My tennant died.. 2 months behind on rent

teeni

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Oh yes they do. Look again and see the word cooperate.

Ground 7


The tenancy is a periodic tenancy (including a statutory periodic tenancy) which has devolved under the will or intestacy of the former tenant and the proceedings for the recovery of possession are begun not later than twelve months after the death of the former tenant or, if the court so directs, after the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them became aware of the former tenant’s death.

For the purposes of this ground, the acceptance by the landlord of rent from a new tenant after the death of the former tenant shall not be regarded as creating a new periodic tenancy, unless the landlord agrees in writing to a change (as compared with the tenancy before the death) in the amount of the rent, the period of the tenancy, the premises which are let or any other term of the tenancy.

where does the ground say they have to co operate. the land lord hasn't issued notice yet, so what have they got to co- operate with.

Hopefully thye will leave quickly but if not the longer the op takes to issue notice the longer he will be losing money if the estate has no funds to pay the rent arrears that are building up.

DVardysShadow

teeni wrote: »

where does the ground say they have to co operate.

My oh my, are you getting your knickers in a twist. The word cooperate was in my post. I would not be expecting it to appear in Ground 7. And what I am saying does not arise from tenancy law, so thanks for quoting ground 7. It arises from processes for dealing with the estates of the deceased.

In essence, the estate is liable for the defaults of the deceased tenant. There is no liability personally on the administrators, if they comply with a Section 21 or any other notice. But suppose they did not surrender the tenancy under a Section 21 and it went to court and they lost and bailiffs were called. Who would bear the cost of that? It would probably be the administrators.

Perhaps if you went back to my original post and read it again, you would see what I am getting at.

teeni

DVardysShadow wrote: »

My oh my, are you getting your knickers in a twist. The word cooperate was in my post. I would not be expecting it to appear in Ground 7. And what I am saying does not arise from tenancy law, so thanks for quoting ground 7. It arises from processes for dealing with the estates of the deceased.

In essence, the estate is liable for the defaults of the deceased tenant. There is no liability personally on the administrators, if they comply with a Section 21 or any other notice. But suppose they did not surrender the tenancy under a Section 21 and it went to court and they lost and bailiffs were called. Who would bear the cost of that? It would probably be the administrators.

Perhaps if you went back to my original post and read it again, you would see what I am getting at.

I am sorry if you think i am getting my knickers in a twist but your post says "I have this idea that if the administrators don't act reasonably quickly to cooperate in bringing the tenancy to an end, they could become personally liable at some point. "

The point is they do not have to co operate with anything, ll has to issue notice S8, ground 7 give 2 months notice , ll then has to obtain po and b/w then Baliff can change the locks. At no time do they have to empty the property or co operate to avoid becoming personally responsible for what is the debt of the deceased.

Until he ends the tenancy legally or the executors give notice or both parties agree to a surrender he cant re -let it to any body and start recouping his loses.

DVardysShadow

teeni wrote: »

IThe point is they do not have to co operate with anything, ll has to issue notice S8, ground 7 give 2 months notice , ll then has to obtain po and b/w then Baliff can change the locks. At no time do they have to empty the property or co operate to avoid becoming personally responsible for what is the debt of the deceased.

Well, strictly, you are correct, they do not have to cooperate or empty the property or anything any more than a tenant has to.

But the point you are failing to grasp is that when a tenant fails to cooperate after the process reaches a certain point, the tenant will become liable for costs arising. And if the executors do the same, the same costs may arise.

And if this happens, the costs may well not accrue to the tenant's estate, because the costs do not arise from the actions of the tenant but from the actions of the administrators. Nothing to do with tenancy law, administrators are personally liable for any costs needlessly accrued by the estate resulting from their lack of diligence.

Certainly if the Administrators do not cooperate in bringing the tenancy to an end and LL is pushed to the point of requiring bailiffs, those costs are likely to fall on the administrators. And rightly so.

tbs624

olly300 wrote: »

If you no longer want the dog in your property as another poster suggested it's up to you to get the animal out.

Give the extended family a few days and put a note in writing that you will be re-homing the animal if they don't do it by x date.

Also give them a slightly longer deadline in the note to remove the deceased belongings from your property. If they don't as you have the address just box the stuff up and deliver it to them.

You should always inform them of what's in the letter verbally before giving it to them.

As the deceased has no money you need to get the dog re-homed, clean out your property and get it on the market asap. Yes you will lose more money in the doing that but I know from personal experience that with deaths things can take months to be sorted out.

olly300 - as already stated, due legal process still has to be followed to formally bring the tenancy to an end. LL cannot just box Ts goods up and dump them with the relatives.

missile

What a nightmare.

I find it ridiculous that LL must go to court to evict a deceased tennat. I hope OP will post to tell us how this one pans out.

All those who think being a LL is easy money, should read posts like this one.

MacMickster

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Well, strictly, you are correct, they do not have to cooperate or empty the property or anything any more than a tenant has to.

But the point you are failing to grasp is that when a tenant fails to cooperate after the process reaches a certain point, the tenant will become liable for costs arising. And if the executors do the same, the same costs may arise.

And if this happens, the costs may well not accrue to the tenant's estate, because the costs do not arise from the actions of the tenant but from the actions of the administrators. Nothing to do with tenancy law, administrators are personally liable for any costs needlessly accrued by the estate resulting from their lack of diligence.

Certainly if the Administrators do not cooperate in bringing the tenancy to an end and LL is pushed to the point of requiring bailiffs, those costs are likely to fall on the administrators. And rightly so.

Surely if there is no estate (other than the dog), so nobody applies for probate, then there is no legal administrator who could be held liable.

Hoof_Hearted

botchjob wrote: »

At a difficult time like this all our thoughts are with you. Some people are just so inconsiderate.

True -- people dying willy-nilly and the landlord not getting his money.

blossomhill_2

That poor dog ... must be so confused without his master

DVardysShadow

MacMickster wrote: »

Surely if there is no estate (other than the dog), so nobody applies for probate, then there is no legal administrator who could be held liable.

Actually, it makes sense for nobody to step up and take probate until the tenancy is dealt with ....