Can you sue a tenant for financial loss?

moongarden

nice manners! lol

moneysavinmonkey

slumlandlord wrote: »

3. As a direct result of the tenants actions I can not realize my asset at a time of my choosing.
4. I can therefore demonstrate a financial loss as a result.

Points 3 + 4 do not follow
It is not as a result of being unable to realise your asset at a time of your choosing that you have suffered a financial loss.
It is a result of falling house prices that you are making the loss.
Did the tenant cause falling house prices??
no- so it is not a direct result of their actions.

To show how much of a nonsense it is, think about how you would show how much the tenant should pay. How would you know when the house would of sold of if they had moved out last year? How would you determine the value of the house at this point? How are you going to determine the amount the house has fallen and until what point?? Say a buyer comes along in June and buys the house...are you saying that if the tenant had moved out sooner that this buyer would have started been looking to buy houses two months earlier...in fact your tenants actions had no influence on the buyer... you would have to prove that you had lost a real buyer who would of viewed + bought the house during the period that it would of been marketed.
At this point in time you can not say what your losses would be or even if you would have any relative to selling last year!

You say that the tenancy ended last year but that the tenant stayed on....did you actually issue them with notice, as without this the tenancy automatically rolls over to a periodic one and the tenant has not actually broken their contract with you at all.

silvercar

The end date on the tenancy agreement, along with a correctly served section 21 notice, is stage one of a legal process to gain vacant possession of your property. Your posts suggest that you are under the belief that the end date is the date that your tenants are legally obliged to give you your property back.

slumlandlord

silvercar wrote: »

The end date on the tenancy agreement, along with a correctly served section 21 notice, is stage one of a legal process to gain vacant possession of your property. Your posts suggest that you are under the belief that the end date is the date that your tenants are legally obliged to give you your property back.

Thank you. This is useful. So the starting point for such a claim (if it were valid) would be the point a judge orders the tenant to get out, and any period thereafter that they still refuse the move? Is that the point.

If I understand correctly, I have no right as the owner of the property to expect to have been able to gain control of the property from the end date of the tenancy agreement? I'm shocked, but if you are right, this is very useful to know. Sounds mad, but wouldn't be the first time the law was barking.

As for the other posts, I'm not sure how anyone concludes I expect to hold the tenant accountable for falling property prices, but they are surely accountable for standing in my way of selling the property at a time of my choosing; before property prices fall further. As for whether it would have sold, written offers should suffice as proof, but this is beside the point. I'm not interested in whether I can prove it, but rather, if I can, then is there a case for a precedent?

MissMoneypenny

prudryden wrote: »

Didn't your letting agent issue a Section 21 at the start of the tenancy? Even if they had not, they should have issued one within two months of the end of the tenancy agreement , once you told them that you wanted possession.

That wouldn't be a valid section 21. It can only be served after the deposit has been protected in one of the tenancy deposit schemes.

RainMaker_2

slumlandlord wrote: »

So to restate:
1. I intended to market the property at the end of the tenancy.
2. The tenant should have vacated last year but didn't.
3. As a direct result of the tenants actions I can not realize my asset at a time of my choosing.
4. I can therefore demonstrate a financial loss as a result (big big difference in multiple agents valuation's from the time I intended to sell compared to what I can get now).

You cannot prove 4. unless you can prove 1.

silvercar

I think it comes down to the job description of landlords, for want of a better expression. Of course you want tenants to leave at a date agreed in advance, but if things happen that don't follow expectations there are procedures that you have to follow, laid down in law. As a landlord you have tohave built into your business model that you may need to invoke legal procedures in order to evict tenants. These procedures take time.

If I understand correctly, I have no right as the owner of the property to expect to have been able to gain control of the property from the end date of the tenancy agreement? I'm shocked, but if you are right, this is very useful to know. Sounds mad, but wouldn't be the first time the law was barking.

It sounds mad. But a property is an illiquid asset. It may be your house but it is someone else's home.

Its frustrating when plans go adrift and you have no control over events, but that is something you have to put up with. I suppose if you only wanted the property as a capital asset, the answer would be to keep it empty and forego the rent. But that doesn't make sense from an income point of view or the morality of having empty properties when we have homelessness in the country.

real1314

OP, has the tenant been paying rent since the end of the fixed term?

From what you've said, it would appear that they are still liable to pay rent, so you might do better to include that in the court action. Then if there is damage to the property and you can show evidence of the damage, you can go for the damage as well.

As for loss due to being unable to sell, you didn;t take thr right steps to gain possession, and even if you had, you'd at least need to be able to prove that you could have sold for the price you think (i.e evidence of a firm offer backed by finances to pay it) and even then, I doubt it would work.

Premier_2

slumlandlord wrote: »

...If I understand correctly, I have no right as the owner of the property to expect to have been able to gain control of the property from the end date of the tenancy agreement? I'm shocked, but if you are right, this is very useful to know. Sounds mad, but wouldn't be the first time the law was barking...

I think silvercars wording may have unintentionally misled you.

You do have a right to expect the property to be returned to you at the end of the tenancy (the end of the tenancy being at the end of a lawful notice correctly served)

However, should the tenant not willingly deliver up the property as would be expected, you have to follow the correct legal procedure to gain possession. The fact that you can take legal action is because you have that right to expect possession.

So yes, you have the right to expect to gain control of the property, but you don't have the right to gain control - you may need a court order and a bailiff to ultimately gain control legally.

Does that make more sense?

Procrastinator333

Hello, thought I would chip in!

I have only been taught a fairly minimal level of law, but my understanding was that you can't bring a civil action to claim for an indirect loss.

The example I remember is, say a plane is delayed and you miss a job interview. You can't sue for the lost earnings of the job, only any direct costs such as a hotel and food for the night.

This seems to be the same thing, but I stand ready to be corrected!

Procrastinator