Legal-minded people: do I have good grounds for a claim against my letting agent/landlord?

[theonlygothinthevillage]

I signed a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy for an unfurnished house last October. I've been a model tenant throughout. My letting agent and landlord have been far from model, however; as a result, for the majority of my time in this house I have felt stressed and unsettled. I'm considering making a claim against the agent and/or landlord, but as funds are tight I don't want to shell out on a consultation with a solicitor, possibly to be told I don't have a case, so want to put it before the collective MN wisdom ...

So, I signed a 12-month AST in October 2013. All was well until March, when I got a call from the letting agent to say that he was giving me 2 months' notice to leave. I was flabbergasted, but started to look for a new house to rent, and went as far as shelling out £350 in letting agency fees.

Meanwhile, I got around to seeking advice from Shelter about whether I really did have to leave, and - long story short - I discovered that I didn't. The agent had served a 'section 21' notice (which basically means that the landlord used to live in the house and wanted it back), but Shelter told me that this notice can't be used to bring a 12-month AST to an end unless the AST has a break clause, which mine doesn't. I emailed the letting agent and told him this. He asked me what my 'proposal' was. I said I'd be happy to move out as planned, but only if the agent/landlord paid all my moving costs, returned my deposit immediately, and paid me the equivalent of 6 months' rent. (The demand for 6 months' rent wasn't pure greed - rather, for reasons I won't bore you with, my job means it is important for me to have a tenancy that starts/ends around October.) The agent said he'd put it to the landlord.

A day or two later I got an email from the landlord (well, the landlady) telling me that I was being 'unfair' for deciding that I 'no longer accepted the notice', and suggesting that I could have a month or two extra in the house, but making no offer to pay my moving costs etc. With reference to the fact that I'd pointed out to the agent that his notice was invalid, she said something like, 'I understand the law is woolly in this area'. This is bollocks: the law is perfectly clear, but reading between the lines, the slimy agent had obviously tried to cover up the fact that he'd ballsed up the AST by blaming the 'woolly law', and also by blaming me for changing my mind on a whim. I didn't take kindly to being called 'unfair' by this stupid, gullible woman, so I sent a polite but very stern reply to her saying that if she wanted me out, she would need to pay my costs.

Shortly afterwards, I got an email from the agent withdrawing the notice, but saying that I wouldn't be able to stay in the house after the 12 month AST expired.

At around this time I also looked up the idiot landlady on Facebook. Partly because I'm nosy, but also partly because I didn't like the fact that this idiot who called me 'unfair' also had keys to the house I share with my children. Much of her FB page was public, and I found a pretty disturbing discussion on there. She had written a status update moaning about not being able to get her house back because the 'stupid women' (sic, there's only one of me!) wouldn't move out. Her meat-head friends, in addition to slagging me off and making comments that clearly indicated that some of these people are able to keep an eye on the house (e.g. they know what car I have, and they'd noticed a particular visitor I'd had that week), offered various delightful solutions to this problem, e.g. one of them offered to get a thuggish friend of hers to come round to the house in a JCB (to do what, God only knows), another offered to bring her dogs to pay me a visit. This seemed to me to be more than idle talk: the JCB meat-head followed up her original offer with another comment saying, 'seriously, let me know if you want someone to go round in a JCB'. I tried to put all this out of my mind, but after talking it over with a couple of people, I reported her to the police. It turned out that these thugs had done nothing illegal, but a police officer went round to the landlady to have a word anyway.

The police incident happened in May. I'm due to move next month when the tenancy expires. I had always intended to recover from the agent the £350 in letting agency fees I spent before I discovered that his notice was invalid, but I'm wondering now whether I have grounds to get more. There is a clause in the AST that says, 'Provided the Tenant shall pay the Rent and perform the agreements on his part already referred to, the Landlord shall permit the Tenant to have quiet enjoyment of the property without interruption by the Landlord or his Agent.' Obviously this has been flouted by the agent and landlord. There is no doubt that I have been a model tenant: the agent gave a glowing reference to my new letting agent confirming this.

Has anyone here been in a similar situation, or does anyone have inside knowledge of such matters? Do I have grounds for a claim? I feel seriously pissed off that I have been paying through to rent this house, and despite fulfilling all my obligations, I have felt stressed for 6 months about this. Any advice very welcome!

