Eviction advice needed

Jowo_2

HeatherH wrote: »

I've been corrected and apparently the tenancy started late 1997

I hope the landlord has proof - I've come across threads where the tenant and landlord dispute the start of the tenancy, with the tenant claiming they moved in much earlier and are a secure (regulated) tenant and the landlord claiming that they moved in after the introduction of ASTs which removed tenants security of tenure. From memory, the landlord often struggles to prove the start date of the tenancy.

If your father doesn't have the appetite to go through the notice/eviction process themselves (if they are certain that the tenant doesn't have security of tenure) then look into something like 'Landlord Action' that have fixed price fees.

It would probably help the landlord's case if he could get written notice from the original tenant, perhaps coaxing it out of her by offering to write off any actual arrears she may have accrued before the landlord accepted her notice. However, take expert advice on this first.

HeatherH

Ok, bit of an update...

Have spoken to my dad (landlord) and things do differ to what I knew, ok...

The original tenant is in the process of giving her written notice, she's happy to leave. Her ex (that I thought was the religious nut) moved out years ago, so he's no longer an issue.

The person still living there (who is the religious nut) has only been there since April this year. Neither the to be ex tenant or the landlord had given him permission to stay permanently.

He is still saying that he has a religious right to stay at the premises, he has hinted about wanting to become a tenant, but the landlord doesn't want this, and I know that even if he gets housing benefit, it wouldn't cover the rent for a 3-bedroom house. On light of this new information, how can we proceed, my dad just wants rid of the tenant and to take back the property. Does it still need eviction letters, or just a call to the police and bailiffs?

Thanks

Jowo_2

Make sure your dad doesn't accept rent from him otherwise he could inadvertently create a tenancy.

Frankly, I don't know how this works but I do know that the police aren't interested in civil disputes between landlords and their tenants which they see as a matter for the civil courts - courts are required even if there are squatters (not that this is applicable if the original tenant let him stay).

Perhaps you ought to post a short concise summary of this on the Landlordzone rental forum as some of their members are housing solicitors.

HeatherH

Thanks Jowo, the updates been put on Landlord zone, but the general consensus on there is that it's the current tenant (who's about to leave) problem and that she should get a police escort to remove him, but that goes against the whole police trying to avoid civil disputes. Just confused now.

Jowo_2

I'm confused - I thought the original tenant had already left and the religious guy, a friend of the former household, remained there on his own?

it's true that the Police are normally indifferent to helping out in tenancy related disputes. However, a lodger or guest of an actual occupant has next to no rights to remain in a property if asked to leave by their host - their status in law is similar to that of being a guest, they have no rights to occupy. The police may intervene if it's a simple case that there is a guest who has overstayed their welcome if asked by the actual occupant who has the right to live their (i.e. owner or tenant).

but i'm confused about who is there.

HeatherH

The original tenant is no longer residing there and is in the process of giving notice. The only person in the landlords property is the religious nut, and apparently the original tenant is scared of this person and is unlikely to be able to help in the removal of him.

N79

Given that your T has already left I would forget the notice - if I were you I would get your tenant to complete a deed of surrender. Then the tenancy is ended without having to wait for notices to expire etc. You are then left with what is effectively a squatter in the premises. You can then apply to the courts to get rid of the occupier - the courts will give them 24 hours notice to leave on pain of criminal conviction.

As has been indicated, make sure that you do not accept rent from the occupier.

The above is based on assuming that you have not so far accepted rent from the occupier and that the tenancy started after 28 Feb 1997.

Jowo_2

ok, still a bit confused about how the OP would proceed, based on my (albeit limited understanding) that the squatting legal process is premised on the squatter entering empty premises whereas in this situation, the occupant seems to have been invited into the premises and then abandoned by the tenant.

I know that when a named tenant has other occupants in the property when eviction (possession) proceedings are taken against them, it is usually addressed to the named tenant and it then covers anyone else in the property. Again, I really don't know what the OP can do in this complex situation. To me, it seems that the original tenant simply absconded and I do wonder whether the landlord has to go through the standard possession proceedings against the original tenant rather than the faster squatter removal one.

Or then again, the tenant is happy to clearly signal their return of the property to the landlord in terms of written notice (and presumably return of keys). Take legal advice in case all that is required is for the original tenant to call the police to remove their guest, since until they have given notice, they probably have a legal right to resume their tenancy.

As they have indicated that they are intimidated by their guest, the OP's dad is going to have to hand hold them a bit, or encourage this action by either threatening to take action against the arrears they've racked up or offering a carrot to write them off if they cooperate with the police action. The OP's dad could pop to his local police station to discuss options to enforce the removal of the guest? Then the OP's dad has to consider how to secure the empty property in case the ejected guest tries to re-enter.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/legal/abandonment.htm

here's a link to the landlordzone website as regards squatting. if the OP isn't inclined for any reason to actually do the legal legwork themselves, they could look into a housing solictor or an organisation such as Landlord Action that offer fixed price fees for each stage of proceedings.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm

On the landlord action website it states "To have a squatter (in the legal sense) they must have broken in to the property and have not been let in by a previous tenant."

http://www.landlordaction.co.uk/Evictions-Squatter.php

HeatherH

Thanks for the info Jowo, and you're right, it is becoming more complicated in which route to follow. In consideration of the legal legwork, I intend to help as much as possible, I'm currently on holiday from uni so I have a lot of free time.

We know that this will probably need professional legal advice of some kind, we're just trying to do as much of it as possible ourselves to save on the legal bill, as the clear up of the property is going to cost enough as it is!

N79

Jowo wrote: »

I know that when a named tenant has other occupants in the property when eviction (possession) proceedings are taken against them, it is usually addressed to the named tenant and it then covers anyone else in the property. Again, I really don't know what the OP can do in this complex situation. To me, it seems that the original tenant simply absconded and I do wonder whether the landlord has to go through the standard possession proceedings rather than the faster squatter removal one.

I agree that the LL needs to end the tenancy first, either by possession or by a deed of surrender - the latter will be much quicker. By getting the T to sign the tenancy ends. Until the tenancy ends then any guests of the T can remain in possession.

On the landlord action website it states "To have a squatter (in the legal sense) they must have broken in to the property and have not been let in by a previous tenant."

http://www.landlordaction.co.uk/Evictions-Squatter.php

I do not understand the landlordaction definition - it is contrary to the definition given on Landlordzone and to my understanding (for what thats worth). A "squatter" is simply a person occupying property with no legal right to occupy. I suppose that for non AST tenancies there would be the added complication that a T could have assigned the tenancy or sublet to the "squatters" but this is not possible with an AST. Hence all non Ts simply have no rights under ASTs.

Once the tenancy is ended then the OP can apply for an interim possession order (form N5 plus N130) although you can not relet the property until the final possession order is in place.

I suppose an alternative would be to evict the current T using the S21 process followed by baliffs to remove the guest (who the baliffs will simply remove as a guest of the T). This process is less legally complex but will take longer.

One final option would be to end the tenancy, wait for the occupier to leave the premises and then take possession (peacefull possession in such cases is allowed) but you really must seek legal advice before doing this as you will have a duty of care to the occupier and their belongings and you can end up with a criminal conviction if you get it wrong.