Can you sue a tenant for financial loss?

silvercar

Premier's words are better than mine. I particularly like this sentence:

you have the right to expect to gain control of the property, but you don't have the right to gain control

Somerset

I'm not a lawyer and think you're onto a loser, but thought I'd throw something into the mix.

Eight years ago I bought some shares. They were held by Lloyds/Tsb nominee service. I transferred the holding to I think Selftrade. They never arrived, each party blamed the other. Lloyds were adament they had been transferred. Eight months later after a mountain of phone calls and letters, it was uncovered that Lloyds had never made the transfer. At approx 6 months into this saga the share price of the holding plummeted. After getting the brush-off from Lloyds I filed a claim with the ombudsman ( can't remember the body now ). Took a long time but eventually got about 60% of my claim accepted. My claim had a parallel to yours - it was - if I had access to those shares at the six month mark I would/could have sold at X, but by Lloyds 'losing' them for eight months I could only sell at Y therefore my 'increased' loss was down to Lloyds's actions (or inactions). The falling market was obviously not of Lloyds making but their incompetence had increased my actual loss.

Differences :
1) You can't 'prove' a value at any particular point in time.
2) LloydsTsb had the money to pay whereas your tenant probably hasn't.

slumlandlord

Seems no matter how much I stress the point, some posters cannot keep on topic. Please, don't keep questioning if it can be "proved" whether I intended to sell the property at the end of the tenancy, or "proved" if it could have been sold and for what price. A court would decide that - I have evidence to demonstrate that I could have sold the house for a price had the tenant moved out at the end of the 12 month tenancy. Now when they eventually get evicted I will get much less, because I was unable to sell the property with the tenant refusing to go.

So really, the only points I'm looking for answers on are, from a legal perspective:
1. I need, for financial reasons, to realize this asset. Did I have a reasonable expectation, in law, to be able to realize my own asset (my house) once the agreed 12 month tenancy had come to an end and I did not wish to renew it?
2. Is there any precedent, or could I bring a case, for the tenant to compensate me for the financial loss I will suffer (when I establish the selling price) as a result of not being able to sell the property at the time of my choosing, i.e. at the end of the planned tenancy?
Forget whether the tenant could pay etc. I'm interested in the legal principle. So just the points 2 above please.

moneysavinmonkey

somerset : good example it helps explain why the landlord case would be a futile...

the main difference between the example you give and the OP's situation is that in your case you were the customer of Lloyds and as such they owed you a duty of care, it is the breach of this duty of care which led to your loss - and you still only got 60%!!

In the OP case the tenant has the right to remain in the property until the landlord has followed through all the correct procedures and they are eventually legally evicted by the court. There is no duty of care to the landlord to leave early. For example, if the tenant is wanting to by rehomed for the council they will be advised not to leave until they are evicted by the court as otherwise they are deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless. Anyone renting out property should be aware of the time it takes to remove tenants. If the landlord wanted to sell earlier he should have ended the tenancy sooner.

Putting asside the damage to the property + non-payment of rent (as these have not contributed to the delay in selling the property and would be dealt with separately) the tenant has not done anything wrong. The OP is going through the eviction process and the tenant is allowed by statue to remain in the property until that process is complete. There has been no breach of contract. If the contract says otherwise those clauses would be invalid as the tenants statutory rights take precedence.

real1314

slumlandlord wrote: »

Seems no matter how much I stress the point, some posters cannot keep on topic. Please, don't keep questioning if it can be "proved" whether I intended to sell the property at the end of the tenancy, or "proved" if it could have been sold and for what price. A court would decide that - I have evidence to demonstrate that I could have sold the house for a price had the tenant moved out at the end of the 12 month tenancy. Now when they eventually get evicted I will get much less, because I was unable to sell the property with the tenant refusing to go.

