Tenant stopped paying rent and vanished

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

Nope, fact is that if the tenant is a nasty sort he can do the landlord some real damage here if he plays his cards right.

The police don't need to. It's a civil matter and it will be the courts that can decide the fate of the landlord.

Plus nobody even mentioned the police. Another instance of your ignorance i'm afraid.

He really can't do damage (yet). If you believe so, then one of us is ignorant and it clearly isn't me. If you think otherwise, state law broken and punishment that you expect LL to receive.

Nobody mentioned police? Ok so I must have dreamed the opening post where it was mentioned tenant was threatening to call the police for breaking in (criminal). I didn't read anything about tenant accusing LL of evicting him.

So please, read my posts and the others carefully before you jump in like a raving lunatic.

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

As you don't seem to understand the difference between being wronged LEGALLY and being wrong MORALLY i won't bother replying to your nonsensical posts. :T

Wow you really stuck to not replying to me, by replying to me in the very next post.

I understand 100% the legal side here, as well as having a reasoned argument on the moral side.

Not every law broken has to result in drastic punishment.

I think you need to calm down and reply to the facts, rather than the OTT hysteria some people have dreamed up while in LL hating mode.

fart

HarryBarry wrote: »

He really can't do damage (yet). If you believe so, then one of us is ignorant and it clearly isn't me. If you think otherwise, state law broken and punishment that you expect LL to receive.

Ha how do i need to know which specific law it is? He's broken the law, full stop. All i know is that the tenant has done NOTHING AT ALL wrong in this scenario. He's not paid his rent, big woop, that could have been a problem with his bank account for all the landlord or you know. Landlord is totally 100% in the wrong LEGALLY in this situation. You think a court gives a damn about 'oh well i thought he'd moved out'? The law is the law, i don't know what the punishment is for not obeying it but the tenant's home has been illegally entered without his consent and his stuff has been bagged up without his consent and the place has been cleared ready (presumably) for the next tenant while it still legally belongs to him. If you think there's no recourse you're an idiot if you think a judge will accept ignorance when OP claims he's been letting for 20 odd years. He should know what he can and can't do by now.

Nobody mentioned police? Ok so I must have dreamed the opening post where it was mentioned tenant was threatening to call the police for breaking in (criminal). I didn't read anything about tenant accusing LL of evicting him.

LOL it's so blatantly obvious that i was talking about people talking in this thread and not the tenant himself. You state ' If you think police will investigate this, you are deluded.'. I countered by saying that no-one said that, let alone me. Poor effort mate.

Now i will actually stop responding to you though.

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

Ha how do i need to know which specific law it is? He's broken the law, full stop. All i know is that the tenant has done NOTHING AT ALL wrong in this scenario. He's not paid his rent, big woop, that could have been a problem with his bank account for all the landlord or you know. Landlord is totally 100% in the wrong LEGALLY in this situation. You think a court gives a damn about 'oh well i thought he'd moved out'? The law is the law, i don't know what the punishment is for not obeying it but the tenant's home has been illegally entered without his consent and his stuff has been bagged up without his consent and the place has been cleared ready (presumably) for the next tenant while it still legally belongs to him. If you think there's no recourse you're an idiot if you think a judge will accept ignorance when OP claims he's been letting for 20 odd years. He should know what he can and can't do by now.
LOL it's so blatantly obvious that i was talking about people talking in this thread and not the tenant himself. You state ' If you think police will investigate this, you are deluded.'. I countered by saying that no-one said that, let alone me. Poor effort mate.

Now i will actually stop responding to you though.

Please do stop, for your own benefit. So you don't seem to disagree that the police won't care, yet you expect this criminal matter (not civil as you earlier stated) to end up in court with the OP in big trouble. Oh and in your court the judge doesn't listen to the whole story, he just throws the book at him. Funny that, when I broke the law in speeding, the judge listened to my story and I ended up with no points on my licence.

Jeez. Luckily I won't completely rip your weird argument apart. For one, its clear you aren't willing to listen to anything other than all out landlord attack. Secondly, you are no longer talking to me (diddums) so I'd be wasting my time. Nothing to do with you realising you are losing any sort of debate badly and giving up is it?

PS genuine lol that you have ranted at the LL about him being in big trouble and the tenant totally wronged, followed by a post saying you have no idea about the law or the punishment. Christ, is there a report for stupidity button ?

fart

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Has the tenant explained why he has moved his furniture or failed to pay the rent? Have you asked?

This would be a start - find out his proper intentions and ask his reasons for moving his stuff out. Not sure he's legally obliged to tell you anything except the rent problem though.

