Notice I gave tenants who were in arrears contained errors. Can I still sue for rent?

mjm3346

roundandround wrote: »

But regarding legal action, I don't believe that my ex-tenants will take counter action because they won't want to spend money that they don't have.

I'm still left with that nagging doubt in my mind that given my notice did contain legal errors I might possibly lose my case.

If they won't want to spend money they don't have, what makes you think you will get anything out of them by going to court?

pinkshoes

Do these tenants have any means of paying if you were to sue them? i.e. it's all very well getting a court order against them for £X, but if they have no money, then it could be a very long process getting anything back from them.

roundandround

Well, I'm only guessing that they don't have the money to pay for legal action. I won't know until the court makes a judgement.

At the very least, they could receive a ccj which will have all sorts of consequences for them.

But I believe with all the information that you guys have given me, that my tenants have effectively terminated their tenancy simply by dumping the keys outside, clearing the flat of all their personal belongings and abandoning the property.

I'm definitely going to take legal action.

Fire_Fox

clutton wrote: »

FF - whilst i normally agree with your posts, i must put a different perspective on this one...

There is what the law says - and there is the sensible thing to do.....

i recently repossessed a property (after having gone to court with a successful Section 8 application + many other breaches) the day after the tenant moved out and without the Bailiff attending the property.. I would have had to wait 3 weeks for him to come... during which time the tenant would have trashed the place/ and/or burnt it down..

A few weeks earlier, was the first time i had ever decided to enter a property as an "emergency" as this tenant had left all the electric hobs on in the kitchen and there were severe risks of fire...... The cooker was underneath wooden beams and abutting wooden oak units...... The beams were too hot to touch once we got in.....

The smoke alarm was sitting on the kitchen window sill without a battery...... She had two children who were upstairs in bed as it happened......

Having these experiences of a tenant from hell, no landlord in their right mind would have waited 3 weeks for "due process" during which time neighours safety would have been endangered as well......

As the tenant also owed me a lot of money i decided that she was most unlikely to take action about "early surrender" issues....

Needless to say she has not taken any action...... And my property is intact.....

The difference is you are a professional landlord, and the OP appears to be inexperienced. I was concerned that if the OP manages to locate this tenant and take him to court that it would all come out that the landlord illegally repossessed the property. With a cunning tenant and the wrong magistrate, that could be the point the entire case goes belly up. Given the gravity of illegal eviction (a criminal not a civil offence) it is essential this stumbling block is sidestepped at any early stage. As it transpires it sounds like my fears were misplaced which is excellent news.

N79

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The difference is you are a professional landlord, and the OP appears to be inexperienced. I was concerned that if the OP manages to locate this tenant and take him to court that it would all come out that the landlord illegally repossessed the property. With a cunning tenant and the wrong magistrate, that could be the point the entire case goes belly up. Given the gravity of illegal eviction (a criminal not a civil offence) it is essential this stumbling block is sidestepped at any early stage. As it transpires it sounds like my fears were misplaced which is excellent news.

Being a pedant, the OP's case, if they bring one, would be heard by a county court judge (a lawyer) not a magistrate (a lay person).

Roundandround has basically played this one by the book. It would be an extreme court that would even think that an illegal eviction took place as all the signs point to surrender.

tbs624

N79 wrote: »

Being a pedant, the OP's case, if they bring one, would be heard by a county court judge (a lawyer) not a magistrate (a lay person).

As a fellow sufferer of the curse of pedantry a magistrate may not always be lay: Stipendiary Mags are qualified lawyers (7 yrs min) who are paid , albeit that they were renamed around 10 years ago as District Judge(Mags Court)

I think too that what FF was referring to was an action for illegal eviction which is of course a criminal act, however I agree with you N79 that from the OP's description of events itis unlikely to be an issue here. If in doubt OP get yourself a Fixed Fee interview with a solicitor who has good LL& T law experience., or join the NLA, RLA or LL Law and make use of their helplines. (Tax deductible membership fees and discounts on your LL insurances too)