Stranger in my apartment. Police say they can't do anything!?

zarf2007

theartfullodger wrote: »

Quite right to! But equally Pythagoras has valid rights which need to be enforced: In this country we use the courts to do that, we are a civilised people.

Cheers!

yes, and get walked over at every opportunity.....I wonder when the people of the UK are gonna grow a pair and put an end to this and the other 'breach of human rights' crap we have to swallow....

zarf2007

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

People don't have contracts with squatters either, but it doesn't mean you can just frog march them out.

I thought people who illegally enter homes without the owners knowledge have no rights now and can be removed? personally i think its up to your new 'tenants' company to rehome them even if its a hotel temporarily.....not your problem.

Sonofa

zarf2007 wrote: »

I thought people who illegally enter homes without the owners knowledge have no rights now and can be removed? personally i think its up to your new 'tenants' company to rehome them even if its a hotel temporarily.....not your problem.

This isn't a 'home' it's a rental 'property'. You seem to be equating this situation with a burglary.

I have sympathy for both parties still involved.

zarf2007

Sonofa wrote: »

This isn't a 'home' it's a rental 'property'. You seem to be equating this situation with a burglary.

I have sympathy for both parties still involved.

actually i'm not. It is now illegal when 'squatters' can take over someones home, and without a valid tenancy thats what this person is.

Sonofa

zarf2007 wrote: »

actually i'm not. It is now illegal when 'squatters' can take over someones home, and without a valid tenancy thats what this person is.

I totally agree with your gut reaction to this situation, but I'm not sure you are appreciating what this situation actually is.

This is the OP's property, not the OP's home.

If I were to return from a week's holiday to find someone in my home telling me that he's paid up 6 months rent and he's going nowhere, then I would be tending towards the friends with baseballs bats option too. I would also hope that in that scenario the Police wouldn't be telling me it's a civil matter either.

What seems to be the case here is that there is a situation that needs specialist legal advice, see the opinions of those who posted before you. This person isn't being considered as a squatter.

I don't think this situation is as black and white as you want to see it.

If everything is as has been told then there are two victims here.

G_M

I've refrained from commenting so far as I too think OP needs specialist advice.

At issue I think is the question of whether or not the occupier has or has not a legal sub-tenancy.

If the alleged sub-tenancy has any validity in law, then eviction must follow the appropriate process (and yes, it's civil not criminal).

If it has no legal validity, and the occupants may be 'squatters', the new law (Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) allows the police to evict. However, this applies where the occupier entered as a trespasser', so I suspect would not apply here since in this instance they were invited in by the tenant.

OP should seek specialist advice.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/commencement-of-offence-of-squatting-in-a-residential-building

theartfullodger

Think in this case (allegedly) tenant sublet to "a company": For that the "original tenant" is the landlord of the company (the tenant of the original tenant). And that company permitted the occupant to live there: Unclear if this is as employee, for money, as part of his pay.. etc... I'd want to see the paperwork 1st, but according to the story the OP outlined, occupant is entitled to be there... (Sadly for owner..).

If the story is correct (it was described by someone who's 1st language is probably not English) then neither (owner-with-original.tenant or original.tenant-with-company) tenancy is an AST. What the contractual arrangement is between company & occupant is unclear.

princeofpounds

The guy is highly unlikely to be a squatter. Anyone suggesting as such is foolish(and should be jailed as a thief the second they ever have the misfortune of accidentally buying something stolen). He is likely to have a valid sub-tenancy.

However, the OP should not fret. From their point of view not that much will change. They should proceed with the normal route of eviction (S21 if possible, S8 with subletting as the grounds if not). As long as they got their original paperwork right.

When the court awards them possession, it will cancel the tenancy. When the mesne (higher) tenancy ends then the sub-tenancy has to also. Whether AST or some other form.

It is unlikely to be much different to a situation where the original tenant was in place and unwilling to leave.

jjlandlord

The ocupier is not a squatter.
His company a tenancy that bounds his landlord who, in turn, is OP's tenant. He has either a licence or a tenancy from his company.

However, because OP's tenant sublet without consent my understanding is that the tenancy does not bind OP.
This means that if OP evicts his tenant then the current occupier will (or should...) also be evicted at the same time instead of becoming OP's tenant.

Now, to evict his tenant OP should not in principle use s.21 or s.8 because, as the tenant has moved out the tenancy is no longer an assured tenancy.

Certainly OP should seek advice from a solicitor knowledgeable in such issues, and probably let him handle the process.

princeofpounds

I'm not sure the original tenant does lose their tenancy status as a result of the subletting; certainly CAB seem to indicate so.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/housing_w/housing_renting_a_home_e/housing_subletting_and_lodging_e/housing_subletting_e/what_can_your_landlord_do_about_subletting.htm

But if they do, even better as a notice to quit route is fairly straightforward.