Yorkie1

jgh wrote: »

The tenancy has the standard clauses:
The Tenant shall...
... Give one month's notice of leaving
... PROVIDED that if the Rent or any instalment or part thereof shall be in arrear for at least fourteen days after the same have become due (whether legally demanded or not) or if there shall be a breach of any of the agreements by the Tenant the Landlord may re-enter on the Property (subject always to any statutory restrictions on his power so to do) and immediately thereupon the tenancy shall absolutely determine without prejudice to the other rights and remedies of the Landlord and may dispose of all and any items left on the Property as and in any way seen fit by the Landlord

OP, you have completely missed the relevance of this part of your tenancy clause.

The law does not permit you to enter in the way you have done. The rest of that clause other than the highlighted section is unenforceable and irrelevant. You cannot enter the property and determine the tenancy in that way. Contract law does not over-ride statute. Only a court can end a tenancy unless mutual surrender / notice is properly given and acted upon.

I don't know who wrote your tenancy agreement but they need to take a course in enforceable tenancy clauses, and you would be advised to get advice pronto because if this is a professional tenant then you are in really deep water.

HarryBarry

Yorkie1 wrote: »

if this is a professional tenant then you are in really deep water.

Good post, but the bit I've quoted - why ? I'd be really interested to know how the tenant would even prove it, and if he can, I'd love to read a similar case where a LL was in deep water because he entered a property one time when the tenant wasn't there. Normally you would only ever see that sort of thing mentioned in court as part of a long list of things that the LL has done wrong in a harassment case or something.

Remember - so far, despite the LL's opening post about what he thought he could do, so far it is a one off genuine mistake that saw the law broken. Despite the response he has had on here, he didnt know and he done the right thing by coming on here to check the rules (better late than never) before he did anything else. There certainly hasnt been a forced eviction, which would see the LL in trouble.

So, it was potentially a disaster for the LL, but if he read the thread and now understands the law, it's a slap on the wrists at best.

fart

So many clueless people giving such poor advice here.

Here is a summary of the responsibilities of the tenant and landlord, NONE of which have been followed by the landlord:

Possession action


You must get a court order to legally regain possession of your property. You cannot use force or coercion to get your tenants to leave. Only officer of the Enforcement of Judgements Office can legally remove a tenant from a property.

Due process

Your tenants have a legal right to due process. This means that you must follow the correct legal procedure in order to remove the tenants from the property. This applies even if the tenants have stopped paying rent, damaged the property or broken the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Due process requires that you satisfy all of the following steps

• serve the tenants with a legally binding Notice to Quit
• if tenants do not leave when this Notice expires, you must obtain a court order for possession
• if the tenants do not leave after receiving the court order, you must obtain an enforcement order to enforcement the original judgement
• officers from the Enforcement of Judgements office can remove the tenants if they remain in the property on the date of enforcement.

If the tenants consent to leave at any of these stages, the tenancy is brought to an end.
Back to top

Notice to Quit

Due process requires that you first serve your tenants with a Notice to Quit, informing them that you wish them to vacate the property by a specific date. The amount of notice you are required to give depends on how long they have been living as tenants in the property. The length of notice required is

• 4 weeks for tenants who have been living in the property for up to 5 years
• 8 weeks for tenants who have been living in the property for between 5 and 10 years
• 12 weeks for tenants who have been living in the property for more than 10 years.

If your Notice to Quit does not give the tenant sufficient time, as required by law, it is unenforceable. If your tenants are still within the timeframe of a tenancy agreement they must be in breach of the agreement for you to regain possession. You must include specifics of this breach in your Notice to Quit. If you do not include details of the breach the court may find that the Notice is not valid and insist you begin the process for gaining possession again.
You will not be able to file for a court order for possession of the property until a legally binding Notice to Quit has expired.
Back to top

Possession action

If the notice to quit period has passed and the tenant is still in the property you need to apply for a court order. Unless you have experience of legal procedures, you should instruct a solicitor at this stage.
Your solicitor will serve a civil bill on your tenant. This bill should include your grounds for seeking possession of the property; any claim for outstanding rent or damages and it should indicate whether you are seeking costs from the tenant if you are successful in court. If the tenant is periodic and there is no fixed term agreement in place you do not need to have grounds to begin eviction proceedings.
The tenant has 21 days to respond and can file an intention to defend. The case will be allocated a hearing date at the County Court which has jurisdiction in the area in which the property is located. Whether the case is defended or not, you or your agent must attend the court hearing to put forward your case.
Where there is a fixed term agreement in place and you have cited a breach of agreement as grounds for possession you will need to satisfy the judge that the tenant did breach the agreement. It will help your case if you can provide copies of any letters you sent to the tenant regarding this matter.
Back to top

