tenant changing the locks - wrong?

princeofpounds

Ah yes maybe I too was harsh with my backbone comment (though it was meant to be more friendly than it sounds).

It's easy to be assertive when you are sure of your position. Less so otherwise.

As for the dog walking at midnight, I should imagine it's the favoured excuse of pitbull-toting dealers, so I can kind of understand why the police pick up on it.

tbs624

vax2002 wrote: »

When dealing with the police, keep one thing in mind...
It's is one of the only jobs you can get without ANY qualifications.
They are not hired for Brains !

... so those who choose to work as LAs did in fact have a career choice?

Werdnal

princeofpounds wrote: »

As for the dog walking at midnight, I should imagine it's the favoured excuse of pitbull-toting dealers, so I can kind of understand why the police pick up on it.

In the quiet backwoods of the sleepy South West - I think not! More likely bored coppers with nothing better to do to justify them sitting in their patrol car on the twilight shift, trying not to doze off!

Mrs_Arcanum

Kynthia wrote: »

OP, it sounds like you had a horrible experience. It beggars belief that you were questioned like that by the 999 operator as it's not their job and for all we know they live in a HMO. You were right to call the police and they were wrong about it being criminal for you to have changed the locks.

If I were you I would definitely change the lock and contact the CAB and the council tenancy relations office. It might be good to have a print out handy regarding your rights incase you should need to show it to the police in future. Also consider writing to complain regarding those police officers as you may get a letter back confirming that it isn't a criminal offense to change the locks which you can then show other officers or the landlord if you need to.

Would have several copies to hand to the Police & LL as needed. It would seem your LL has no appreciation of the law and is trying to bully you into leaving illegally. Unfortunately the Police's ignorance of the law appeared to back the LL, incorrectly as it happens.

The only grounds there are to possibly get an eviction for not allowing access is for legally required Gas safety checks.

tbs624

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

The only grounds there are to possibly get an eviction for not allowing access is for legally required Gas safety checks.

???? Under which Ground?

LL would apply for court order for access to the property for the GSC to be undertaken and T may of course get a "no fault" s21 at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mrs_Arcanum

tbs624 wrote: »

???? Under which Ground?

LL would apply for court order for access to the property for the GSC to be undertaken and T may of course get a "no fault" s21 at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tenants who have continually refused Gas safety checks have been legally evicted Inside Housing article

I did say "possibly"

DVardysShadow

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Tenants who have continually refused Gas safety checks have been legally evicted Inside Housing article

I did say "possibly"

I think there is some spin from the Housing Trust here. If a tenant refuses a gas inspection, the normal approach would be to go to court for an order granting access. I would think.

So a repo in this case looks like a complete overkill. I suspect that there was much more to it and probably much more put to the court, but for whatever reason, the Housing Trust chose to present just one of the grounds for eviction.

tbs624

gRoberts wrote: »

.....up until the end of the tenancy agreement, the tenants could completely trash the house so long as the property is in similar condition (excluding fair wear and tear) to what it was at the start?

Does that not mean that the police cannot actually enforce criminal damage until after the tenancy has ended?

Few Ts who trash a rental property would then reinstate the property's condition in time for the tenancy end.

Any T who "completely trashes the house" during their tenancy leaves themselves open to the LL seeking repossession of the property.

See Discretionary Grounds 13 and 14

Ground 13
The condition of the dwelling-house or any of the common parts has deteriorated owing to acts of waste by, or the neglect or default of, the tenant or any other person residing in the dwelling-house and, in the case of an act of waste by, or the neglect or default of, a person lodging with the tenant or a sub-tenant of his, the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant.

For the purposes of this ground, “common parts” means any part of a building comprising the dwelling-house and any other premises which the tenant is entitled under the terms of the tenancy to use in common with the occupiers of other dwelling-houses in which the landlord has an estate or interest.

Ground 15
The condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to ill-treatment by the tenant or any other person residing in the dwelling-house and, in the case of ill-treatment by a person lodging with the tenant or by a sub-tenant of his, the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant.

Mrs_Arcanum

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think there is some spin from the Housing Trust here. If a tenant refuses a gas inspection, the normal approach would be to go to court for an order granting access. I would think.

So a repo in this case looks like a complete overkill. I suspect that there was much more to it and probably much more put to the court, but for whatever reason, the Housing Trust chose to present just one of the grounds for eviction.

That particular one was not the first case, this is - West Lancs link

DVardysShadow

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

That particular one was not the first case, this is - West Lancs link

Interestingly in a geographically close area.

I can see that Discretionary Ground 12

Any obligation of the tenancy (other than one related to the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed.

would permit this. But again, as it is discretionary, either the court is being unduly harsh, or the tenant is not defending his position and the order is granted by default.

As I see it, this is one of those situations which will end up with precedent on default judgements. A LL does have Ground 12 available - as well as the possibility of an order for entry - although I imagine that the order for entry possibility is based on common law. A housing authority might well choose the statutory route of Ground 12 in order to get a bigger stick to encourage the other tenants.to permit gas checks

If the order for repo on these grounds is sought, the tenant can derail it very easily by granting access. Of course it is difficult for the tenant to lawyer up and argue that the court should grant an order for access rather than an order for repossession - you cannot imagine it arising although if it did, you would imagine the judge looking over his spectacles and saying "Well, why didn't your client just grant access and we could all have stayed in bed an extra hour?"

And if the tenant cannot be brassed to derail proceedings by just opening the door, you can only imagine the proceedings are followed by a default judgement for repo.

Where this might really become a serious issue in contention is if the LL is not flexible in offering appointments or the LL or gas fitter are at serious fault in keeping the appointments. I doubt that a repo would be granted in a contested hearing in these circumstances.

For the private L, I think that an application for an order granting entry would be the normal route in the first instance - but perhaps Ground 12 would probably be the right way to go if the tenant was awkward about gas inspections on a second occasion.