The charge sounds excessive.  The Office of Fair Trading could probably help with this if the contract is sent to them if you are able to do that.  From what you write it sounds as if the contract may not be valid at all.

I tried to offer help some days ago but it did not work.  I try again.
It is not clear to me if your a tenant or owner of the flat or you have the same landlord or not.  What you describe sounds as if it could be called harrassment contrary to the prevention of harrassment Act 1997 which is a criminal offence that the police can and should do something about if you make a proper complaint.  Iy should not be for you to take a civil action that is just to avoid the police having to do their duty to you as a victim.  I suggest you insist on action.  If that fails try your MP - you are paying for their sevice as well

Try your bank or building society.

Its money for old rope.

The solicitors will be rushing in as well no doubt but it may be worth asking those who insure your property.

I would say £50 is a lot for a bit of sealant but that offer is generous.  The tenants were reckless in spending the landlords money in my view.

I would say not unless there a clause to cover it in your agreement with them.

It would be cheaper to buy a sofa rather than taking legal advice I suggest.  The sofa sounds like it should be dumped.  Ask your local health and safety office to support you with a letter to the agent saying that it is not safe to be used by somebody who is 7 months pregnant.  If something happened to you or your baby there is a potential claim against the landlord I would say.  I agree £850 is a high rent and you should be entitled to better than that. 

Interesting.

Did the tenancy agreement transfer with the sale of the property?

We live and learn.

Where does it state that notice must be in writing?

Surely it would be enough for the tenant to agree that notice was given?

What about a person that cannot read?

This is my third attempt to help you.

I would not expect the judge to be sympathetic to somebody that has defrauded the state and is in fundamental breach of the contract terms.  I would say you have the right to repossess without resorting to court action.  In my view all of the issues you are concerned about are red herrings.  Where is the conflicting advice comming from?

From what you wrote I would say that your tenant has terminated the agreement by her actions and you would have the right to repossess immediately.

I have recently seen a case of a man being evicted from his home with police assistance without any legal procedure at all - no court order.

That was an illegal eviction but the police were convinced by the landlord's agent that the man was not really living there so they had the right to break in and change the locks.

As you are evicting a drug dealer I expect the police would be more than happy to lend a hand.

Sounds right to me

Tenants have rights to have repairs carried out and pay for them out of the rent.

How was it he took six months rent from you?

I do not think that is normal or fair.

You can ask a rent tribunal to look at it but first write to the landlord and ask the questions.

You should ask the landlord

I suggest that you make a claim in the small claims court for the amount charged, which I suppose has been taken from your deposit.  You will have to pay a fee for doing that but the amount can be included in the claim you make.  I doubt the landlord will take the trouble to go to court for £150 so may pay up but you should be aware that I have seen cases in which even awards made by a court have not been paid and then it can be a long stressful and costly business getting what is due.  It may be better to write it off to experience.  Much depends on your tenacity and ability to stay the course.

I am very pleased to report that I have now found some law that answers our questions.  It comes from a Scottish Case in

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

Reference was also made to Paton and Cameron - Landlord and Tenant at pp. 242-3. There was nothing in the 1988 Act to suggest that a tenant under a short assured tenancy was obliged to remain for at least six months. The appeal should be refused.

This confirms the advice that was given to me by an experienced landlord and estate agent that in fact a tenant does have the right to terminate the contract by one months notice at any stage during the term - even within the first six months.

The six months referred to in the agreement is there to protect the rights of the tenants to a secure tenancy of at least six months not to obligate a tenant to live there against their wishes.