Enforcing an order

The Court Service should send a copy of the judgement to the tenant. If the court has made an order, returning possession of the property to you, the tenant will usually be given a date by which they should vacate the property.
If your tenant does not vacate by that date, you will have to apply to the Enforcement of Judgements Office (EJO) to have the original order enforced. You will have to pay a fee for this. Your solicitor will be able to assist you in applying to EJO for an enforcement order.
Back to top
Harassment

Your tenants have a right to due process. If you interfere with the property or with any amenities or services to the property in an attempt to force the tenants to leave the property you may be found guilty of harassment. Harassment is defined as any action carried out by a landlord or someone acting on the landlord's behalf designed to interfere with the tenant's enjoyment of the property.
The local council will investigate any allegations of harassment. You can be convicted of harassment even if your tenant has stopped paying rent or has damaged the property.
Back to top

Illegal eviction

You must follow this legal procedure in order to regain possession of your property. The following actions can be classed as an illegal eviction:

• failing to give the appropriate amount of notice to quit
• changing the locks while the tenant is out or otherwise preventing the tenant from accessing the property
• removing the tenant's belongings from the property in an attempt to force the tenant to leave
• forcing the tenant to leave by interfering with services or amenities or threatening and intimidating the tenant
• anyone, other than a person who is employed by the Enforcement of Judgements Office, attempting to physically remove the tenant from the property .

The local council can prosecute you if it believes you have carried out an illegal eviction.

Can't link to the source because i'm new apparently. Landlord in this case has broken multiple of these. I'm sure if the tenant takes an aggressive stance and takes this through court though the 20 year landlord will be given a slap on the wrists because why should he KNOW the tenants rights when he can just assume them and then act however he likes?

HarryBarry

Ok just so people don't get carried away by my refusal to join the LL hating crew and ignorantly lambast the OP or accept he will get into trouble, I'll clarify my opinion on what I think has happened (to hopefully stop the nit-picking that people like 'fart' have done with my posts)...

LL had genuine reason to think that T had done a runner. He knows he cant normally enter the property, but he thinks the T has gone. It was understandable to enter (if it were me i'd be worried about damage to my very expensive property). Regardless of whether LL knew where he legally stood, I think the OP would have still entered - I think a lot of LLs would have done this. So yes, I accept a law was broken, but when you listen to the strong evidence, it is understandable why (and any reasonable person would understand). In terms of judging someones character - if you cannot differentiate between a LL who intends to enter a property to harass a T knowing they are there (I'd be livid if the T), with one who thought he would never even see the T again, then you are probably below primary school age - that's me being polite.

So, LL entered, cleaned and then bagged a few things. I'm guessing it wasn't anything special as if you notice a laptop it's obvious he is coming back. Anyway, he bagged a few things, he didn't skip the T's entire house contents.OP didn't say he removed anything from the house, he didn't say he changed the locks.

T realises LL has been in, they have a row. T made a few points in which he was entirely correct. T still has key and it doesnt sound like LL blocked him from going back in "his home". Before doing anything else, LL decides to check on here as to the rules. It becomes obvious that LL is wrong - however not knowing the law is not a crime, he did the right thing in following it up as if he had acted on his opinion he might be in big trouble.

So, legally...

LL has broken the law once in entering. Nothing was damaged and T suffered no loss and invasion of privacy was minimal seeing as T and most of his possessions were not there. So, is LL in big trouble ? Well, I read another thread on here where T was awarded £1000 damages for persistent harassment by LL. But, can T prove LL even went in ? good luck to T is what I say. If T proves it, LL is in minimal trouble.

Did LL evict him ? He was certainly going down that path, but hopefully this thread saved him. Seeing as T still has a key, LL hasnt changed the locks or physically stopped him from going back in his house, then no, there is more chance of me flying to the moon than there is of the T claiming he has been unlawfully evicted. If anything was removed, good luck to the T claiming the LL did it when T moved most of his stuff anyway, its still not an eviction though, its theft.

Can LL take T to court ? Well yes, If T continues not to pay the rent then why not ? Better chance of LL proving the T owes money than anything else.

LL v T - Character Judgement ...

LL made a mistake with his assumption (or did he?) but he acted with good reason and did not set out to break a law or harm anyone, any reasonable person would not hold it against LL. However, LL does not have a good understanding of the legal side to renting out a house, he does deserve a bit of stick for this as it is not really acceptable, but it doesnt make him a bad person or mean he is in big trouble for what has happened so far. However LL was willing to just let a T walk away with no notice and not follow it up for rent - thats quite good of him.

