Tenant stopped paying rent and vanished

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

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:

Pot. Kettle.

Please read the actual facts (not what you think has happened) and then compare them with the legal stuff you just posted.

Pretty much everything you just posted, the LL has not done. The LL has not illegally evicted anyone - he didnt physically remove him, he didnt change the locks, he didnt remove all of his stuff in an attempt to make him leave and he didnt give him short notice. He also didnt harass the T until he left.

In fact, the LL didnt want the T gone at all so that is why he hasnt gone to court to get a possession order. If the T wants to continue living in the house, he is still free to do so, why do you not understand that ?

LL possibly caught the T in the process of doing a runner, but now T has been to visit the LL, I'm sure he will follow the legal route in order to get his house back. He almost made a massive mistake but he checked on here first, no big deal. The LL is in no trouble at all, even if it is through luck rather than knowledge of the law. If the T was really doing a runner he wouldnt care about LL taking the house back, and if he wants the house and LL had changed the locks - illegal evictions normally end up with the T being let back in the house, rather than court (although no doubt a LL doing this could end up in court).

fart

HarryBarry wrote: »

Pot. Kettle.

Please read the actual facts (not what you think has happened) and then compare them with the legal stuff you just posted.

Pretty much everything you just posted, the LL has not done. The LL has not illegally evicted anyone - he didnt physically remove him, he didnt change the locks, he didnt remove all of his stuff in an attempt to make him leave and he didnt give him short notice. He also didnt harass the T until he left.

In fact, the LL didnt want the T gone at all so that is why he hasnt gone to court to get a possession order. If the T wants to continue living in the house, he is still free to do so, why do you not understand that ?

LL possibly caught the T in the process of doing a runner, but now T has been to visit the LL, I'm sure he will follow the legal route in order to get his house back. He almost made a massive mistake but he checked on here first, no big deal. The LL is in no trouble at all, even if it is through luck rather than knowledge of the law. If the T was really doing a runner he wouldnt care about LL taking the house back, and if he wants the house and LL had changed the locks - illegal evictions normally end up with the T being let back in the house, rather than court (although no doubt a LL doing this could end up in court).

Tenant never left....there's nothing more i can say to you, you can't separate the real world and their legal implications so there's no point carrying on this. None of what you said has any impact on the parts of the law that have already been broken by the landlord. The fact that he can move back in and hasn't changed the locks doesn't change the fact that the landlord has already broken a few laws, and either way the legal ramifications depend entirely on how far the tenant wants to take it, as has already been stated.

Your opinion on the matter is nonchalant as far as the legal rights and wrongs are concerned and in my book that makes your advice negligent at best.

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

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

:rotfl:

I'm really genuinely laughing. They judge based on evidence and if the T was proven right, will be awarded damages based on severity. This would never come before a judge, a lawyer would make sure T is not stupid enough to waste his time. How on earth do you expect to prove the LL demanded the keys, he can simply say he asked for the keys if the T was moving away, when he realised the T wanted to keep them, he took no further action and T was allowed to live in peace. What makes you so sure that the judge doesnt take into account character? I'm sure I know someone who was a character witness in a civil case. Still, nothing to stop YOU applying some human element to the case and being understanding, even if a judge cant (he probably can).

I dont understand how you have got yourself in this muddled state.

I said it was understandable and most people would do it and there is no harm done. Several people have said this, you just want any mistake by a LL lambasted, not going to happen from me in this case. If the LL takes my advice, the T can live in peace and the LL wont get himself into trouble - why are you arguing with that ?

GDB2222

To the OP:

If you haven't been chased away by all the ranting here, I suggest that you look on Shoosmiths' website, as they are one of the largest legal firms in the country. They provide a really useful, but quite lengthy, guide to this difficult topic.

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/free-legal-guides/guide-to-abandonment-fig-3245.htm

HarryBarry

fart wrote: »

Tenant never left....there's nothing more i can say to you, you can't separate the real world and their legal implications so there's no point carrying on this. None of what you said has any impact on the parts of the law that have already been broken by the landlord. The fact that he can move back in and hasn't changed the locks doesn't change the fact that the landlord has already broken a few laws, and either way the legal ramifications depend entirely on how far the tenant wants to take it, as has already been stated.

Your opinion on the matter is nonchalant as far as the legal rights and wrongs are concerned and in my book that makes your advice negligent at best.

What are you on about ? I know the T never left, which is why I said the LL never harassed him until he left - you posted lots of legal stuff (one of which was harassing a T until they go), I went through it and ticked off everything the LL didnt do (which happens to be all of your post).

Why are you still debating this ? You even made a post containing lots of legal information, which the LL has not broken.

I've already acknowledged the law broken and what should be done to avoid doing it again. The severity of the crime is low. I'm not sure you have a point, you just seem to want to argue with me. If you believe I'm wrong, go back to my post where I clarified my stance and pick out which bits are wrong - I cant see how there is much to debate, the legal side is clear, while the character side I posted is opinion - but reasoned and fair.

HarryBarry

GDB2222 wrote: »

To the OP:

If you haven't been chased away by all the ranting here, I suggest that you look on Shoosmiths' website, as they are one of the largest legal firms in the country. They provide a really useful, but quite lengthy, guide to this difficult topic.

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/free-legal-guides/guide-to-abandonment-fig-3245.htm

Good link, very helpful to the OP.

Fart - take note that again you were completely wrong, the LL doesnt need a response to a letter to enter. So therefore, the LL can also now claim he left a note and received no response. So really the LLs mistake was to not write a note - he was always going to gain entry to the property, and if the T has responded to the note he would know the place hasnt yet been abandoned and wouldnt have bothered to enter. The link also implies a note on the door stating you have assumed it is abandoned and have 14 days to contact the LL would actually help avoid an unlawful eviction claim (along with clear evidence no one was living there and police/hospital records are checked).

Still, hopefully I've shown just by using a little thought how the LL will not get into trouble and it is hardly crime of the century. With everything wrong in the world and people think it is a great use of time to "bend the OP over in court" for this. Christ, no wonder lawyers are so rich if some would actually pursue this one. I probably wont check back on this thread before it drifts away, so someone do me a favour and PM me if comes to light that there are major reasons why the OP is actually in big trouble. I've gone on a bit too much in here anyway, but I thought for once I'd take the trolls to task when they are doing their scare mongering to the OP.

thesaint

Yorkie1 wrote: »

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.

You will find that clause in most tenancy agreements. Most lenders require it as a matter of course. Whether it is enforceable or not is irrelevant.

mrginge

thesaint wrote: »

I encourage my landlords not to bother taking a deposit. The con's far outweigh the pro's.

Not had an answer on this yet. I think as its such a controversial comment it would be nice to hear the justification.

thesaint

mrginge wrote: »

Not had an answer on this yet. I think as its such a controversial comment it would be nice to hear the justification.

The potential to get an arbitary amount that may well be considerable less than what the tenant owes in rent and damages is small.
I tell my landlords to start a claim in the county court if they have a dodgy tenant that they want to pursue.

Compared to what happens when the tenant realises 5 years after he left the property that he can get a windfall of several thousand pounds because the landlord didn't give him the precscribed information for the deposit that was returned in full to him the same day the tenancy ended.

The same reason why I advise landlords to forget about a Sec 8 possession process, and use a Sec 21.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Entertaining thread.