Issued a s.21 - viewings?

pinkshoes

The tenant sounds arrogant and it sounds as if you have been reasonable over the pet issue. A £200 deposit to have pets is not a big ask...

Is it in an area where it is easy to let a property? If so, I would wait until the tenant has gone before re-advertising.

mrginge

Personally i would focus entirely in removing this idiot and accept that you will have to take a void.
He can make your life difficult with viewings and can obviously stay until you get a court order. Under those circumstances i'd not waste further money or effort on re-advertising until you have a confirmed empty house in a good condition.
Leaving him alone to stew might just make him realise that it's going to cost him a lot more than an increased deposit if he has to move.

19lottie82

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies.


Maybe I haven't been clear.

Yes, you have been perfectly clear, in fact a little patronising with a couple of your responses, but anyway........

All we are saying is that, yes of course, the tenant was wrong in getting a pet / not paying an additional bond, BUT if this is the only thing "wrong" with him as a tenant (i.e. he doesn't hold wild parties, call you out at 2am to change lightbulbs, and always pays his rent on time) , is it really worth the hassle of getting him to leave and finding a replacement tenant, who may not be perfect either.

Your property, your choice, but always something worth considering.

On the other hand, if he is a total nightmare, kitten issue aside, then the above doesn't apply.

jjlandlord

I think that once he realises that OP is serious he will think, maybe too late, that £200 as deposit was in fact quite reasonable.

Sure, purely on financial terms it might not be worth evicting him now, however one cannot accept his behaviour either, so at one point OP must put her foot down.

Notice has just been served. That might be enough to bring him to his senses.

theartfullodger

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

...
I'm expecting that the tenant will prove difficult about viewings, actually - we have issued him with the s.21 because he has breached his tenancy agreement by having animals in the property without permission.
....

No no no!! If you are evicting for breach of tenancy then you need to use S8. S21 is entirely different.

What is the best way to go about finding new tenants, given that the s.21 is not a notice to quit? Is there any way of protecting against a situation in which new tenants are due to move in, but the current tenant is refusing to move out?

Yeah, easy: Don't do viewings until tenant has gone & place is spruced up (g*wd knows what he'd say or what the place would look like if he's still there).

Don't sign new tenancy until tenant has left & you are sure tenancy has ended (not the same thing).

tumbledowngirl

Thanks for all your responses.


We won't do anything about finding new tenants until the current tenant vacates - the house is very quick to rent out, so I don't expect much of a void period.
In the mean time, as jjlandlord has said, I hope the tenant reconsiders his behaviour and contacts us in the hope of moving forward with the tenancy - the ball was always in his court, regarding the pet issue; HIS choice to agree to our request or forego having kittens.

tumbledowngirl

theartfullodger wrote: »

No no no!! If you are evicting for breach of tenancy then you need to use S8. S21 is entirely different.


Yeah, easy: Don't do viewings until tenant has gone & place is spruced up (g*wd knows what he'd say or what the place would look like if he's still there).

Don't sign new tenancy until tenant has left & you are sure tenancy has ended (not the same thing).

Thanks for your post.
While he has breached the tenancy agreement, we are using an s.21 simply because he's still within the original 6 month AST, which runs to the beginning of November. Is that wrong? - he hasn't been informed why he's been given notice, so for all he knows, it's simply a case of us not continuing the tenancy.

thesaint

theartfullodger wrote: »

No no no!! If you are evicting for breach of tenancy then you need to use S8. S21 is entirely different.

Why does the OP need to use a Sec 8?

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

Thanks for your post.
While he has breached the tenancy agreement, we are using an s.21 simply because he's still within the original 6 month AST, which runs to the beginning of November. Is that wrong? - he hasn't been informed why he's been given notice, so for all he knows, it's simply a case of us not continuing the tenancy.

You are doing the right thing.

barryboris

s8 won't really need to come into it unless the tenant chooses to ignore the s21 ending tenancy notice.

If that is the case, then you will need to prove one of the grounds for possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1998. There are 17 grounds - 8 mandatory, and 9 discretionary.

I believe the ground you would be looking at proving is ground 12 - 'the tenant has broken one or more of his obligations under the tenancy agreement' (a discretionary one which means the court, even if they find in your favour, don't necessarily HAVE to order repossession of the property.

But your solicitor will guide you through this if it comes to it.

Voyager2002

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

So our tenant gets a great deal - he breaches the tenancy agreement AND gets paid for doing so?
How nice for him - and all because he refused to pay a pet bond. (we didn't refuse permission for the cats outright, we simply requested a pet bond to cover damage, cleaning etc).



Thanks for your advice.

Indeed. This is not about morality and 'bringing him up' the way you would educate a child: it is about resolving problems at the minimum cost to you. The fact is that if your tenant chooses to make life difficult for you, this could drag on for a fair amount of time and cost you a lot of money in legal expenses. The best way to avoid this is if you simply let the tenant know that you are unwilling to continue the present arrangement (you have done this by serving notice) and then show concern about the disruption to his life and offer assistance, including perhaps a bit of money. If that leads to him leaving when he should and saving you spending money on the legal process, it will prove to have been a very sound investment.