Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

If my tenant has negotiated a lower rent because she is a single mum of 2 she should not move in her entire extended family?

344 replies

QuintessentialShadows · 08/06/2008 21:05

She negotiated her rent down, as she was just her and her two kids. Ideal quiet tenant, long term let.

So, a whole gang of people surprised my dh at the house when he went to London to have a final look prior to tenant moving in.

My other neighbour down the road got talking to them ( same ethnicity) and they said they were ALL moving in. Mum and her two children, her husband, her brother, her mum and her dad.... Only mum is named on the contract and the contract stays that nobody else can live there aside from named tenant.

Where do I stand? Can I demand higher rent bearing in mind wear and tear of appliances etc? With three working grown ups living there, surely they can afford it?

OP posts:
Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 11/06/2008 20:37

Hi all, thanks for all your thoughts. I sent the new contract over to the solicitor and will talk to him in the morning.

It turns out the tenant has NOT agreed to put four more adults on the tenancy, but Foxtons has added a clause saying that any person without a licence to reside in the property will invalidate the contract and the landlord can reposess straight away. THey are adding the HUSBAND to the contract as he should reasonably be on it, if they are a family of four. He cannot reasonably be excluded, whereas the parents and brother can.

The tenant is not getting back to the agent...

Fact is, a new contract is needed due to her faffing about with furniture arrangements and changing her mind. The agent is using this to include new clauses. She has to agree to them. I have to agree. If we dont, then who knows.

I know the house is my asset, and should be protected, but it has to be done legally, and she has not yet done anything wrong. Trying to close loopholes so she CANT, and making it easier for us to deal with if she does anyway. If the upshot of this is that she pulls out, sigh of relief and all that.
In any event, it is a longstanding and reputable law firm, with an experienced litigator who is now looking at the contract and can advise/act on my behalf.

It is complicated.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 11/06/2008 20:40

So negotiating a lowered rent when she intended to move in with her husband isn't doing something wrong?

Seriously, QS, I hope your solicitor is the assertive type.

For your sake.

The rent should reflect the fact that she is not entering into the tenancy as a single person with two dependents.

Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 11/06/2008 20:45

Innocent until proven guilty and all that expat. We have no proof that she intends to move all this people in, only hearsay. Gossip if you like. I have taken legal advice on breaking the contract, it WILL mean going to court, and possibly pay her and our legal bill, etc. Because as it stands, it is us breaking the contract if we pull out. Not her. She has not done anything YET.

It is like arresting somebody on the suspicion they may speed and drunk drive tomorrow night, because they told a mate they migth be. You have to let the person DO the crime first. A lot of toss, but there it is.

OP posts:
clam · 11/06/2008 20:46

So, sounds like you have a breathing space before re-committing? Don't sign ANYTHING yet, until you're sure what you want to do. Have no previous info re: Foxtons, but this does all sound a bit dodgy, I must say.....

expatinscotland · 11/06/2008 20:47

But QS, you just wrote that there's an admission that the husband is going to move in, too.

Regardless of the other adults, the husband counts as one.

I hope it works out for you, QS. In other words, I hope she pulls out, because I'd hate to see you get screwed.

clam · 11/06/2008 20:49

And with a husband on the scene, it invalidates her claim to be a single parent needing a rent reduction.

Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 11/06/2008 20:51

But it is word against word.

She told my dh that her husband is not moving in, but her mother will stay with her.
Her family told my neighbour that all of them are moving in. It is simply a question of being believed in court. They may even get a solicitor to run the line that we have fabricated all this for racial reasons, or because we have changed our minds. What transpires in a courtroom is not necessarily the truth. We have to take into consideration what will stick legally. I frankly can not afford paying such legal bills, I was quoted a minimum of 2k for going to court, and that was only MY bills, what if I am liable for hers too, and have to pay damages?

OP posts:
Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 11/06/2008 20:51

Yes Clam, if is mentioned on the tenancy agreement, I shall demand a rent increase before I sign.

OP posts:
Springflower · 11/06/2008 20:53

I've only read some of this but surely for them to take you to court there has to be a contract and I thought nothing had been signed yet?

Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 11/06/2008 20:54

The original contract was signed 15th may

OP posts:
Springflower · 11/06/2008 21:31

Oh, sorry - I guess I should have read it all before posting. Good luck anyway

1dilemma · 11/06/2008 21:42

I think I've missed something how come if she signed a contract on 15th shes not in yet? and you are still negotiating surely she signed for her and dcs to live in your house as is.
If she wants something else it's back to square one

Who said she will go to court? Is there a mechanism to in practice surely she can only go to court at worst if you refuse to let her and dcs in not the whole family.

I rent and never realised we had so much power I mean really how did your agent let it get like this?

