Should I just terminate case before PRTB?

Gebbel,

Thats great - thanks for that. It is very interesting to read such a report, especially in relation to term leases which are broken (seems to be a very regualr occurance). It's interesting that the proprtionalised items such as the daft rental & allowed the difference in the rent the old & new tenant paid.

Overall, I think it seems like a pretty fair arrangment. I know you were helping out the tenant & said that you would not withhold a deposit in such a situation, but I think it is fair that the landlord is compensated - the rent was pitched at a level to suit a year long lease. Shorter leases generally have higher rent so as to cover the costs involved in getting a place ready to rent again (cleaning, painting, time & effort etc)

But again, thanks for going to the trouble of posting as it makes ineresting reading.
 
Gebbel - thanks for posting the outcome. My first response crossed-over with your update. The tribunal is one of fact and not law so the facts in the case are very interesting to know. As I noted above "the case will be decided by the story most credible before the tribunal". At least the tenant did not get stung for the repairs to the heater because the landlord did not have credible evidence to support his claim. Equally the tribunal found it more financially just to apportion the majority of the money to the landlord. That is life. Again, thanks for posting the decision, very interesting reading. I guess economically it was not a great case to fight, but in pure black and white terms the Polish person got some (minor) money back and didn’t have to pay out on the cost of heater repairs.

Also interesting is the tribunal’s comment that getting a new tenant 16 days after the 31st October on the 16th November – which was 4 months after the tenant left excluding the 5 week notice period – “is not regarded as an inordinate delay on the part of the Landlord in obtaining a tenant”. Is this unexpected outcome a sign of the market presently? I would imagine that a lot of solicitors etc will be interested in this decision.
 
sam h said:
Gebbel,

Thats great - thanks for that. It is very interesting to read such a report, especially in relation to term leases which are broken (seems to be a very regualr occurance). It's interesting that the proprtionalised items such as the daft rental & allowed the difference in the rent the old & new tenant paid.

Overall, I think it seems like a pretty fair arrangment. I know you were helping out the tenant & said that you would not withhold a deposit in such a situation, but I think it is fair that the landlord is compensated - the rent was pitched at a level to suit a year long lease. Shorter leases generally have higher rent so as to cover the costs involved in getting a place ready to rent again (cleaning, painting, time & effort etc)

But again, thanks for going to the trouble of posting as it makes ineresting reading.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sam,

I have no problem accepting the PRTB's decision. As a tenant for many years myself, I always found that Landlords' refunded us our deposits as long as we gave 1 months notice, irrespective of the term. The Polish guy in this case gave 5 weeks, so there was plenty of time for the Landlord to find a new tenant. We had argued that the Landlord didn't put up the Ad until 1 week before the Tenant vacated..a point rejected by the PRTB as being inconsequential. Therefore 2 weeks elapsed before new tenants arrived and the Tenant was held liable for this. At the end of the day, the breaking of the lease is the key point here and this is where Tenants need to be very careful.
 
The Polish guy in this case gave 5 weeks, so there was plenty of time for the Landlord to find a new tenant. We had argued that the Landlord didn't put up the Ad until 1 week before the Tenant vacated..a point rejected by the PRTB as being inconsequential. Therefore 2 weeks elapsed before new tenants arrived and the Tenant was held liable for this
Click to expand...

As a landlord, I never show a property until the tenants have vacated & I have had a chance to repaint, clean etc. I also don't think it is fair on a tenant to expect them to faciliate viewing.....but in this case, the tenants should probably have suggested it (or even tried to find their own tenant to take over the lease)
 
Gebbel, fair play to you for doing your best on behalf of that tenant, I am disappointed that the PRTB didn't find in his favour, I thought that they would because of the fact that the landlord didn't dispute his notice at the time he gave it, I have properties rented and would never treat anyone like that, what goes around comes around, no use to your polish friend he has suffered but let's hope karma gets that petty landlord and he meets his match!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top