Tricks tenants get up to

mlz1413

Clutton, this young woman may well come unstuck in the future, after her new b/f has spent her returned deposit and left her, but burning so many bridges will come back against her.

Can you go back to the people who recommended her and ask if they could speak to her?

socrates

mchale wrote: »

A way I have found round the TDS which may help you:

Deposit required £450

Tenancy duration 12 months,

take no deposit, add £37.50 per month onto the rent, on your AST in the section "extra condtions" add the phrase or similar "upon completion of tenancy provided property is left in a clean & tidy condtion with no outstanding debts, £450 will be refunded upon vacant possesion" hope this helps.

Have taken legal advice on this it would NEVER stand up in court.

However everyone in business is entitled to take their own risks if ultimately they end up paying the price if it all goes wrong.

Unlike our banks that is!

PayDay

tbs624 wrote: »

From a Tenancy deposit scheme adjudication:

"The Adjudicator found the Landlord was entitled to deduct £575.00 for 1 months rent in lieu of notice. The Tenants argument that his liability had ended at the expiry of the fixed term was not sustainable. A statutory periodic tenancy would follow and the tenant liable for 1 month’s rent."

Had a Section 21 been served in the above case?

As Franklee has said, as Clutton had already served a Section 21, then as far as I can see, all the tenant did was overstay Clutton's deadline by a a few days. The tenant complied with the landlords wishes and has left the property.

N79

PayDay wrote: »

Had a Section 21 been served in the above case?

As Franklee has said, as Clutton had already served a Section 21, then as far as I can see, all the tenant did was overstay Clutton's deadline by a a few days. The tenant complied with the landlords wishes and has left the property.

That would be true if T had said nothing. However, T and Clutton had discussed the creation of a periodic tenancy to which T and Clutton agreed and T paid rent (via HB) and kept residency - thus invalidating the S21.

There is a school of thought which says that a LL even offering an additional tenancy invalidates the S21.

Remember that any T who overstays the fixed period of an AST automatically creates a periodic tenancy with all the attendant rights / responsibility, albeit in some cases the LL can initiate possession preceedings immediatly due to the prior service of a S21.

franklee

N79 wrote: »

Franklee - that would be true if the T had left at the end of the notice period. However, the T stayed on past the end of the fixed period (by 10 days) thus creating a periodic tenancy. The LL accepted this. By doing so any S21 issued for the fixed period becomes invalid, hence the T would need to give 1 months notice as per the Housing Act.

The S21 served during the fixed term remains enforceable even once the tenancy goes periodic and the landlord can start court proceedings for possession at any time after the S21 notice period is up. Therefore it makes sense that the tenant is free to go. If the S21 was not still enforceable then the landlord would have no opportunity to apply to court for possession. If the tenant was not free to go you could have the case that the tenant was still working out his notice during and after the court hearing, which would be a nonsense. So the fact that the tenant stayed on for a few days makes no difference, in leaving albeit late, he is still complying with the S21 and saving the landlord the bother of applying to court.

There is an argument that if the landlord enters into negotiation about the tenant remaining or says something like "you can stay if you behave" the tenant can rely on this and claim it invalidates the S21, I have argued this with clutton before and she is adamant that the S21 is still valid. My view is that for a tenant to argue the S21 is invalid and win he would really need some evidence in writing otherwise the best he can do is cause a delay by forcing a hearing and it would be pot luck who was believed, probably the landlord would be believed as he could at least show the S21 was served.

Back to this case, I would say it's much harder for the landlord to argue the S21 is invalid as she will be arguing against her own notice. Therefore if the landlord wanted to withdraw the S21 she would best do it in writing and get the tenant's agreement to this in writing. However it is part of the Sword of Damocles to say to a tenant that they can stay and yet still have the notice look valid should the tenant "go bad". I fear that's the case clutton may be in now given her procedure quoted above. Either way if there is a S21 then getting payment in lieu of notice from the tenant isn't going to be as easy as it first seemed if the tenant cottons on to the S21.

franklee

N79 wrote: »

There is a school of thought which says that a LL even offering an additional tenancy invalidates the S21.

Not quite sure how that matters if it's the landlord withdrawing the S21 rather than the tenant challenging it. For the tenant to be bound to stay in spite of the S21 surely it needs the landlord to offer and the tenant to accept. I'd say that if the landlord is arguing against their own notice then they would need proof of the tenant's acceptance to remain. Otherwise you would have the case where the landlord gives the tenant a written offer to remain just as the removals van is being loaded, that clearly has no effect unless the tenant accepts the offer and unloads the van!!!

EDITED to add, some thoughts about the tenant complying with an invalid S21 in post #29.

We all know what the Sword of Damocles is for, it's to keep tenants living without the right to notice and I'm afraid it cuts both ways as in that case I do not think a landlord can ask for a tenant to provide notice. Serving the S21 is within the landlord's control, not the tenant's, so it is the landlord's own choice to operate this way;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=5815317&postcount=4

The SoD relies on the tenant not being able to prove what was said and agreed as none of it is put in writing. Therefore there is no proof that the notice may be technically invalid. The other side of that coin is the landlord can't prove what was agreed either. Hence my always saying to tenants get any agreements made in writing and to landlords perhaps it's best to only serve the S21 when you mean it! And to everybody, if the "other side" won't put things in writing rely on what they say at your peril.

clutton_2

i am not going to engage in the Swords of Damocles argument, its been done to death, we have different opinions.....


