Changing Locks

Vectis

tim123456789 wrote: »

Of course he can turn up at the door randomly.

what he can't do is harass the tenant but just knocking on the door once isn't even close.

and he can get the tenant out before the end of the tenancy - if they are 2 months in arrears (though, of course he has to go to court to get that)

tim

Agreed. Anyone can knock at someone's door, so long as it's done reasonably (i.e. not every day, not at unsociable hours etc etc). If you are owed money you are entitled to ask, reasonably, for it to be repaid. Where it goes wrong is when the LL, or anyone else, goes beyond what is reasonable. It's advisable, therefore, to err on the side of caution. But don't be afraid to asking for money which is owed to you. Just be careful.

Pursue the tenant via the s8 and s21 route and pursue the mother for payment also. She has guaranteed the rent.

I_have_spoken

My friend is a very honest man

Probably shouldn't be a LL then!

lemontree

tim123456789 wrote: »

he isn't a fraudulent tenant. He's a tenant whose position has changed because they have lost their job

tim

Wrong!!!!!!!
Mother says he did not have a job when he applied for house.
Is signing a No Pets Agreement and moving in with a dog not fraudulent?

lemontree

I_have_spoken wrote: »

Probably shouldn't be a LL then!

True Never again!!!!!!!!

tim123456789

lemontree wrote: »

Wrong!!!!!!!
Mother says he did not have a job when he applied for house.
Is signing a No Pets Agreement and moving in with a dog not fraudulent?

Well then the fault is with the referencing then, isn't it?

As for breaching the pets clause, that is trivial

tim

spacey2012

Who were the papers signed between, the tenant and landlord or the tennant and agency, also the guarantor deed ?
If they are in the landlords name I would sack the agent on the spot and halt any payments to them for serious breech of contract leading to financial loss.

Then I would take the guarantor deed to a solicitor to see if it is valid and if so, invoice the guarantor for the rent, let it build up, LBA,then CCJ her and if she owns property charging order on her or joint owned property.

Werdnal

No pet clauses are considered unenforceable and unfair by OFT, so that is a minor offense.

Referencing seems to have been at fault here for not verifying the tenant's working status.

Was the guarantor contract set up as a witnessed deed? Was the guarantor checked to ascertain their financial status to be acceptable as a guarantor? Sounds like No to both. It is as important (if not more so) to verify that the guarantor has sufficient income or assets to cover the tenant's debts and losses. If the agreement was not prepared as a Deed, then it is worthless and cannot be enforced in a court.

LL here must not act outside the law, regardless of the tenant's apparent breaches of his side of the agreement. If they do, they are playing right into tenant's hands to take them to court for £1000's, get the LL a criminal record and possibly even a prison sentence. Don't stoop to the tenant's level - take the proper advice, and follow the correct route to get them out of the property and a far better result than trying anything illegal.

clark24

Ok I'm confused, on one hand you say he was made redundant after taking the tenancy, on the other he didn't have a job when he applied for the house.

Also, how did he pass the financial checks if he was unemployed and not already in receipt of housing benefits?

Why did the LL not have a verified, full and clear breakdown of the tenants working and financial situation when the tenancy started, rather than discovering all this afterwards?

tim123456789

clark24 wrote: »

Ok I'm confused, on one hand you say he was made redundant after taking the tenancy, on the other he didn't have a job when he applied for the house.

Also, how did he pass the financial checks if he was unemployed and not already in receipt of housing benefits?

Why did the LL not have a verified, full and clear breakdown of the tenants working and financial situation when the tenancy started, rather than discovering all this afterwards?

almost certainly a lazy LA

tim

G_M

Werdnal wrote: »

No pet clauses are considered unenforceable and unfair by OFT, so that is a minor offense.

Not quite. With regard to 'no pets' clauses, OFT says:

Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it could prevent a tenant keeping a goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.

Furthermore, if the lease on a leasehold flat prohibits pets, then a tenancy could validly also prohibit pets (though the principal bove may applytothe Head Lease too).