Tent thread

mynameisdave

poppy10 wrote: »

Also - just a quick reminder

ITV1 7.30pm today (Thu 26th)
Tonight: Nightmare Tenants

As the nation's private landlords struggle to make ends meet and with record levels of evictions and rent arrears, Jonathan Maitland investigates stories of people intent on making life miserable for the owners of the properties they live in.

Yes.. The program where a person who advises LL's on legal matters is to contront people in their home with a TV crew.

Its like living in 17th Century Massachusetts

john539

So what do we reckon ?

This story keeps unravelling !

Brb

Given that she thinks writing into AST that £15 per day penalty can be charged when in rent arrears is legally binding, I am now wondering (given that she thinks she legally evicted her tenant) if she thinks writing into AST that she can enter whenever she likes, evicts whenever she likes I'd like to quote the following:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

Forfeiture and similar termination clauses

4.16 The law gives residential tenants considerable protection against arbitrary or immediate termination of their rights of occupation.* Standard forfeiture clauses usually include a provision that the landlord may 're-enter' the property. In principle, we see no objection to the landlord reserving such a right but any term doing so must make clear the circumstances in which the landlord can use that right. The use of the legal expression 're-enter' without a clear explanation of the tenant's right may be misleading, because the landlord must obtain a court order before they can actually enter the property, evict the tenant and regain possession of the property. The fact that such terms have long been extensively used does not make them fair.

4.17 We particularly object to forfeiture clauses that are not in plain language (see group 19) because such terms are especially likely to leave the legal position with regard to eviction and possession unclear to the tenant. Forfeiture or re-entry clauses need to refer to the tenant's legal rights, at least in general terms, to be more acceptable. We may object to terms that do not make it clear that the landlord must obtain a court order before they can evict a tenant and re-enter the property. Although it may be helpful to advise the tenant to seek independent legal advice where eviction is threatened, this will not be enough to avoid unfairness if the term does not clearly refer to the need for court proceedings.

4.18 We also object to terms that allow the landlord to deem a property to have been abandoned or surrendered in circumstances where the law would not. For example, a term allowing the landlord to deem a property to have been abandoned purely on the grounds that a tenant had been away for a set period of time would be likely to be considered unfair, as the law requires other conditions to be satisfied before a property can be considered to be abandoned. As with forfeiture clauses, we consider that it is unfair for terms to purportedly allow the landlord greater powers to end the tenancy than are available to them under the law.

* Protection from Eviction Act 1977. A landlord may be liable for damages in the event of an unlawful eviction, Section 27 Housing Act

What do you reckon ppl ? do you think maybe she thought if she shoved a clause in to say that she can have the property back whenever she needs it that she believes that it's all been done legit ??

I don't for a second think that if she has indeed used such a clause that she also put that she'd need a court order first!

Or am I just rambling now ?

RAS

Suzy Carlita Butler I was hoping to relocate to Spain which is... why i extended the contract to ensure it didn't terminate whilst abroard (sic)!

This may have been covered but if Suzy issued an AST in May (albeit that she thinks it is an "extension", is it possible to argue that she created a new contract which does not permit her to serve notice ending prior to November 5?

Wee_Willy_Harris

RAS wrote: »

This may have been covered but if Suzy issued an AST in May (albeit that she thinks it is an "extension", is it possible to argue that she created a new contract which does not permit her to serve notice ending prior to November 5?

Don't tell her that or she'll want the rent till then as well!!

RAS

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Don't tell her that or she'll want the rent till then as well!!

She can hardly claim it if she has forceably ejected the tenant, can she?

Wee_Willy_Harris

RAS wrote: »

She can hardly claim it if she has forceably ejected the tenant, can she?

Suzy seems to believe she can do anything. You know she runs a charidee don't you?

lily_livered

"The contract has a clause of a £15 a day late rent fee we both abgreed upon when originally signing...do the math."

dopester wrote: »

Is that legal? It might be in the contract but I distantly recall such penalties, where you can charge them, are capped. Could be wrong though.

Anyway that is obviously part of how Suzy Butler has calculated extra money of what she thinks Carmen Butler owes.

This would explain how the amount Suzy claims the tenant owes keeps going up.

It is punitive as the £15 is per day regardless of the amount of rent owed. So if a tenant owing say £1500 in rent managed to pay say £1000 off they still owe £500 and thus still incur the £15 is per day penalty charge.

Suzy alleged the rent is owed from 6th June to 13th August. That's 69 days less the one month's deposit which makes 39 days, which would be £1584 (40.60 per day * 39 days).

The penalty as of today would be incurred from 6th June to 26th August which is 81 days which would be £1215 (15.00 per day * 81 days).

This makes £1584 rent arrears + £1215 penalty + £1235 deposit still allegedly in a scheme yet to be reclaimed by the landlord, total Suzy's £4034.

The amount owed will be going up £450 (15.00 per day * 30 days) each and every month the tenant still owes any rent at all.

A typical fair contract rate is more like 4% above base rate per year on the amount owed. This would make the penalty more like (£1584+£1235) * 0.045 / 365 = 34 pence day till the landlord gets the deposit back, and then £1584 * 0.045 / 365 = 19 pence per day after that. The penalty going down every time some of the arrears are paid off.

I do hope this tenant gets some proper legal advice.

terryw

Someone who is a member of MSE or reads MSE must know the tenant. Please please, advise her to contact a lawyer or at least let her know about this thread.

mynameisdave

Edit: Lily's figures make much more sense but I'm still going to leave my figures up for speculation value

I think I have worked out how she has calculated the £4,00 in rent - popped into my head just now.

June, no rent received £1,235 owed. Not received 66 days later so £990 penalty for late payment
July, no not recived £1,235 added to bill. Not recived 36 days later so another £540 added for late payment
August no rent received ~£250 added to bill. Not received for 6 days so ANOTHER £90 added for late payment.

£4,340 - 'over' £4,000. I believe she may have been charging £15 a day for EACH rent payment missed, rather than a total £15 for being in arrears.