Robert Mellors

Registered with Property118.com
Saturday 26th October 2013


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 872

Robert Mellors

A week ago
No notice, because "it's my house"!

Reply to the comment left by Art at 12/06/2018 - 22:21
You have mentioned somewhere about only owing the landlord 8 days rent arrears, but elsewhere you've mentioned that you stopped paying rent in April, because of the repairs that needed doing. Which is correct? (or how can they both be correct?)

The fact that your tenants/lodgers owed you money is irrelevant to the situation between you and your landlord. What sort of Notice did you serve on your tenants/lodgers?... Read More

Robert Mellors

A week ago
No notice, because "it's my house"!

Reply to the comment left by Art at 12/06/2018 - 22:17
Hi Art

You've said that you had a tenancy, but no written tenancy agreement, just a letter confirming that you rent the property and have permission to sub-let. - As I have not seen these documents, I cannot comment upon them.

You say that the house was in good condition when you started renting it, apart from some flaking paint, but you quickly became aware that the house had damp issues, and in your words was uninhabitable. Certainly by the time the owner regained possession, there were quite a few repairs needed, but I cannot comment as to which repairs you could be held liable for (i.e. that you should pay compensation to your landlord for), or that the landlord could be held liable for. - If you only stayed there occasionally then perhaps some of the damage was caused by your lodgers when you were not there?

You say that you only stayed there occasionally, and stored some possessions there, so presumably you had a home somewhere else, and never really lived at this "uninhabitable" property (i.e. resided their as your "home").

You say that you "sub-let" the property to other people (though you have not said how many), or when you started doing this. You say that you issued these residents with a "lodger agreement". Again we have not seen the agreements so cannot comment on these, other than saying that as you were not living there yourself, i.e. "you only stayed there occasionally", then a lodger agreement was probably not the correct document as you had really sub-let the property and created individual room tenancies (by default, these would have been Assured Shorthold Tenancies, even if the documents purported to be "Lodger Agreements").

By sub-letting the property, you became the landlord to your tenants (what you refer to as "lodgers"), and as such you became liable to them, e.g. for repairs etc, in the same way as your landlord would have been liable to you, if you had actually been residing there.

I accept that your landlord should have followed correct procedures, e.g. protected your deposit, served you with Notice, etc, however, it is my opinion that if you were not actually residing there (as you had a home elsewhere) then there can be no unlawful eviction. Also, if your landlord let the property to you knowing that you were not going to be actually living there yourself, and that you intended to sub-let the property, then this could get into the realms of a commercial/business lease arrangement, in which case the legalities of what the landlord should or should not have done may be entirely different.

If your landlord has taken your possessions and not given you the opportunity to collect them, then there could perhaps be a claim for compensation, however, the video makes it clear that the landlord did ask you to remove your possessions and you refused to do so. You have also stated that some of the possessions left in the house were not yours, they belonged to your "lodgers". Likewise, you are under a legal duty to protect your "lodgers" possessions and give them a reasonable opportunity to collect them from you.... Read More

Robert Mellors

A week ago
No notice, because "it's my house"!

Hi Art

If this was not your only and main residence, but instead you rented the property in order to sub-let it (and store a few of your possessions there), then you are probably in deep sh** as you were a landlord to your tenants (even though you call them lodgers, if you were not living there then they were your tenants, not your lodgers). This means that YOU were probably legally responsible for the conditions in the house. You knowingly let the property when you knew of, or should have known of, the defects (i.e. all the matters that you are complaining about). You sub-let the property (with or without permission) for commercial gain, and you failed to ensure the safety of your tenants. As you say you did not have a proper documented tenancy agreement showing the terms and conditions of the tenancy, then it will be very difficult to evidence who has agreed to what. As you have knowingly taken on the role of "landlord" when you sublet the house (or parts of the house), you have taken on all the legal responsibilities that this entails.

Did you give your tenants proper written tenancy agreements? Did you give them proper written Notice to end their tenancies? Did you protect their deposits in a Government approved deposit protection scheme? Did you ensure that the property you were letting to them was up to the required standard? Did you give them a copy of the "How to Rent" booklet? Did you give them a copy of the gas safety certificate? Did you carry out Right to Rent checks? Did you give them a copy of the EPC?

How many tenants did you have in the house? If more than 3 tenants in two or more households, then it would be a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and a whole load of additional rules and regulations come into force, for example, did you have an EICR for the property? Did you have a mains interlinked fire alarm system? Did you have self-closing fire doors to each room? etc, etc.... Read More

Robert Mellors

2 weeks ago
No notice, because "it's my house"!

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 10/06/2018 - 20:54I also noticed that towards the end of the video clip there was some mention of "the other people have left now" or something to that effect, which would indicate to me that this could perhaps be an unauthorised sub-let, but not enough is said to make it clear whether this was the case or not.

If the property was apparently vacated, and left unsecured, e.g. windows or doors left open by whoever had been living there, then this could affect the whole situation.... Read More

Robert Mellors

2 weeks ago
No notice, because "it's my house"!

It appears that the property had been vacated, as most furniture and possessions had been removed, and there was just the usual bits and pieces that tenants often leave behind. I'm not saying that the landlord had any right to enter or change the locks etc, but if the landlord had good reason to believe that the property was abandoned then it may not be an illegal/unlawful eviction.
In relation to the "damp", there does appear to be some flaking or staining on some of the walls which could perhaps be either penetrating damp or condensation mould, but I also noticed a small tumble dryer in the lounge, and a drying rack, so I would guess that clothes were being dried indoors and this could have caused a lot of condensation (humidity) which then produces mould.
Apart from the things now scattered around the rooms, and the possible black mould on the walls, the house looks like it was originally provided in good condition, but of course the video only shows a small part of the house, and a lick of paint and new carpets could simply have been covering up other problems.
None of this affects the fact that the landlord should have served the appropriate notices, protected the deposit, and ensured that possession was regained in a lawful manner, e.g. with a court order, so of course it will be up to the landlord to explain himself in any court proceedings and the judge to make a ruling based upon the evidence from both parties.... Read More