Samuel Okoronkwo Jr. held a consultation with the client and her partner regarding a tenancy dispute at a residential property in Maida Vale. They entered into a new assured shorthold tenancy (AST) in October 2023 for 18 months, following a previous tenancy at the same property. They allege that the landlord sought to exercise a break clause early and pressured them into renewing at a higher rent, shortly after the birth of their child.
In March 2024, they were informed of subsidence issues affecting neighbouring flats and extensive remedial works, including excavation and underpinning, expected to last a year. They claim this information was withheld prior to signing the AST and that, had they known, they would not have entered into the agreement. On the 89th day of the tenancy, they served an ‘unwinding’ notice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and notified the landlord of their intention to vacate and cease rent payments by late April.
The client is concerned about the structural safety of the building and the impact of the works on their child’s wellbeing. They seek to unwind the tenancy on grounds of misleading omission and lack of quiet enjoyment.
Samuel Jr. advised that while there is no clear-cut evidence of aggressive or misleading practices, further documentation, particularly the previous AST and any evidence of pressure to renew, may support their position. He explained that the court would assess the matter on the balance of probabilities and determine whether the tenancy was entered into under unfair circumstances. The next step will be to draft a letter to the landlord or their agent seeking amicable termination.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy