Possible Landlord harasment

dimbo61

The Landlord is a Lady?
The tenants have rented the property for 5 years and NOW the LL has asked then to leave by serving a S21 which gives the tenants 2 full months to find somewhere else to Live.
The OP has not stated that they have been Harassed in any way!!!!!
What they have said is the LAST tenant complained that they were harassed by the LL shouting through the letterbox.
Did the last tenant who has not lived at the address for more that 5 years complain to the police? Has the LL been arrested or warned over Harassment ?
The OP has been asked to move out of a rental property but wants to stay longer so the LL has to go to court and pay for Bailiffs.
Have you been to the council ? Told that you will only be rehoused if the Bailiffs evict you ? IT IS CALLED Gatekeeping by the council
Now you may end up paying the court costs ?

HarryBarry

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The LL decided to start a property letting business. Part of that decision is knowing what the risks are and what the laws are. The law allows the T to stay put and make the LL go to court.

If the LL can't cope with abiding by the laws then s/he shouldn't have become a LL. There is no moral imperative for the T in this situation, and certainly not for the LL's convenience in his / her business affairs.

Terrible way of looking at it. As I said, I know full well the law allows it, but it doesn't mean you should do it. There is a clear agreement in place, how about dont rent a house if you cant stick to what was agreed in the first place? Having to go to court to get something you own back is not something you should have to do.

It is totally irrelevant whether you class it as a business or not. I see this mentioned all the time "landlord starting a business so should be aware of risk bla bla bla" - as if it makes it more acceptable to mess a landlord about just because you have decided to class what they are doing as a business. It is still the same person you are effecting.

If it is perfectly moral and acceptable, think about trying to rent in future, does the potential future landlord think...

a) Oh they acted totally within the law, thats fine I'm running a business so I should expect that to happen.
b) Errr no way, they can get lost.

I don't know the story behind it, but a friend of mine currently has a garage full of one of his friends stuff because they (including kids) were evicted through a court order and to stop them becoming homeless, the council have put them in some sort of hostel. I'm not saying that is likely here, but get the wrong reputation and you make life potentially very difficult. Pretty irresponsible to make it sound like the right thing to do given potential consequences (although I do understand there are scenarios where getting a council house requires you to do this).

Anyway, mini rant over, now I've learnt stitching up small businesses is fine, I'm off to look for ways to mess my local paper shop around (owned by an 84 year old who should expect it seeing as she has decided to risk running a business).

franklee

HarryBarry wrote: »

Terrible way of looking at it. As I said, I know full well the law allows it, but it doesn't mean you should do it. There is a clear agreement in place, how about dont rent a house if you cant stick to what was agreed in the first place? Having to go to court to get something you own back is not something you should have to do.

In my experience the tenancy agreement doesn't state the tenant should move out when a S21 notice period expires so the tenant isn't breaking what they agreed to. I think you are forgetting that it's common to serve the S21 as routine to match the end of every fixed term even when the LL doesn't want the tenant to leave. Sometimes the S21 is even served in the same envelope as an offer to renew. Therefore it seems to be becoming more "acceptable" for a tenant to overstay the S21 notice. After all it's not practical to move at the end of every fixed term. Indeed some posters on here go so far as to say the tenant isn't free to leave when the S21 asks but have to serve their own notice (which I don't agree with if the tenant is leaving when the S21 asked). Therefore it seems odd that staying past the S21 date is so frowned upon.

Moving home is a big deal so should not be based on a landlord's intentions, which are liable to change and vary from landlord to landlord. Yet it seems there is widespread difference in how the S21 is interpreted by landlords. Landlord A may threaten to sue for an extra months rent if the tenant leaves when the S21 asks while landlord B is hammering on the door insisting the tenant goes. It seems the tenant is expected to jump which way a particular landlord wants on a particular day or be labelled a troublemaker.

Moving is expensive and time consuming so a tenant should take the time to select their new property carefully or they may end up having to move twice.

I think the OP should write to the landlord explaining that they are house hunting but are unlikely to meet the landlord's preferred date and offering to let the landlord know as soon as they've found somewhere so that a date to end the tenancy can be negotiated and agreed. Get any agreements in writing or risk being charged rent in lieu of notice.

