Tenant stopped paying rent and vanished

mrginge

thesaint wrote: »

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.

Well i kind of see the point, but if the LL is professional then they don't see the downside of that argument.

Also, by not taking the deposit and going straight via small claims, you add additional beaurocracy for all those minor claims (i.e the majority) that would be covered by the deposit and the simpler resolution service. If a claim of £50 was required is the LL actually going to small claims this or would they just write it off?
Plus, by taking the deposit you know that that amount is ring-fenced up front and can be claimed.

So the 'pro' of the deposit is that you can easily recover an amount due, and the 'con' is that it can cost a lot if you don't follow the correct procedure.

Shouldn't you be encouraging your LLs to do things correctly to avoid the con rather than just telling them to not bother at all and lose out on the pro?

JuicyJesus

thesaint wrote: »

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.

That's not a reason to not take a deposit, it's a reason to not take a dodgy deposit and not register it with a scheme as per the law.

RobertoMoir

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Most of us would have done exactly the same as you.

When you say "most of us" you mean "most of us who don't know our !!!!!! from our elbows when it comes to rental/tenancy", right?

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It may or may not be something that would "hold" in law, but did you take a photograph of said removal van in front of your house as proof that the tenants were indeed moving out?

Well no, it wouldn't "hold" in law because a 'photograph of said removal van in front of your house' isn't 'proof that the tenants were indeed moving out'. It's 'proof' that 'said removal van' was at some point 'in front of your house'.

fart

RobertoMoir wrote: »

When you say "most of us" you mean "most of us who don't know our !!!!!! from our elbows when it comes to rental/tenancy", right?



Well no, it wouldn't "hold" in law because a 'photograph of said removal van in front of your house' isn't 'proof that the tenants were indeed moving out'. It's 'proof' that 'said removal van' was at some point 'in front of your house'.

It's good that someone understands that the law doesn't take this sort of circumstantial evidence into consideration.

thesaint

JuicyJesus wrote: »

That's not a reason to not take a deposit, it's a reason to not take a dodgy deposit and not register it with a scheme as per the law.

In my scenario, it was registered with the scheme, and returned in full.

45002

fart wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the law, but i'm fairly certain that you can't enter the house just because rent wasn't paid and you noticed a removals van. You can't 'assume' he's done one and enter at will, what you've done is probably illegal but someone else will clear that up shortly i'm sure.

Unpaid rent + an assumption from you doesn't equal a terminated contract, a vacated property or allow you to enter without giving notice. Did you even attempt to contact the person to ask what was going on? He could have had a glitch with funds and could have been moving some of his stuff to a second home for all you know.

This is 100% wrong. There's a legal process you have to go through, unpaid rent doesn't grant you anything.

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:

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?

http://renting.housingadviceni.org/prs/advice-for-landlords/ending-a-tenancy/possession-action.html

You copied and paste from Northern Ireland website

Where does it say Tenant from NI ?

fart

45002 wrote: »

http://renting.housingadviceni.org/prs/advice-for-landlords/ending-a-tenancy/possession-action.html

You copied and paste from Northern Ireland website

Where does it say Tenant from NI ?

Doesn't stop the fact that 99% of the above applies here.

When i said i'm not familiar with the law, i mean i can't quote acts if someone asks, but i know what rights people have.

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.

True in England as far as i'm aware.

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.

True in England.

Enforcing an order section is true too, you can't remove them without a court order in England.

Your tenants have a right to due process.

True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation hasn't been granted.

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.

True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation has experienced.

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.

True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation has experienced.

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 .

Again, all true in England.

So what's your point?

I seem to have people thinking i'm an idiot here - i even had one fool PM'ing me telling me i was idiotic and that he'd reported me for essentially not agreeing with him.

I've merely point out the following:

Landlord in this instance has broken multiple laws.

Being a landlord he's running a business and is as accountable as any other business - i highly doubt a court will take ignorance as an excuse because the law doesn't state that with a certain amount of ignorance, the person who claims to be an experienced landlord can be excused for breaking the law.

Every single thing the landlord has stated in the OP as 'proof' for his assumptions hold zero weight in court.

Every single thing the landlord has done in relation to this tenant is LEGALLY wrong.

I've also stated multiple times that he could be in big trouble or none at all - depends how much of a professional suer the tenant is and whether it can be resolved without court action. Tenant seems to know his rights which would suggest he's willing to take this all the way.

I merely pointed out that the OP is ignorant at very best, and probably just a crap landlord if he's been doing it '20 odd years' without even knowing the most basic of laws pertaining to his tenant's rights, and should do some reading/contact a solicitor asap.

None of this is incorrect yet there are people here brushing it off like the landlord has done the tenant a favour by cleaning his gaff for him and that it's okay really because nothing was really messed with, and even if it was he wasn't there when they broke in. This is LEGALLY 100% wrong and a judge won't accept that as an excuse. My gripe with those that suggest the landlord has acted in a fine manner are that LEGALLY he hasn't - i never contested the morality of the case. It's obvious to a blind man that the tenant is most likely planning a runner, but that's not the landlord's decision to make without a court order.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

45002

fart wrote: »

Doesn't stop the fact that 99% of the above applies here.

