HELP! we are landlords section 21 issued tenant not planning on going. What can we do

clutton_2

i agree.. dont negotiate... write the council and the tenant a very polite letter saying that if the tenancy is not terminated on the appropriate date, give a time for check-out on that date, application will be made forthwith to the court to have her evicted as soon as possible..

Wee_Willy_Harris

tinkwings wrote: »

Thanks.

I have been reading up on "Gatekeeping" seems it is pretty wide spread.

But not as widespread as many believe. Most councils will advise the tenant to vacate at the end of the notice period as to stay longer would leave them liable to the LLs further costs. However, they also have a duty to got through all the options the tenant has, the eviction process and the availability of temporary accommodation. Often, when a council explains (correctly) that the tenant MAY stay after the expiry of notice, and that the only temp accommodation on offer is (sadly) grotty B+B, it's the tenant that decides to sit it out. Frankly I don't blame them. Part of the councils function when issuing housing advice is to enable the tenant to make an informed decision. But the decision to remain is, more often than not, the tenants.

teeni

tinkwings wrote: »

Thanks the section 21 was done by a solicitor and the council agreed back in June in writing that it was all legal and correct.

please dont be fooled by the fact that a solicitor did the s21 unless they were specialist housing solicitors. I often help defend tenants who have been given invalid notices and the cry from the landlord is " it must be right a solicitor drew it up " When the case is thrown out of court and an award of costs made against them they soon change their tune.

The wording has to be very explicit for example does it say the notice expires on the 5th September or after the 5th of september. one is valid one is not and is absolutely defendable,

Check the notice wording again.

if no rent arrears you can apply for possession using the accelerated procedure and there is no need for a hearing then if the paper work is correct. this reduces the time it takes. remember the client can ask the court to extend the length of the order from the usual 14 days to 56 days in cases where ther couldbe extreme hardship for the tenant if early possession granted.

tinkwings

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But not as widespread as many believe. Most councils will advise the tenant to vacate at the end of the notice period as to stay longer would leave them liable to the LLs further costs. However, they also have a duty to got through all the options the tenant has, the eviction process and the availability of temporary accommodation. Often, when a council explains (correctly) that the tenant MAY stay after the expiry of notice, and that the only temp accommodation on offer is (sadly) grotty B+B, it's the tenant that decides to sit it out. Frankly I don't blame them. Part of the councils function when issuing housing advice is to enable the tenant to make an informed decision. But the decision to remain is, more often than not, the tenants.

Thanks. It is the most frustrating situation ever. Makes you wonder why anyone rents out a property.

tinkwings

teeni wrote: »

please dont be fooled by the fact that a solicitor did the s21 unless they were specialist housing solicitors. I often help defend tenants who have been given invalid notices and the cry from the landlord is " it must be right a solicitor drew it up " When the case is thrown out of court and an award of costs made against them they soon change their tune.

The wording has to be very explicit for example does it say the notice expires on the 5th September or after the 5th of september. one is valid one is not and is absolutely defendable,

Check the notice wording again.

if no rent arrears you can apply for possession using the accelerated procedure and there is no need for a hearing then if the paper work is correct. this reduces the time it takes. remember the client can ask the court to extend the length of the order from the usual 14 days to 56 days in cases where ther couldbe extreme hardship for the tenant if early possession granted.

The section 21 was done by a contracts Sol. And we had to have it cleared by the council's legal advisors before we could serve it.

Thanks for the info on accelerated procedure I will look into that.

N79

teeni wrote: »

if no rent arrears you can apply for possession using the accelerated procedure and there is no need for a hearing then if the paper work is correct. this reduces the time it takes. remember the client can ask the court to extend the length of the order from the usual 14 days to 56 days in cases where ther couldbe extreme hardship for the tenant if early possession granted.

Hot LL tip.

If you use the accelerated possession procedure (and you should) then as a LL you should advise on your claim that you do not contest a 28 day eviction order if the T requests an extension from 14 days.

This is because any T can request an extension and any half believable sob story will get the court to provide a 28 day order (it takes a really good story for a court to award a longer period). If you have asked for a 14 day order then the court has to call a hearing and so the case drops of the accelerated possession process and goes back the beginning. This normally causes at least a month of delays (and in nearly all cases the T will get the 28 day order anyway) for no gain so it is best to pre - concede 28 days to keep the case on the fast track.

Colincbayley

Jowo wrote: »

They are not supposed to do this - it is against the guidance issued to local councils which urge them not to do this when it is clear that there is every chance the judge will find in the landlord's favour. Some landlords take the local council to court to recoup their court fees associated with the eviction. Ask the Landlordzone rental forum for the exact guidance issued to local authorities on this topic and the body that you need to complain to (some kind of local council ombudsman).

This is what Jowo is refering to. I have a full copy of the guidelines if anyone would like a copy just send me a PM with your email address.

Refer to council guidelines Chapter 8, para 30 onwards.

Homeless legislation states that local authorities have a duty to house certain categories of people. Local authorities are provided with guidance about coming to a decision of eligibility for re-housing homeless people. In particular, they should have regard to section 9.29 of the Code of Guidance on Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, which states: "A local authority should not require tenants to fight a possession action where the landlord has a certain prospect of success, such as an action for recovery of property which is let on an assured shorthold tenancy where the fixed term of the tenancy has ended." If, as it appears to be in this case, the local authority disregards this guidance, the landlord can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, claiming the landlord's costs of having to pursue a possession action.

Wee_Willy_Harris

tinkwings wrote: »

Thanks. It is the most frustrating situation ever. Makes you wonder why anyone rents out a property.

I agree. Personally, and I mean you know offence, I would take the option away from the smaller, less experienced LL. Too often I see smaller LLs, with an emotional attachment to their rented home, getting very hot and bothered when it all goes the shape of a pear. Bigger LLs can just shrug if one of their 100+ tenancies goes a bit tlts-up, then just grind through due process and get on with it.

It's a shame that the regulation of letting agents has been shelved, as that would have been a far better method for the smaller LL to employ when renting out a property, frequently for the first time.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Colincbayley wrote: »

This is what Jowo is refering to. I have a full copy of the guidelines if anyone would like a copy just send me a PM with your email address.

Refer to council guidelines Chapter 8, para 30 onwards.

Homeless legislation states that local authorities have a duty to house certain categories of people. Local authorities are provided with guidance about coming to a decision of eligibility for re-housing homeless people. In particular, they should have regard to section 9.29 of the Code of Guidance on Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, which states: "A local authority should not require tenants to fight a possession action where the landlord has a certain prospect of success, such as an action for recovery of property which is let on an assured shorthold tenancy where the fixed term of the tenancy has ended." If, as it appears to be in this case, the local authority disregards this guidance, the landlord can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, claiming the landlord's costs of having to pursue a possession action.

It's also available online here

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf

tinkwings

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's also available online here

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf

Thank you very much