Is this right???

lynzpower

peterjohnson007 wrote: »

i wont be accepting rent and on the 27th of may we will be moving back into our property its just that the letting agents said that worst case scenario is that the tenant does not find somewhere else to live, even tho shes had 2 months to do it in, and she is entitled to stay in our property untill she has found somehwhere else(even tho it will be after the tenancy end date). then we can either wait for a few days untill she has moved out properly or go to the courts and only when the local council whom pay a large chunk of her rent each month recieve a letter stating that baliffs will be round to our property to remove her will they stop paying her rent to our letting agents.
this is what ive been told over the phone, TBH i think its crap and if that is the case i will not be letting a property out again. and council tenants wonder why they get such a bad rep!!![/QUOTE]

to be honest if you are going anywhere near court, I suggest you get your facts right- how many times! they are not council tenants

No offence mate, but you obviously havent got your ducks in a row either have you and you wonder why landlords get such bad rep

hollyblue

lynzpower wrote: »

yes, the council will not house anyone who isnt homeless. No one is homeless unless they have been formally evicted.

I'm a law student currently studying Housing Law.

My manual states that the council will treat a tenant as intentionally homeless if they leave before you have gained a possession order and asked the court to execute it and therefore will not treat them as a priority in terms of re-housing.

However, don't despair as your tenant may not be holding out for the council to rehome them. They may well be seeking alternative private rented accommodation and the council will still pay their rent on another property providing the rent is acceptable.

As I say this is from my law manual not experience, I'm sure someone here can confirm or otherwise.

chugalug

They aren't council tenants they are assured shorthold tenants in receipt of housing benefit.

Where their rent comes from or where they go when they leave the property has nothing to do with you.

If you have served the CORRECT notice with the CORRECT dates on and they do not leave upon expiry of this notice then your only recourse is court eviction - they are liable for the costs of this. If they have no rent arrears you can use accellerated possession proceedings which means (providing you have all your paperwork correct) the court will give them 14 days to leave from the date of the court hearing. If they do not leave, then you instruct bailiffs to evict. At this point (if they are eligible to apply for LA housing) the council will consider them technically homeless.

Accepting the rent does not create a new tenancy. They are liable to pay rent all the time they are occupying the property - whether they have been served notice or not. Their tenancy merely becomes periodic rather than fixed term.

Hope thats all clear now. Your letting agent sounds as confused as you!!! Hope you get it all sorted.

thesaint

Councils can and do house people who have not waited to be evicted by bailiffs, it's just the priority that may change.

Even if someone is intentionally homeless a council will often house them if they are a priority case, but it may only be a hostel or bed and breakfast.

chugalug

thesaint wrote: »

Councils can and do house people who have not waited to be evicted by bailiffs, it's just the priority that may change.

Even if someone is intentionally homeless a council will often house them if they are a priority case, but it may only be a hostel or bed and breakfast.

True - I forget that cos I live (and work) in the South East and LA's always wait for bailiff's notices now because they just can't meet demand for housing.

Also temporary housing is not the same as having a duty to rehouse permanently.

lynzpower

hollyblue wrote: »

I'm a law student currently studying Housing Law.

My manual states that the council will treat a tenant as intentionally homeless if they leave before you have gained a possession order and asked the court to execute it and therefore will not treat them as a priority in terms of re-housing.

However, don't despair as your tenant may not be holding out for the council to rehome them. They may well be seeking alternative private rented accommodation and the council will still pay their rent on another property providing the rent is acceptable.

As I say this is from my law manual not experience, I'm sure someone here can confirm or otherwise.

this is completely correct from 5 years experience in social work.

MAybe OP the best thing to do is get your Letting agent to find out what other landlords may be able to offer her a home, and create a seamless transition for your tenant. therefore you wont need to evict, and your letting agent gets the money.

peterjohnson007

thanks to all of you, sorry 4 getting fact wrong but its my first time renting and im still quite young!!! havent researched it well enough!

Swishter

chugalug wrote: »

Accepting the rent does not create a new tenancy. They are liable to pay rent all the time they are occupying the property - whether they have been served notice or not. Their tenancy merely becomes periodic rather than fixed term.

Whilst accepting rent does not automatically create a new tenancy it can assist the tenant in showing that they reasonably believed a new tenancy had been created. Whenever we had Housing Law training it was always hammered in that we no longer accept rent but we do accept mesne profit as the tenant is still required to pay a charge for living there. The tenancy only becomes periodic when the fixed term is up and no notice has been served, if notice has been served then when its up the tenancy itself has ended.

hollyblue

lynzpower wrote: »

this is completely correct from 5 years experience in social work.

Woohoo there's hope for me yet to pass my exam next month :j

lynzpower

good luck hollyblue

I love housing law, so fascinating.

Id love to look into it, maybe I should- but its the frontline practice that put me right off LOL