I'd certainly try & recoup the £350 from the agent which was only incurred due to their incompetence at serving an incorrect s21, but I'd be surprised if they cough-up. I'm not sure what other money you feel you are entitled to? Yes the agent are idiots for serving wrong notice & no LL shouldn't have had a public discussion like that or tried to move you out with proper notice, but other than being a PITA for you at the time I don't see why you feel you need to be compensated for anything?

I have a feeling a section 21 can be served at any time during a tenancy but it doesn't alter the fact that you were still entitled to stay the full 12 months.

It seems reasonable to be refunded for the fees you have paid out, perhaps a solicitors letter would do the trick.

I would be inclined to just move, put it down experience and enjoy my new home. It all sounds far too stressful.

Ah, you need SpecialSubject. A bloody FONT of knowledge when it comes to this sort of thing!

I don't think you have any recourse for further monies however. Quiet Enjoyment (stat law) is a powerful right and used appropriately supersedes contractual law - ie the AST. I would have reminded the agent and landlord a long tine ago of that, but hey ho, you are a month away from leaving and i would now just ensure that you have all your ducks in a row so that when it comes to departure you have minimal stress. Unfortunately, i envisage you may have a bit of a battle around then and deposit, but SpecialSubject will be a massive help for any probs there.

It doesn't surprise me unfortunately that yet another EA/Landlord doesn't know of their legal obligations towards their tenant. .

you called? (blush....)

it's quite simple - there was a 12 month tenancy with no break, which means you as the tenant cannot be removed before those 12 months UNLESS you breach the tenancy. Even if you did (and nothing in your post remotely suggests it), 'sending the boys round', JCBs etc is unsurprisingly completely illegal. They didn't (fortunately) actually do it, ranting on Facebook is not illegal.

You also could not have left early without the agreement of the landlady, and that was what you agreed to when you signed the tenancy. (this is why many ASTs for a year have a six month break, so if either side isn't happy there is an escape)

A landlord wanting to move back into their house is 'grounds for possession' AT THE END OF THE TENANCY. This means that if the tenant refuses to move out at the end, the court will rule in favour of the landlord. BUT it is not a reason to evict early. Her circumstances may have changed, not your problem.

all perfectly clear and no wooly law at all. As someone so eloquently puts it, bollocks.

you are indeed entitled to live in the place with quiet enjoyment. As I see it you have basically had that less annoying letters. I don't think it would be worth pursuing otherwise. you may want to try a small claims court against the agent, but check first; the comeback may be that a bit of research/advice would have told you that the notice was invalid. I entirely agree that none of this is acceptable at all, but not sure if you'll get anywhere with a claim.

letting agents are unregulated, and our government doesn't seem bothered.

actions:

• not sure if you have to serve notice as the tenancy ends soon, but if there is still a month left then do it in writing. Confirm that you and all your possessions are leaving, that your liability for rent payment ends on the 'x', and that you look forward to confirmation of the checkout date.
• on that date, take photos to confirm you are leaving the property as you found it less wear and tear.
• it is a legal requirement to protect your deposit. You should have had information on this and which scheme holds it. Confirm this now. If they have done it, then to retain any of the deposit they have to raise a dispute with the scheme and prove damage. Familiarise yourself with the process, but if you have done no damage they won't have a leg to stand on.
• if the deposit is not protected, you can sue the landlord for 3 times its value.

wall of text, sorry, but hope it helps. Final thought is that the glowing reference implies the agents have finally done some reading, realised they are wrong and want to smooth the path for you leaving so you may not actually have any trouble. If by any remote chance they belong to ARLA or similar, report them. Once you are out!

Thanks very much for these comments!

The reason I thought I might be entitled to compensation was that the policeman who dealt with the pitbull landlady, and who seemed to know quite a bit about the law in this area, hinted that I would be. Specifically, when I asked him if he thought I could claim the £350 in wasted letting agency fees from the current inept agent, he said, 'yes, and I think the agent would be silly not to pay that because you could claim a lot more'.

Not really relevant to the legal side of things, there are a load of completely cockish things that both the agent and landlords have done which would make stinging them financially very satisfying.