She's moving in, you're making adaptions and spending money on legal advice, can you ask to agent to refund you? 'cos they mucked up IMHO

clam · 12/06/2008 08:59

Word against word? I know that this is a potential stumbling block, should a problem arise. BUT, it staggers me that the tenancy agreement states that only the named tenants should reside there (and I'm therefore assuming that this "enjoying" the property that's been mentioned, refers to the in-laws coming round for Sunday lunch?), but what, in reality, is anyone going to do about it if that clause is broken? Who does the burden of proof lie with? It doesn't sound like they're going to believe you, even with a neighbour's word, and the agents' twice-yearly check with 2 days' notice (enough time to remove the evidence) is hopelessly inadequate. So, I would ask again for them to set out exactly the course of action (including what proof would be required and provided by whom) would be taken IF you have real reason to believe you're being conned.

clam · 12/06/2008 09:02

And how on earth can this be a racial reason? I'm assuming you'd have exactly the same concerns if any potential tenant let it be known to neighbours that they were intending to move in a large number of people, contrary to your original spec.

stuffitllama · 12/06/2008 09:11

Is court action likely?

The problem is legal aid: while you have to pay, she may get legal aid if she's on benefit don't even know if it's available for civil suits. But it's not an off-putting factor like it is for you.

Maybe you can request an affadavit as well as putting it in the tenancy agreement. Perhaps all these requirements will give her pause.

Although, as you say, she does seem rather shrewd.

stuffitllama · 12/06/2008 09:12

Calm, I can imagine how the racial issue could be used to make QS look bad, by an unscrupulous lawyer or claimant.

stuffitllama · 12/06/2008 09:13

duh clam sorry

WilyWombat · 12/06/2008 09:25

I assume QS knew exactly what the prospective tenants race was when she made the initial agreement to rent to her...it is only the tenants subsequent actions which have made her think twice about letting so I really dont see how she can play the race card at this stage (but I know that may not stop her!)

Surely if you negotiated a contract, it was signed and then the tenant then admitted even one extra person was moving in she is already in breach of contract...shouldnt that invalidate the contract she signed? Surely she has admitted to the agent that her husband will be moving in and has agreed to add him to the new contract - cant you get a copy of the new contract to run past your solicitor - wouldnt this support your claim that she was being fraudulent?

Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 12/06/2008 10:25

Lots of comments here, I have not the time now to reply individually.

Tomorrow is when she is due to get her key. We dont have a new contract signed, there were errors in the contract the agency sent me yesterday, by default we go back to oldest signed version, I dont know what to do, will call the solicitor now.

OP posts:
whispywhisp · 12/06/2008 10:37

First thing you MUST do QS is make absolutely certain she does NOT get her hands on a key tomorrow. I know its very difficult for you not being in the UK but you can't let her get her hands on a key. It's not as if you live up the road and can go sort out any discrepancies you have with her.

If I were you I would pull out of any agreement you have right now. There is absolutely no way I would allow anyone to live in my property unless I was 110% happy, which you clearly are not. You have so many doubts about this particular family moving into your home. Don't do it.

If they can't be honest and straight with you from the start then, imo, they never will be.

There are bound to be loads of other families who would love to rent your house from you who can be trusted, but not her and her crowd.

Original poster
QuintessentialShadows · 12/06/2008 10:48

I cant do that whispy, I have signed a contract. I am bound by law to house this family. I am going to be liable to both store her furniture and pay her accommodation until something else suitable is found. I will also have to pay her legal bills (unless she is entitled to legal aid), and my legal bills. I may also have to pay her compensation. We are talking thousands and thousands of pounds, in addition to loss of income from the property while this is all going on. If I have no income from the property, I cannot complete on my new mortgage, and I cant get my new house.

The situation is absolutely dreadful.

I wish it was so simple as just not giving her the keys.

At this point in time, after having taken legal advice, it is not an option to withhold keys. All we can do is try make some minor amendmends to the contract to protect my rights a little more, and wait and see if she really moves all these people in and take it from there.

OP posts:
clam · 12/06/2008 10:55

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!! I am SO CROSS on your behalf. WHY is the agreement not void if the goalposts have changed (due to HER lies)? I am .

stuffitllama · 12/06/2008 10:55

QS: am furious for you.

Take the contract Foxtons have drawn up and rewrite it with your requirements in it with the advice of a lawyer and ask her to sign it before giving her the keys. You do not have to pick up the slack of Foxton's failure. You do not need the agents to draw up the contract.

stuffitllama · 12/06/2008 10:57

What I mean is: draw up your own new contract. Bypass Foxton's and get the money back that you have paid for drawing up the contract. I guess you'll be on the phone to your lawyer half the day. He or she needs to fire off a mail copied to a letter to Foxton's straight away.

oranges · 12/06/2008 11:00

wait, wait, wait. Do you have a deposit from her? You don't know yet if she will wreck the place - can you do a scruplous inventory and make it clear you will withold funds for any damage. Does your contract has a 6 month break clause? It may be easiest for you to get her out then and make sure any damage comes out of the deposit.