes on , as long as they are following the process , you have no further redress against them .
 
Landlord is identical, but aparently the other tenants were not brought in with the same managing agent (if any agent at all). Initial conversation was the managing agent insisting he is not in breach and he advised me not to waste my money. It is very obvious they are trying to direct the conversation to they are not at fault. So I am forced to go down the legal route. The lawyer isnt a random one we hired or used formally in other situations. Lets just say the last trial he did for my uncle lasted 10 years for which he didnt ask for a single penny until the end and resulted in taking over properties from the landlord for failing to do repairs on single commercial property.
So , are you prepared for a dispute that drags on for years ?
 
What I'm wondering is what we're trying to achieve.

OP has a lawyer, one that works FOC due to family relations.
OP appears to have the situation under control thanks to lawyer.

The thread seems a bit academic since the realisation of a lawyer's involvement, ultimately OP will follow their advice (unless he's willing to go against the lawyers advice based on what forum members have said) in which case it begs why even have a lawyer involved.

Goodluck op.
 
So , are you prepared for a dispute that drags on for years ?

I most cases where a solicitor is involved by one of the parties, it is done in the hope that this will help achieve a quick resolution.

By instructing a solicitor you are signaling to the other party that you are taking the issue seriously, and that you will be fully aware of your legal rights regarding the matter at hand.

This in itself will usually help in getting the other party to focus on the issue and try and reach a quick and amicable resolution.

Obviously, it doesn't always quite work out this way, and you may end up having to decide whether you continue and pursue the matter, potentially for months and years, give-up and compromise (or quit).

But, again, when instructing a solicitor, the intention is usually to try and speed-up the response from the other party, and not to engage in lengthy litigation.
 
I most cases where a solicitor is involved by one of the parties, it is done in the hope that this will help achieve a quick resolution.

By instructing a solicitor you are signaling to the other party that you are taking the issue seriously, and that you will be fully aware of your legal rights regarding the matter at hand.

This in itself will usually help in getting the other party to focus on the issue and try and reach a quick and amicable resolution.

Obviously, it doesn't always quite work out this way, and you may end up having to decide whether you continue and pursue the matter, potentially for months and years, give-up and compromise (or quit).

But, again, when instructing a solicitor, the intention is usually to try and speed-up the response from the other party, and not to engage in lengthy litigation.
In most cases , yes .

But in this case , where the OP says the last time his uncle used this solicitor the litigation dragged on for 10 years , it seems at odds with the stated aim of getting out of the situation as soon as possible.
 
As I understand it the landlord has a duty of care in respect of his tenants, so he is responsible

That sounds like a crock. The landlord is not going to be responsible for who moves in next door. If there's anti social behavior, report it to the police or the council.
 
I guess in the USA the police will just arrive and shoot the guy dead, problem solved
 
As a partly experienced landlord. It is not the landlords duty to ensure neighbours are perfect but, it is in their best interest to ensure they have good reliable tenants.

A landlord can evict tenants with proof of anti social behaviour but, that is a process in itself.

By not paying rent, you are in breach of your tenancy and I would advise against as if the landlord has any experience, this will backfire on you.
Be amicable and explain the situation. I would guess you’ll find most landlords will terminate an agreement early pending, they can fullfill said property before you stop paying.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom