Law and Landlords clearing out tenants

domcastro

Out of interest and totally hypothetical situation:

The law seems to be in favour of tenants. Tenants can get away without paying their rent for months before anything is done. Even then you've got to pay for court proceedings etc and lawyers. So a tenant can live for totally free but the landlord could be 10k out of pocket at the end of it all. (or more if the tenants weren't happy for living for free and damage property too)

So, what is the worst that can happen to a landlord if they go in to property, pack up all the tenants belongings (and take them to either throw away or sell) and change the locks? Definitely a theft charge - but what else? I think it would would work out cheaper getting a minor criminal conviction than waiting for the law to help you evict the tenant.

So hypothetically, what crimes would the landlord be committing?

sims01

The crime you would be committing is illegal eviction, which carries up to a 2 year prison sentence in extreme cases.

As long as there is a valid tenancy agreement, the tenant may also be entitled to gain re-entry e.g. by employing a locksmith.

You are also mistaken about the law being in favour of tenants in the UK, quite the opposite in fact. The UK is one of relatively few countries in Europe where tenants do not have any security of tenure but can be evicted by a no-fault procedure such as S21. In most other developed countries, tenants can only be evicted in much more limited circumstances and with significantly longer notice periods.

aveylee

As you said they may face a charge of theft. Additionally or alternatively they could face criminal damage.
Civilly they would be facing a claim for the tort of conversion (treating other properties in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the owner), which could mean damages full the cost of replacing all the items, plus inconvenience, plus any foreseeable loss (i.e. hiring replacement goods in the short term).
Additionally they would also be in breach of contract by failing to give 'quiet possession' to the tenant. You have to remember that a breach by one party to the contract (the tenant) does not mean the other party can breach the contract. The Landlord would be expected to deal with the tenants breach by legal means. This could also mean paying damages, with an offset for any unpaid rent or damage caused by the tenant.
Finally if the Landlord has commenced legal action but then decided to take matters into their own hands. They could arguably face a fine or up to 2 years in prison for contempt of court. (i.e. deciding to kick tenants out because the Judge has given them time to pay rather than immediately evicted them).

Your right the law heavily favours the tenant over the Landlord, unfairly in my view, but the Courts are REALLY against people taking matters into their own hands.

Any Landlord who did take such a course of action is facing significant financial penalties (prison time is pretty unlikely except for the most blatant acts).

domcastro

ok ta - illegal eviction - will look it up. It could be a EU Human Rights case - how can it be illegal to evict someone who has broken the contract? How does the rest of Europe deal with arrears though? I know in Germany, the houses are normally rented for 10 years etc but I assume they have less trouble with tenants who do not pay?

domcastro

aveylee wrote: »

Additionally they would also be in breach of contract by failing to give 'quiet possession' to the tenant. You have to remember that a breach by one party to the contract (the tenant) does not mean the other party can breach the contract. The Landlord would be expected to deal with the tenants breach by legal means. QUOTE]

Harsh!

domcastro

Could you: Buy cockroaches at the pet shop, put them through the letterbox, ring the Environmental team at council and tell them you need to fumigate the place because cockroaches have been spotted? Then tell the tenant they have to go as the place is uninhabitable?

G_M

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (speaks for itself really. Also makes harrasment a criminal offence)

zappahey

domcastro wrote: »

The law seems to be in favour of tenants.

domcastro wrote: »

I know in Germany, the houses are normally rented for 10 years etc but I assume they have less trouble with tenants who do not pay?

These two statements seem discordant. Being chucked out of your house at two months notice doesn't seem to be that favourable to tenants, compared to 10 year leases.

BitterAndTwisted

I'm not sure I like the direction this thread is headed or the place it may have come from. Chucking people out, regardless of the totally justifiable reasons for doing so mean that people are being thrown out of their HOMES.

For every bad tenant taking totally cynical advantage of their landlord there could be a landlord using their tenants in a way that the RSPCA could successfully prosecute for if an animal were involved. Where's that "Evict a bad landlord" thread to see what total misery some people make other's lives. Fortunately, bad tenants and bad landlords are a tiny and insignificant minority. Most normal people find it easy to run a business arrangement in total harmony.

jamie11

One thing that can be done legally is to raise the rent (certain conditions have to apply) but if you put the rent up to over the local average by, say, 10% then your tenant is very likely to want to leave rapidly. (By that I mean 'do a bunk') Otherwise use a S21 and be patient.

FATBALLZ

domcastro wrote: »

The law seems to be in favour of tenants.

If that is your honest opinion of the law in this country you need to sell up and get out of landlording ASAP as it clearly isn't for you.