T - It looks very likely he has somewhere else to live and was trying to get out of paying double rent. I've read possible excuses for the T, there is a problem with his bank - ok so the house gets emptied while at the same time he doesnt pay his rent (that he normally does pay), right. The other one was he bought a house but plans on staying in his rented place while he renovates the new house, :rotfl:yeah OK, the first thing I would do while renovating is move everything I own into a building site while living in an empty rented house which I've stopped paying rent on. Come off it. The T even showed good knowledge of the law. So potentially we have a T that was planning on doing a runner without giving the notice that he knows he should do therefore costing the LL rent money. T is not a very nice person and I hope the LL stands his ground with him.

fart

HarryBarry wrote: »

Ok just so people don't get carried away by my refusal to join the LL hating crew and ignorantly lambast the OP or accept he will get into trouble, I'll clarify my opinion on what I think has happened (to hopefully stop the nit-picking that people like 'fart' have done with my posts)...

LL had genuine reason to think that T had done a runner. He knows he cant normally enter the property, but he thinks the T has gone. It was understandable to enter (if it were me i'd be worried about damage to my very expensive property). Regardless of whether LL knew where he legally stood, I think the OP would have still entered - I think a lot of LLs would have done this. So yes, I accept a law was broken, but when you listen to the strong evidence, it is understandable why (and any reasonable person would understand). In terms of judging someones character - if you cannot differentiate between a LL who intends to enter a property to harass a T knowing they are there (I'd be livid if the T), with one who thought he would never even see the T again, then you are probably below primary school age - that's me being polite.

So, LL entered, cleaned and then bagged a few things. I'm guessing it wasn't anything special as if you notice a laptop it's obvious he is coming back. Anyway, he bagged a few things, he didn't skip the T's entire house contents.OP didn't say he removed anything from the house, he didn't say he changed the locks.

T realises LL has been in, they have a row. T made a few points in which he was entirely correct. T still has key and it doesnt sound like LL blocked him from going back in "his home". Before doing anything else, LL decides to check on here as to the rules. It becomes obvious that LL is wrong - however not knowing the law is not a crime, he did the right thing in following it up as if he had acted on his opinion he might be in big trouble.

So, legally...

LL has broken the law once in entering. Nothing was damaged and T suffered no loss and invasion of privacy was minimal seeing as T and most of his possessions were not there. So, is LL in big trouble ? Well, I read another thread on here where T was awarded £1000 damages for persistent harassment by LL. But, can T prove LL even went in ? good luck to T is what I say. If T proves it, LL is in minimal trouble.

Did LL evict him ? He was certainly going down that path, but hopefully this thread saved him. Seeing as T still has a key, LL hasnt changed the locks or physically stopped him from going back in his house, then no, there is more chance of me flying to the moon than there is of the T claiming he has been unlawfully evicted. If anything was removed, good luck to the T claiming the LL did it when T moved most of his stuff anyway, its still not an eviction though, its theft.

Can LL take T to court ? Well yes, If T continues not to pay the rent then why not ? Better chance of LL proving the T owes money than anything else.

LL v T - Character Judgement ...

LL made a mistake with his assumption (or did he?) but he acted with good reason and did not set out to break a law or harm anyone, any reasonable person would not hold it against LL. However, LL does not have a good understanding of the legal side to renting out a house, he does deserve a bit of stick for this as it is not really acceptable, but it doesnt make him a bad person or mean he is in big trouble for what has happened so far. However LL was willing to just let a T walk away with no notice and not follow it up for rent - thats quite good of him.

T - It looks very likely he has somewhere else to live and was trying to get out of paying double rent. I've read possible excuses for the T, there is a problem with his back - ok so the house gets emptied while at the same time he doesnt pay his rent (that he normally does pay), right. The other one was he bought a house but plans on staying in his rented place while he renovates the new house, :rotfl:yeah OK, the first thing I would do while renovating is move everything I own into a building site while living in an empty rented house which I've stopped paying rent on. Come off it. The T even showed good knowledge of the law. So potentially we have a T that was planning on doing a runner without giving the notice that he knows he should do therefore costing the LL rent money. T is not a very nice person and I hope the LL stands his ground with him.

It's mind boggling how clueless and misinformed you are.

invasion of privacy was minimal seeing as T and most of his possessions were not there.

:doh:

'Judge, he entered my property without consent, moved my things into bags and then demanded the keys when i asked him what was going on'

'What's the problem? You weren't even there and if anything he cleaned the place up for you. Man up. NEXT CASE PLEASE!'

Please, stop giving 'advice' on here. It's not a criminal case - the judge won't take 'character' or innocent mistakes on board. If the Tenant can prove his case the OP will be punished. They judge based on the law, and OP's running a business.

EDIT: before you chip in with it, i'm commenting to highlight your idiocy before someone innocently takes what you're saying on board and thinks it's ok to behave like the OP has.