Landlord has evicted me and changed locks

GDB2222

suited-aces wrote: »

I look forward to to the day all the pro-evictees in this thread find themselves defending an illegal evitcion charge of their own.

I'm left struggling to work out which side you are on. Care to rephrase that?

Notmyrealname

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some professions ban those who have been bankrupt and landlords should be included on that list, because if you walk away from your debts again, then the tenant and their family will be affected.

Again I'll ask the question you didn't answer.

What bearing does a bankruptcy in 2001 have on my suitability to be a LL in 2012?

If you believe it does then maybe LLs should refuse to rent to any tenant who has been BR at any point in their lives, regardless of how long ago it was and how much money they have now.

FATBALLZ

GDB2222 wrote: »

I agree with Hamish, for once, that the law is unfairly biased against landlords and in favour of tenants.

Er, no. You should have realised when you agreed with the resident renter hating nutjob that something was amiss.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/United-Kingdom/Landlord-and-Tenant

As you said yourself, you are able to take legal action against your tenant, presumably because they are doing something you don't like. If a landlord does something a tenant doesn't like - refuse to repair an oven/bath, turn up unannounced, the tenant has no practical legal recourse, as they just end up getting kicked out and made homeless. Not to mention landlords seem to have engineered a 'last landlord reference' system as a further hold over tenants to prevent them standing up for the few rights they do have. Oh yes - and of course they are now on the verge of getting access to tenants credit records so that they can screw those up too in case any tenant 'crosses' them.

DVardysShadow

GDB2222 wrote: »

.... I agree with Hamish, for once, that the law is unfairly biased against landlords and in favour of tenants. That could be improved by speeding up the legal process. For example, I commenced legal proceedings against a tenant at the end of January, and I have only just received a court order requiring possession in 2 weeks time. I have no doubt that the tenants will not move, so I will then have to get the bailiffs involved – more time and expense. Last time I asked, there was a two-month wait for the bailiffs. Lots of tenants know the law and play it for all it is worth.

The problem is that any legislative fix would provide more ways to allow exploitative Landlord's to do decent tenants over and would also allow your delinquent tenants to run even bigger rings around you.

talulah25

So I was right, there was alot that wasnt revealed in the original post.

Just like to clarify for the record that I never claimed to 'know' how legislation etc applied to this case. My point was that this was morally wrong, even more so now the true facts have been disclosed!

Glad to see that I'm not the only person to think so, too many posts to quote but totally agreed with the post about screwing the landlord over in court being a step too far. I can totally empathise with the LL here. No wonder they gave OP 4 weeks to move out! Illegally sub-letting and paying rent 'whenever', this is why renters have to pay stupidly high admin fees and LLs quibble about deposits. Its cases like this that give renters a bad name!

single_lonely

In the end i just hired a van for the night and went.
Made it easy for the LL me thinks.
I still haven't told banks etc that i have left, will the TV license and water bill move with me, what about the -£4 on the gas/electric meters?

thanks to all

bmar71n

asking your landlord to take the last periods rent from the deposit is unlikely to be acceptable for the landlord as the deposit is intended for any damage occurred during the tenancy NOT to pay rent. And if there is any damage and the landlord has has to use deposit to pay for rent owed they are likely to be out of pocket after paying for the repairs to the property if any

GDB2222

single_lonely wrote: »

In the end i just hired a van for the night and went.
Made it easy for the LL me thinks.
I still haven't told banks etc that i have left, will the TV license and water bill move with me, what about the -£4 on the gas/electric meters?

thanks to all

You do need to get on top of these. Where have you moved to? Did you get all your belongings back?

It's quite unlikely that the landlord will pursue you for the cost of any minor repair works, but you should be aware that withholding your address will not stop him. He can serve legal proceedings on the old address, and you won't be able to defend because you won't know about them. OTOH he will have trouble collecting any award.

MissMoneypenny

Just catching up on my posts.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some professions ban those who have been bankrupt and landlords should be included on that list, because if you walk away from your debts again, then the tenant and their family will be affected.

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Again I'll ask the question you didn't answer.

What bearing does a bankruptcy in 2001 have on my suitability to be a LL in 2012?

I did answer it, in the very quote of mine that you quoted. I've underlined the relavant bit of my answer in bold.

To make it clearer: when people get into financial difficulties, they have a chose of two roads:-
1. Work out a plan to spend less and work harder, to pay off their debts.
2. Walk away from their debts and go bankrupt.

A bankrupt has already has a track record on the choice they made. This is not the type of person most people would want to go into a contract with. A tenancy is a contract.

Hence why I also stated in rest of that post of mine that you quoted, that some companies won't employ people in certain jobs if they have ever gone bankrupt and also that some insurers want to know if anyone in the house has ever been bankrupt, before they give a quote.