So really, the only points I'm looking for answers on are, from a legal perspective:
1. I need, for financial reasons, to realize this asset. Did I have a reasonable expectation, in law, to be able to realize my own asset (my house) once the agreed 12 month tenancy had come to an end and I did not wish to renew it?
2. Is there any precedent, or could I bring a case, for the tenant to compensate me for the financial loss I will suffer (when I establish the selling price) as a result of not being able to sell the property at the time of my choosing, i.e. at the end of the planned tenancy?
Forget whether the tenant could pay etc. I'm interested in the legal principle. So just the points 2 above please.

Well,that pretty much ends the thread for me. I'm really sorry that I didn't realise that you were fully aware of all the other surrounding issues, unfortunately my telepathy is off today. Sorry to have wasted your valuable time by trying to give you advice.

Go to a solicitor.

janey_uk

I think this is highly unlikely to succeed for the simple reason that having a tenant does not prevent you from putting the property on the market, or repairing the damage they have done in order to do so.

prudryden

Answer to question 1 is no. If the tenants don't know you want possession, they can assume that you are willing to allow them to stay on a periodic tenancy. You would have had to give notice.

slumlandlord

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

the tenant has not done anything wrong. The OP is going through the eviction process and the tenant is allowed by statue to remain in the property until that process is complete.

OK, not the answer I'd have liked, but it addresses the question exactly and thank you. So clearly I cannot bring a case because I could not, in law, have any expectation of gaining control of my property even at the end of the agreed tenancy period once I decided to let it out.

Real1314. No offence was intended. It's just that I tried to include the key points in my first post, and if I wanted to address all the other issues I'd need to start new threads like "What constitutes proof of..." etc. But there were just two key points I wanted to know the legal position. Thanks for your post.

So, I can't bring a case as I had no legal expectation to have control of the property at the end of an agreed tenancy period. A lesson for all landlords.

Just for information, I think I have been very reasonable with the tenant, tried to establish their position, offered to help with a deposit for alternative place to live, but they just want to stay rent free for as long as possible.

Thanks all. I think that wraps it up.

moneysavinmonkey

slumlandlord wrote: »

Seems no matter how much I stress the point, some posters cannot keep on topic. Please, don't keep questioning if it can be "proved" whether I intended to sell the property at the end of the tenancy, or "proved" if it could have been sold and for what price. A court would decide that - I have evidence to demonstrate that I could have sold the house for a price had the tenant moved out at the end of the 12 month tenancy. Now when they eventually get evicted I will get much less, because I was unable to sell the property with the tenant refusing to go.

So really, the only points I'm looking for answers on are, from a legal perspective:
1. I need, for financial reasons, to realize this asset. Did I have a reasonable expectation, in law, to be able to realize my own asset (my house) once the agreed 12 month tenancy had come to an end and I did not wish to renew it?
2. Is there any precedent, or could I bring a case, for the tenant to compensate me for the financial loss I will suffer (when I establish the selling price) as a result of not being able to sell the property at the time of my choosing, i.e. at the end of the planned tenancy?
Forget whether the tenant could pay etc. I'm interested in the legal principle. So just the points 2 above please.

in case you hadn't noticed this is an internet web forum, and people generally enjoy to have a chat around the topic!! If you want to pay us the going rate for legal advice then we will be much more succinct and to the point!!

however, I will try:

1. no, i don't believe you should reasonably expect to automatically be able to 'realize' your asset immediate at the end of a fixed term. For one fixed terms don't end automatically - they become rollling periodic tenancies unless you give at least 2 months notice that you want to end the tenancy. and secondly the tenant is allowed by law to remain in the property until they are legally evicted - they may exercise this right quite legitimately and without malice for example if they are on a council housing waiting list.

2. no - the tenant did not cause your loss directly, they do not owe you a duty of care to help you make the maximum profit from selling your house, they are simply exercising their statutory rights and have not breached any contract or law.

moongarden

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

in case you hadn't noticed this is an internet web forum, and people generally enjoy to have a chat around the topic!! If you want to pay us the going rate for legal advice then we will be much more succinct and to the point!!

its also very blinkered to think that as a layperson the OP would know exactly which points needed to be answered, as demonstrated by some of the other points raised.
It it tantamount to saying I already know exactly what I need to know except for these 4 things and doesn't allow any respect for pertinent points which the OP had not already wondered about.