HarryBarry

franklee wrote: »

In my experience the tenancy agreement doesn't state the tenant should move out when a S21 notice period expires so the tenant isn't breaking what they agreed to. I think you are forgetting that it's common to serve the S21 as routine to match the end of every fixed term even when the LL doesn't want the tenant to leave. Sometimes the S21 is even served in the same envelope as an offer to renew. Therefore it seems to be becoming more "acceptable" for a tenant to overstay the S21 notice. After all it's not practical to move at the end of every fixed term. Indeed some posters on here go so far as to say the tenant isn't free to leave when the S21 asks but have to serve their own notice (which I don't agree with if the tenant is leaving when the S21 asked). Therefore it seems odd that staying past the S21 date is so frowned upon.

Moving home is a big deal so should not be based on a landlord's intentions, which are liable to change and vary from landlord to landlord. Yet it seems there is widespread difference in how the S21 is interpreted by landlords. Landlord A may threaten to sue for an extra months rent if the tenant leaves when the S21 asks while landlord B is hammering on the door insisting the tenant goes. It seems the tenant is expected to jump which way a particular landlord wants on a particular day or be labelled a troublemaker.

Moving is expensive and time consuming so a tenant should take the time to select their new property carefully or they may end up having to move twice.

I think the OP should write to the landlord explaining that they are house hunting but are unlikely to meet the landlord's preferred date and offering to let the landlord know as soon as they've found somewhere so that a date to end the tenancy can be negotiated and agreed. Get any agreements in writing or risk being charged rent in lieu of notice.

I knew I'd be picked up on that. What I mean is, it's perfectly clear what the expectation is when renting, regardless of how landlords have to word the agreement, every tenant knows full well they are expected to leave when given 2 months notice. It's not like everyone in the country expects the landlord to go to court to end the tenancy. Certainly in this case it is very clear that they are expected to be out on a certain date.

That law is in place for a reason, and it isn't for people planning well in advance not to leave as it is convenient for them. The OP has enough time to be planning something else. Say the OP had found somewhere but it fell through a day before they were due to move out, that law has to be in place to make sure the landlord doesn't come round at midnight and throw them out onto the street.

But anyway, while I think it is a bit cheeky to make a plan to stay beyond the date expected to move out, I find the posts that just say "yeah do it, they have to go to court" far more annoying because it is possibly not the best thing to do. As people say, being a landlord is a business, therefore if they are running their business correctly they will do their homework on potential tenants and may find out they were evicted by the courts - how clever will you be feeling when you keep getting rejected from the good houses in the good areas with the good schools? Also will the tenant still have to give proper notice if they ignore the date the LL wants them to move out? Meaning they can't just go after 3 weeks or they might end up being liable for rent on 2 places.

But if it is such a good lawful / moral thing to do, the OP shouldnt have a problem. But I know a few landlords, they would try to avoid someone with that background (remember you will have limited info on these people to make a decision and that doesn't really go in your favour).

PS I'm not a landlord and generally dislike how people just bought loads of houses and got rich quick, but I don't believe in this attitude that it is acceptable to cause stress for a decent landlord who is acting properly just because "it's a busines so they deserve it".

Smith_007

HarryBarry wrote: »

every tenant knows full well they are expected to leave when given 2 months notice.

RUBBISH !
Most landlords now issue a section 21 at the start of every fixed term...... regardless of whether they want the tenant to leave or not.

At the end of the fixed term, the tenant is simply invited to disregard the section 21 and is issued another fixed term AST.

HarryBarry wrote: »

it is very clear that they are expected to be out on a certain date.

Sometimes tenants (especially with kids) simply can't be out on a certain date. Tough for the landlord.

HarryBarry wrote: »

I don't believe in this attitude that it is acceptable to cause stress for a decent landlord

What about the stress to the tenants (and children) forced to leave their home? If a landlord cannot accept tenants exercising their legal rights, or treat tenants as human, then they are in the wrong business.

HarryBarry

Smith_007 wrote: »

RUBBISH !
Most landlords now issue a section 21 at the start of every fixed term...... regardless of whether they want the tenant to leave or not.

At the end of the fixed term, the tenant is simply invited to disregard the section 21 and is issued another fixed term AST.




Sometimes tenants (especially with kids) simply can't be out on a certain date. Tough for the landlord.