However, when 2 days before the "i am leaving in two days" text - i got a text asking me if she could install SKY - i think i had grounds enough to assume she wanted to be a long term tenant.

Thanks for those who have thanked me for this post, and for the compliments - i am most touched.

In spite of this unhappy experience, i will still house single parent mums, and am taking on another one in this property nextg week.

She is much older, has had a CCJ, but is turning her life around and who deserve an opportunity of a decent home. I have a guarantor for her and yes i will be issuing a Section 21 at the beginning of the tenancy.

i actually feel more sad than anything else, that C. is being manipulated by her boyfriend - and yes i do plan to talk to the mother about his behaviour. She is being made the object of controlling behaviour, and hopefully sooner rather than later she will see him for what he is.

On one level i do not blame C. at all for leaving my property with such short notice - who in their right mind would turn down a home for her 2 6 month old babies for the sake of Contract Law ? If left alone, i think she would have understood my claim on the deposit. i would have explaned to her that under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 i am entitled to claim the deposit if notice requirements are breached. I am not communicating with her now, since the DPS are handling the matter.

The property that was left trashed was inhabited by a Polish family who had lived there for 5 years, and whose only English speaker was their teenage daughter who finally told me that she could no longer deal with rent issues as she was preparing to go to the local University and would be leaving the house to her mum and dad (both of whom speak no english) !!!!!!

Some folks just refuse to help themselves

When the dad lost his job in the summer of 2007, the rent became spasmodic in the extreme. Even tho i had letters tranlated for them into Polish (which legally i dont have to do) and even tho i set up translated interviews for them at Housing Benefit, they simply refused to submit the correct documents to get the claim approved, so benefit was stopped 3 times.

WHen i finally ran out of patience and evicted them, they contacted Environmental Health complaining of damp and all sorts of other stuff.

The court allowed them the right to appeal the possession date 4 weeks AFTER the judge made a decision !!! Even tho i sent a detailed statement to the court, the judge still awarded them another 6 weeks in possession - tell me how that is fair ???

The only reason there was black mould in the house was that they kept a 4 ring gas cooker on full all the time to "heat up the house for the rabbit "!!!!!

you could not make up this stuff !!


Actually - i did let her have the house out of the goodness of my heart - the profit comes a long way down on my list of priorities as to why i house folks.

With regard to mitigating my losses - she left at the end of November and i was unable to let the property due to christmas, in spite of advertising, and by the time i get my new tenant installed next week, i will have had nearly a two month void, which, if i win the deposit, will reduce to one months loss of rent, plus the cleaning costs Satutory Declaration Costs.

franklee

N79 wrote: »

There is a school of thought which says that a LL even offering an additional tenancy invalidates the S21.

Another way of looking at this is to ask what penalties would a tenant face for acting upon an invalid S21?

To take a more clear cut case, say the landlord served a S21 and got the dates wrong, out by a day such that a court would rule the notice invalid. If the tenant acted upon the notice anyway would that matter?

Say having received the S21 the tenant put down a deposit on a new house and booked the removals. Then after that the landlord turns up saying "Sorry mate I made a mess of the dates the notice isn't valid, you had better stay". Can the tenant still leave to the original timescale without serving his own notice?

If the landlord challenged this asking for a months rent in lieu of notice from the tenant I do not think he would win. I do not think the fact that the S21 notice was technically invalid would matter unless the tenant challenges it so in effect the tenant has the choice whether to act upon the invalid S21 notice or challenge it. Can you say why you think a tenant would be penalised for acting on an invalid S21?

franklee

clutton wrote: »

She is much older, has had a CCJ, but is turning her life around and who deserve an opportunity of a decent home. I have a guarantor for her and yes i will be issuing a Section 21 at the beginning of the tenancy.

You want to have tenants living without notice when you want them to leave yet obliged to serve it should they want to leave? No matter how much we disagree on what makes the S21 valid or invalid (which is fine it's reasonable to disagree) surely you can't have it both ways round at once? Surely either both sides are required to serve notice or neither side are

franklee

clutton wrote: »

i am not going to engage in the Swords of Damocles argument, its been done to death, we have different opinions.....


However, when 2 days before the "i am leaving in two days" text - i got a text asking me if she could install SKY - i think i had grounds enough to assume she wanted to be a long term tenant.

I think the question is did she have grounds enough to think that you had withdrawn your S21 notice and also got her agreement to it's withdrawal and can you prove this? Only from what you have said so far it sounds like you didn't discuss the withdrawal of the S21 at all you just discussed her remaining without reference to the S21. She may have forgotten the S21 existed and then someone found or will find it afterwards. Really if you wanted to withdraw the S21 you should have made that very clear but I doubt you did as that shoots the Sword of Damocles in the foot.