Law and Landlords clearing out tenants

domcastro

I'm not in landlording - the thread was a reaction to the "Threat from tenants" thread. It was hypothetical

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3716721

tbs624

domcastro wrote: »

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.

Harsh!

It's no more harsh than the fact that Ts are expected to honour the requirement to pay rent ( & their other contractual obligations) when they may have a Richard Sole for a LL who fails to maintain the property in the manner required by law.

Whether LL or T, if it is the other party who is breaching the contract, you will inevitably feel that the law simply "favours" the other.

Making posts suggesting back route methods by which to get an errant T to leave is provocative. Tenant harassment and illegal eviction are criminal actions.

Search on here for the Evict a Rogue LL thread

DVardysShadow

domcastro wrote: »

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?

Statute Law overrides Contract Law. So a breach of contract by a tenant [contract law] is not a defence against illegal eviction [statute law]

In this country renting is assumed to be only for !!!!!! who cannot afford to buy [not that renters are !!!!!! - I am just saying that this is the assumption which underpins the law], so they should only get 6 months security. Whereas in Germany, renting is considered to eb a legitimate lifestyle choice for decent people, so the terms are more appropriate to decent people.

clutton_2

isn't this "cockroach" ploy the type of thing a troll would be suggesting......

BitterAndTwisted

If the poster "domcastro" is a troll they have been exceptionally patient before starting their trolling. Since September 2008.

I suspect that this is a purely hypothetical discussion started solely out of interest based on other current threads

Werdnal

clutton wrote: »

isn't this "cockroach" ploy the type of thing a troll would be suggesting......

But perhaps Clutton, the difference between your World and Domcastro's is that some LLs are ignorant, arrogant or just plain stupid enough to try such a ploy!

TBH, nothing would surprise me any more!

Hump

Landlords with really long memories will remember the situation prior to the Housing Act 1988 which introduced ASTs (i.e. Secure, Shorthold and Assured tenancies). ASTs tipped the scales well and truly in favour of landlords - meaning possession is now guaranteed following a relatively short administrative procedure costing perhaps as little as £210 (PCOL + warrant) and taking perhaps as little as 3-4 months depending on where you are with the initial fixed term.

Maximum jail for Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is 6 months, maximum fine is £5000 - but the real problem is s27 (Housing Act 1988) where damages are virtually unlimited.

G_M

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In this country renting is assumed to be only for !!!!!! who cannot afford to buy [not that renters are !!!!!! - I am just saying that this is the assumption which underpins the law], so they should only get 6 months security. Whereas in Germany, renting is considered to eb a legitimate lifestyle choice for decent people, so the terms are more appropriate to decent people.

Yes but...

Until the (80s?) and the introductionof ASTs tenants in this country had extensive rights and protections (as is still the case the some European countries). The result was rented property was hard to come by. And was often in a poor state as LLs had no incentive to make improvements (controlled rents, inability to ever regain their propery etc).

The relaxation of the those long term rights via the introduction of the 6 month AST, and 'no fault' S21 Notice process was to encourage LLs to rent out more property, which did achieve the goal of opening up the rented market.

Personally I think the balance is now about right.

clutton_2

For court fees - its now £175 for a possession order, i believe, and £100 for a bailiffs warrant.. if you do it yourself. If you employ solicitors or specialist eviction companies you can probably write off £1,000 minimum... plus the unpaid rent and the damage repairs....

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

Yes but...

Until the (80s?) and the introductionof ASTs tenants in this country had extensive rights and protections (as is still the case the some European countries). The result was rented property was hard to come by. And was often in a poor state as LLs had no incentive to make improvements (controlled rents, inability to ever regain their propery etc).

The relaxation of the those long term rights via the introduction of the 6 month AST, and 'no fault' S21 Notice process was to encourage LLs to rent out more property, which did achieve the goal of opening up the rented market.

Personally I think the balance is now about right.

As I see it, the AST is slightly better than being a lodger, but not a lot. The problem with the pre AST legislation was that it combined controlled rents with unlimited tenure. Even now, we see on these boards houses for sale with tenants in situ paying peanuts for rent. Obviously, it favoured tenants excessively. But now, I fear that 6 month terms and only 2 months security is leading to a transient underclass who are not bonded to their neighbourhoods and perpetually no further than 6 months away from being homeless. It ain't good for society.