Tenant on Housing Benefit

Hump

What's he been charged with? (assuming the Police/CPS are prosecuting) - have there been any hearings yet?

yesican

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I am not a landlord or a landlady and never shall be one so I shall not be in the same situation any time soon, thank the Lord.

I don't wish to be harsh or unkind to someone I don't know but the writing was on the wall with that tenant. No formal surrender had taken place. The tenants had proven to be a PITA. Extreme caution should have been employed.

Speaking of cautions, you still haven\t disclosed what your OH was given a caution for, the caution he has not yet accepted.

My sincere apologies for thinking that you were a LL-its just from your post/s about this topic,your responses are very interesting..ie very quick to call LLs as inexperienced when you're not even one..hm

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Speaking of cautions, you still haven\t disclosed what your OH was given a caution for, the caution he has not yet accepted.

He admitted to being at the house (the police knew that anyway because they found him there).He was told not to go anywhere near the property again or he'll be done for it.

When you're at the end of the rope in this situation ie.legal fees,the list is endless,desperation makes you do crazy things...he went to the house when he got the text message from the tenants telling him that they'd moved out.

Hump

Being at the house isn't an offence - assuming he was read the Police (PACE) caution at which stage the Police would have told him what offence they considered he might have been committing. If he was bailed by the Police then he would have received a sheet outlining the details of any alleged offence. An order not to return to the property would normally be done by the bail process (which can be challenged immediately at the local magistrates court)

BitterAndTwisted

I suspect it may have been criminal trespass or something of that order. Remember he was ON the property, albeit in the garden and not outside it. The property which was legally the tenants' home as no legal surrender appears to have had occurred.

"Its just from your previous post about this topic,your responses are very interesting..ie very quick to call LLs as inexperienced when you're not even one"

This is a public forum and I am at liberty to express an opinion even when or if that opinion is wrong or someone else finds it disagreeable or too blunt for comfort. I'm sure you could call me out for other crazy or strange opinions I have about lots of other things. Such is life.

yesican

Hump wrote: »

Being at the house isn't an offence - assuming he was read the Police (PACE) caution at which stage the Police would have told him what offence they considered he might have been committing. If he was bailed by the Police then he would have received a sheet outlining the details of any alleged offence. An order not to return to the property would normally be done by the bail process (which can be challenged immediately at the local magistrates court)

He's meeting with his lawyer on monday again about this...it never seems to end (it started in early October 2011-got my months muddles up ).

yesican

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

This is a public forum and I am at liberty to express an opinion even when or if that opinion is wrong or someone else finds it disagreeable or too blunt for comfort. I'm sure you could call me out for other crazy or strange opinions I have about lots of other things. Such is life.

Fair enough.

skintsue

clutton wrote: »

i had a row with a branch of Martin and Co - a national franchise.. and head office could not have cared less.. they were utterly utterly disinterested..... Once the franchisor gets their money they dont give a stuff

U2 - just an Irish pop group that sprang to mind as I was reading your post

clutton_2

i suspect yesican's husband was dealt with my officers who do not know the law in relation to landlord and tenants. It is quite common for beat officers to be so ignorant.

The LL had EVERY right to be at the property, and on the property - ""The tenants had sent him a text saying that they'd moved out and he went there to check the state of the house."

There is NOTHING illegal in that - nothing whatsoever. A LL should go to a property as soon as a tenant informs him/her that a tenant has left, to protect his property, and to inspect it, to make sure a troublesome tenant (like this one) has not left a tap running, or a gas hob switched on - and yes these things DO happen, and have happened to me. If a knowledgeable officer saw that text and verified the phone number he would have realised the landlord was doing nothing wrong.

Strictly speaking the LL should now still wait and apply for, and then get a Possession Order from the court, but, i would risk taking control of the property and risk the tenant taking me to court.

If the tenants have left a property with large rent arrears, why would they want to risk taking the tenancy back again as their arrears will increase, and a judge would be most unlikely to grant them a further possession if they did take the LL to court. Possession is 9/10ths of the law....

With tenants like these, this forum will sometimes acknowledge that the tenants have acted utterly irresponsibly, and yet will always seem to insist that the LL does Everything exactly according to a difficult law, even to his/her large financial detriment.

Believe me the law looks very different when its your bank balance on the line, when its your income at risk, and your family not getting food on the table.

so self righteous and pompous calls to landlords to "adhere to the utmost letter of the law" when these very rare tenants act like monsters, dont somehow have an equitable and fair ring to them.

I have a bet on with a mate as to who will reply to this post ......

This forum, yet again, is so quick to judge landlords who come here for help and support.

yesican

clutton wrote: »

i suspect yesican's husband was dealt with my officers who do not know the law in relation to landlord and tenants. It is quite common for beat officers to be so ignorant.

The LL had EVERY right to be at the property, and on the property - ""The tenants had sent him a text saying that they'd moved out and he went there to check the state of the house."

There is NOTHING illegal in that - nothing whatsoever. A LL should go to a property as soon as a tenant informs him/her that a tenant has left, to protect his property, and to inspect it, to make sure a troublesome tenant (like this one) has not left a tap running, or a gas hob switched on - and yes these things DO happen, and have happened to me. If a knowledgeable officer saw that text and verified the phone number he would have realised the landlord was doing nothing wrong.

Strictly speaking the LL should now still wait and apply for, and then get a Possession Order from the court, but, i would risk taking control of the property and risk the tenant taking me to court.

If the tenants have left a property with large rent arrears, why would they want to risk taking the tenancy back again as their arrears will increase, and a judge would be most unlikely to grant them a further possession if they did take the LL to court. Possession is 9/10ths of the law....

With tenants like these, this forum will sometimes acknowledge that the tenants have acted utterly irresponsibly, and yet will always seem to insist that the LL does Everything exactly according to a difficult law, even to his/her large financial detriment.

Believe me the law looks very different when its your bank balance on the line, when its your income at risk, and your family not getting food on the table.

so self righteous and pompous calls to landlords to "adhere to the utmost letter of the law" when these very rare tenants act like monsters, dont somehow have an equitable and fair ring to them.

I have a bet on with a mate as to who will reply to this post ......

This forum, yet again, is so quick to judge landlords who come here for help and support.

Hope you placed a bet on me!!lol

I think thats why he received an apology letter last week about how his case was handled after launching a formal complaint about it.
He tried to explain to them that he had a text message to proove that they were not in the house anymore but all that they kept saying is that ,because he was at the property when he knew the tenants would be in,its an offence and that he was trespassing.They didnt even bother to look at the message.

(He's seeing his lawyer on monday about it and also to find a way to get the rest of his rent from the tenants whom by the way, have gone on to become tenants to another LL not far from our street as we got a letter from a LA asking for references to do with them and we told them exactly what they did to us.

Seems to me that the LA didnt inform the current LL about these people as they have moved into the house.Ah well,goodluck to the LL.

Thank you very much Clutton.

BTW-We've been together for nearly a decade but we're not married .He's my partner...not my husband.. :-)

BitterAndTwisted

There! You've just won your fiver. What were the odds as you can see that I am taking an interest in Sue's awful saga?

Clutton, I think you appear to be taking things altogether too personally. Not everything that happens in the world, most especially in interesting discussions about landlords and tenants on the internet, is directed at you or is a personal criticism of you or your understanding and knowledge of LL&T legislation. Your opinions and experience are interesting to me, as I am sure they are to everyone else, even if I don't always agree with everything you type on here. No-one to my knowledge has any particular agenda where you are concerned but you are giving every impression of having one yourself. Which is a pity.