When i said i'm not familiar with the law, i mean i can't quote acts if someone asks, but i know what rights people have.

True in England as far as i'm aware.

True in England.

Enforcing an order section is true too, you can't remove them without a court order in England.

True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation hasn't been granted.
True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation has experienced.

True in England, a process which the tenant in this situation has experienced.
Again, all true in England.

So what's your point?

I seem to have people thinking i'm an idiot here - i even had one fool PM'ing me telling me i was idiotic and that he'd reported me for essentially not agreeing with him.

I've merely point out the following:

Landlord in this instance has broken multiple laws.

Being a landlord he's running a business and is as accountable as any other business - i highly doubt a court will take ignorance as an excuse because the law doesn't state that with a certain amount of ignorance, the person who claims to be an experienced landlord can be excused for breaking the law.

Every single thing the landlord has stated in the OP as 'proof' for his assumptions hold zero weight in court.

Every single thing the landlord has done in relation to this tenant is LEGALLY wrong.

I've also stated multiple times that he could be in big trouble or none at all - depends how much of a professional suer the tenant is and whether it can be resolved without court action. Tenant seems to know his rights which would suggest he's willing to take this all the way.

I merely pointed out that the OP is ignorant at very best, and probably just a crap landlord if he's been doing it '20 odd years' without even knowing the most basic of laws pertaining to his tenant's rights, and should do some reading/contact a solicitor asap.

None of this is incorrect yet there are people here brushing it off like the landlord has done the tenant a favour by cleaning his gaff for him and that it's okay really because nothing was really messed with, and even if it was he wasn't there when they broke in. This is LEGALLY 100% wrong and a judge won't accept that as an excuse. My gripe with those that suggest the landlord has acted in a fine manner are that LEGALLY he hasn't - i never contested the morality of the case. It's obvious to a blind man that the tenant is most likely planning a runner, but that's not the landlord's decision to make without a court order.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

OK,Bye then

fart

45002 wrote: »

OK,Bye then

.........:wave:

SavvyStudentSaver

What the hell have I just read? I genuinely think that everyone who has been responding over the past 4 pages ought to be ashamed of themselves. The responses here are as slanderous and petulant as though you were all 13 years old, and trying to establish some kind of dominance over each other in response to the stress and hormones of puberty. Half of these posts wouldn't look out of place in they were on the transcript of a Politics show. So could you all please just grow up, and demonstrate a little maturity- regardless of who is right or wrong.

This forum was designed to HELP people, not for users to bicker like schoolchildren. So, in response to the OP's original dilemma (if they're even still reading this), which I assume is something they're still facing:

-I gather from this that the possessions were only placed in bags. Is this correct?
-Did you ever actually change the locks, or take the tenant's keys off of them?

Whilst it was 99.9% likely that the tenant may have been about to abandon the house, it wasn't definite. So really, you shouldn't have entered, particularly with only one day's arrears. This was a mistake, and could potentially be described as harrassment. The fact that you then told the tenant they had no right to continue living there I'd say would amount to harrassment, and could certainly be seen as a precursor to illegal eviction (in addition to being incorrect). If you then demanded the keys back, or changed the locks, this was an illegal eviction, and you could be fined. If not, just step away from the situation, and follow the legal procedure in place- do NOT go back to the property until an agreement is reached with the tenant, or this is resolved at court, unless you want the tenant to compose a case for harrassment.

If the tenant has abandoned the property, then this is just one of the risks of letting. The risk is reduced by taking a tenancy deposit up front to mitigate losses, and taking references/doing financial checks, etc. If you did this, and these came back clean/good, then this is very unfortunate for you, but surely you know the tenant's place of work to be able to serve notice there. If you did this and they came back with bad news, then perhaps a guarantor should have been necessary- if this wasn't done, you ignored this information at your own risk. If no checks were done, then this is something to learn for next time. The risk of abandonment is NOT eliminated by entering the property yourself.

You must now serve notice upon the abandoned house, and act as though the tenant were still there. After all, your definition of abandoned may be very different to someone else's, and it could be very difficult to spot in a furnished house, for instance, so no provisions are made for landlord's to act upon this basis without involving the courts. Of course, you may agree a mutual surrender with the tenant in writing, but I imagine that this isn't likely given the scenario.

There are plenty of risks involved with being a landlord, as I'm sure you're aware, and getting a bad tenant is one of them. All you can do is try to mitigate your losses, and reduce the chances that you'll face these risks.

I would like to point out I am neither condoning nor criticising the OP's/tenant's behaviour. I am simply trying to be objective, and help the OP prevent further mistakes from being made, for which they may be penalised. However, I do have no formal training, and so my responses are based predominantly upon the advice I have read on these forums previously, and the links contained therein. I apologise if I have posted anything incorrect, or have offended anyone (aside from that first paragraph- I stand by that).