What about the stress to the tenants (and children) forced to leave their home? If a landlord cannot accept tenants exercising their legal rights, or treat tenants as human, then they are in the wrong business.

For your first point, why are you talking about people that issue a S21 at the start of a tenancy? It's true but also pretty irrelevant to my point. I'm talking about notice to quit. Through simple communication it is normally pretty clear when the landlord actually wants you to leave - in which case (and certainly this case) you will be given a couple of months notice and expected to be gone at the end of it, you are not expected to stay and make the landlord go to court - and both parties fully understand this at the start of an agreement and tenants that choose to ignore it, are doing themselves no favours and will be seen as problem tenants, regardless of the law.

Yes there is a bit of stress for people that rent with kids, but your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about "tough for the landlord" - why not tough for the tenant, the one who actually has the problem? If it was the landlords job to find the tenant their next home, then it is his problem and "tough for the landlord" if he cant get them out in time. But it is not.

And if you cant organise something in 8 weeks, well you are going to be chucked out by the courts pretty soon anyway, the same problem exists so you may as well do it without getting a bad reputation or giving someone an excuse to cause you problems (which there are many ways a landlord can do it).

So anyway, as I've said, legally you can get away with this, but there is a reason most people dont do it.

Werdnal

HarryB, the point is, under currently tenancy law in England/Wales, there is no such thing as a Notice to Quit, from the landlord.

The required Section 21 notice is a Notice Seeking Possession, and states (or should if it is worded correctly), that the notice advises that the Landlord will seek possession after XX date.

This notice under the current legal process, does not end the tenancy and the tenant does not need to move out UNTIL the LL gains the correct possession order to legally end it.

Many S21s issued are invalid anyway, and whilst many tenants would do as you suggest and willingly move on, they do not have to, the law is totally on their side to stay, and especially if the notice is invalid, they can ignore it until the LL follows the required process to its conclusion.

If you have an issue with the law, then campaign your local MP to try to get it changed, but whilst the current rules stand, the tenant is within their rights to sit tight until the possession order is awarded and baillifs come knocking if they so choose!

And before you start going on about my being a tenant as I am enouraging this, no, I am a LL of 13 years standing, and often advise tenants on the rights, wrongs and implications of S21 notices here, and would be quite happy to proceed to court if a tenant exercised their right to stay past expiry of an S21.

Thems the rules, like it or lump it, but until/unless they change, tough on Mr Landlord ...

Cody

Dear Forum;

Glad I provoked such a debate, interesting to hear both view points. Not wanting to get involved in the details, but something HarryBerry said,

.... how about dont rent a house if you cant stick to what was agreed in the first place?

Ok Harry, I dont want to rent a house since I can not be sure of my circumstances in the future, what should I do as an alternative!!?, squat?, live under a bridge with my family, move into my parents garage!!?

---

Getting back to my actual position, I know my LL after 5 years of having her ignore requests to fix things, remove nails from floors yadayada, and I know that she doesnt see us as human beings but as rent paying nodes in her life. Fair enough, its a business, and as such I am her customer, and I will exert my rights as her customer if it is in my and my families best interest to do so.

The latest development is that we recieved an email this morning from the letting agent, containing an email from her explaining that she has booked builders for the day we leave and if we are not out of the house on that date then she will collect the deposit she has paid to the builders from us, circa £3400. Now, this 'threat' did provoke a mild mannered rage within me, we have been more than civil with her and polite, being very open on our situation and she responds with threats like this to us, via a third person (the poor lettings agent). We have been keen to work with her and have been working hard to move out before the expected date.

I'd be interested in peoples opinions whether she has any legal grounds to expect us to be responsible for her deposit to this builder, we have never agreed to move out on that date for example.

Also, I have been asking the LL for the signed document detailing our deposit scheme, which she has so far not provided, so I am concerned about the deposit return. Any thoughts.

Thanks

Cody

Yorkie1

She has no grounds to demand the deposit.

She has made plans on the basis of presuming you will have voluntarily left, when you have no legal obligation to leave.

If she starts kicking off, ring 999 and make a complaint under the Protection from Eviction Act. You might get lucky and speak to someone who realises that this is a criminal offence and not just some civil matter.

Kynthia

Your tenancy won't have ended if you don't move out. Therefore the landlord has no right to expect the property to be empty.