Problem tenants, advice needed

suited-aces

PasturesNew wrote: »

You are getting good advice. Consistent, good advice. Good, solid, legal advice.
<snip>

OP, if you have any sense, you will heed that post, heed the other advice in the thread, and sort yourself out promptly, otherwise you are heading for a disaster. If you have really been a landlord for years as you say, I hope you haven't acted like this before.

tomitma

bitterandtwisted wrote: »

lady, your tenants moved in at the end of september on a 12 month ast. Unless there's a break-clause at the six-months mark you cannot get rid of them until september unless you come to an agreement with them. You have no other options.

I dunno how many times you need to be told. You are either stupid, being willfully obtuse or are a troll

i would go for the troll, no one can be as stupid as this idiot

Wee_Willy_Harris

Is this what you had in mind........

Cashmere v Walsh, Downing and Veale Central London County Court 27 October 2009

The T had a tenancy of a flat in Docklands. Between 2000 and 2003 there was minor disrepair at the flat (defective light fitting, non functioning storage heater). There was further disrepair from 2003 onwards – a further non-functioning heater, broken handle on the toilet cistern following a refurbishment of the bathroom, and poor floor covering in the bathroom. LL promised to carry out repairs. In December 2007 they asked the T to move out for the duration of works. The T moved out and allowed the landlord to clear the flat of his belongings which were piled in the corridor. The works were completed in a week, including a new front door and lock. When the T asked for a copy of the key he was told he could not have it because there were rent arrears. After being turned away by the LL on several occasions, the T engaged solicitors. Pre-action letters received a response from LL saying that he had a new tenant in. On this basis an application for re-entry was not made. The annual rent was £10,920

And now, the scarey bit...........

On a claim for damages, the Court acknowledged that there were ‘historic’ rent arrears of about £7,000 and that the T had caused noise nuisance to his neighbours, but neither of these were the reason for the eviction. The true reason for the eviction was the desire to sell the flat, which was achieved after the eviction.
Damages under s.27 and s.28 Housing Act 1988 were appropriate, without deduction under s.27(7)(a).

Damages on this head £47,000 against Walsh.
Disrepair – £9,200 (4% of rent for the first 3 years; 15% of rent for the next 5 years).
£8,000 against Downing and Veal for their part in the deception and the refusal to hand over keys, which amounted to trespass. The Claimant had taken over 18 months to find suitable alternative accommodation.
£500 for failure to return a deposit.
£6,515 against Walsh and Downing for the loss of the Claimant’s belongings, which were never recovered.
Aggravated damages of £10,000 against all three Defendants.

I'l let the OP do the maths!!!!!

teeni

Unfortunately I come across landlords like this regularly. The mantra I own the property I will do what I like comes to mind, so whilst I hope she is a troll I think not.

If this ll has any sense they will seek legal advice, realise that what they have been told on this thread is accurate mostly and hope in the meantime the tenant doesnt do the same first.

teeni

climbgirl wrote: »

Again with the books!!! What is wrong with people wanting to have books in their house?!

They like to read, get over it.

Absolutely nothing as long as they do not block door ways, staircases, and anyother entrance that may be needed in an emergency.

I had a case at one time where the landlord tried to evict a tenant becasue of fire hazzard, books every where, court only made him clear them form the staircase as fire brigade said it was a fire hazzard and hampered the escape route, and even then was given time to comply not even a suspended possession order granted.

Callie22

Adereterial wrote: »

And yet, if it weren't for a few key differences this could be my landlord.

:mad:

And mine ...

MrsAmanda_2

One thing, you've mentioned the cost of the remedial work needed and how you can't afford to compensate the tenants because of it. Surely your insurance would cover at least a good chunk of the repairs so the finances should not be an excuse to not treat your tenants fairly, given you want to shunt them onto the street without appropriate notice.

Adereterial

If this is my landlord the next response will be that she doesn't have landlords insurance just standard buildings insurance...

More fool her.

climbgirl

teeni wrote: »

Absolutely nothing as long as they do not block door ways, staircases, and anyother entrance that may be needed in an emergency.

I had a case at one time where the landlord tried to evict a tenant becasue of fire hazzard, books every where, court only made him clear them form the staircase as fire brigade said it was a fire hazzard and hampered the escape route, and even then was given time to comply not even a suspended possession order granted.

Yeah of course, it could go too far - although I suspect from the OP's posts that this is far from the case in this instance. She mentions the number of bookshelves in the house, so it sounds like they're properly stored.

POPPYOSCAR

AnnaEBA wrote: »

As I have said before, I am not a troll.

I'm glad you find this funny but I'm finding it incredibly stressful and was told this was a good place to come for advice.

Yes this has given me a good laugh.

Perhaps you could borrow one of their books, have a good read and chill out..............................