Would not bother being a landlord again...

45002

45002 wrote: »

For Reference

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43
Part I Unlawful Eviction and Harassment

Criminal law

Part 1 (3A) (a)

Civil Law

Part 1 (3C) (5)

So criminal or civil action or both could apply to a LL who keeps going around uninvited.

IMHO.

For got to add Criminal side is

(4)

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

Civil is suing for damages or a in junction against LL or both..

The civil side of the act was strengthened by 1988 housing act...

Guest101

martin1959 wrote: »

I am guessing most of the comments on here are from tenants so I suppose I should expect little sympathy, not that I am asking for it, but it beggars belief how many assumptions are being made.


The let has been managed throughout by a well establish lettings agency. Of course the deposit was handled in accordance with legislation. They even voluntarily put down a higher deposit as we gave them permission to keep a dog (which is apparently less of a problem than the children!)


Who said the tenants are DSS? I know what the tenant does for a living, and I can guess his income is well in excess of £50k PA.


I would think to most tenants, an on going good reference is important. Yes it could be forged, but our agency insisted on bank statements showing the previous rent payee, and checked it matched the reference. In our area, property rents so quickly, there is no need to settle for tenants who cannot provide quality references.


Who said we have a mortgage on the property, I didn't.

My Letting agent sorted it - u hope!

Lol. Quit while your ahead, and you're right, don't be a LL again. Clearly it's not for you.

If they're on 50k pa, maybe they're looking to buy - won't need your reference.

PS whatever BS your letting agent told u. The Payee on the statement doesn't show anything other than the reference- which is almost always 1 A Street.

Love how agents are so good at their jobs, wonder why they never joined the police with such exquisite detective skills.

45002

jjlandlord wrote:

Could we stop with this, please? Really.
Too many people have 'issues' on here, it seems...

Re posts # 34 and # 44 I posted that for reference so people can make there own minds up or don't you want people knowing about the Law !

Pixie5740

jjlandlord wrote: »

Now this is turning into a bad faith contest...

I agreed to disagree.

jjlandlord wrote: »

Could we stop with this, please? Really.
Too many people have 'issues' on here, it seems...

Good luck.

It's the psychological scars left behind after renting from some truly terrible individuals.

duchy

martin1959 wrote: »

I am guessing most of the comments on here are from tenants so I suppose I should expect little sympathy, not that I am asking for it, but it beggars belief how many assumptions are being made.

Nope I'm a homeowner


The let has been managed throughout by a well establish lettings agency.

Perhaps it would have been wiser to let them deal with ending the tenancy correctly. It's what you pay them for


Who said the tenants are DSS? I know what the tenant does for a living, and I can guess his income is well in excess of £50k PA.

No-one mentioned DSS (quaint term btw) You don't need to be on benefits to access social housing though .


I would think to most tenants, an on going good reference is important. Yes it could be forged, but our agency insisted on bank statements showing the previous rent payee, and checked it matched the reference. In our area, property rents so quickly, there is no need to settle for tenants who cannot provide quality references.

You'd think so wouldn't you but agencies are getting wise to LL's who lie on references out of spite or self-entitlement -and pay far more attention to bank statements.


Who said we have a mortgage on the property, I didn't.

You should really be open to the thought that if your tenants have a healthy income that they may decide to buy this time and will use the extra time waiting for you to go to court for the purchase to progress. A court may even give them extra time if they can prove they have exchanged or are about to rather than render a family homeless for the sake of another month or so. Of course if they DO buy that makes your reference threat even more impotent.

[Deleted User]

<<<<<<insane according to definitions given here.., and happy with it.

But its not insane to tell a LL he's wrong. By any definition.

ess0two

martin1959 wrote: »

I am guessing most of the comments on here are from tenants so I suppose I should expect little sympathy, not that I am asking for it, but it beggars belief how many assumptions are being made.


The let has been managed throughout by a well establish lettings agency. Of course the deposit was handled in accordance with legislation. They even voluntarily put down a higher deposit as we gave them permission to keep a dog (which is apparently less of a problem than the children!)


Who said the tenants are DSS? I know what the tenant does for a living, and I can guess his income is well in excess of £50k PA.


I would think to most tenants, an on going good reference is important. Yes it could be forged, but our agency insisted on bank statements showing the previous rent payee, and checked it matched the reference. In our area, property rents so quickly, there is no need to settle for tenants who cannot provide quality references.


Who said we have a mortgage on the property, I didn't.

You should know by now being into BTL classes you as an ogre in these forums.

kinger101

martin1959 wrote: »

They cannot live in it in ANY way they choose. It has to be in line with the contract. They cannot smoke in the property as we have a clause in the contract (I appreciate this does not stop them physically smoking but they would lose their deposit), and they cannot keep their caravan on the front (we asked them to move it). These are a just a couple of examples.

You can't take the deposit because a tenant smokes. You can only take deductions for actual damage caused by the tenant smoking. Perhaps this is what you meant, but it's an important distinction.

A court may evict a tenant for breaking the terms of an agreement, but there is no guarantee they will. A judge might take a view that a tenant is free to smoke in their own home, and view the term as unfair.

I'm not saying the clause shouldn't be there. Just it's not a cast iron guarantee you'll get an eviction for smoking. Better to advertise only for non-smokers, and instruct your LA to be on the lookout for tobacco smells/yellow fingers when they're selecting tenants. Might seem harsh, as many people only smoke outside, but why take unnecessary risks?

DpchMd

It's not illegal for a landlord to turn up uninvited and knock on his tenant's front door. This is not debatable.

However, it is stupid. Should the tenant be of an especially emotional/fragile disposition, or decide to use their imagination a little, it would be easy for a court of law to decide that the unexpected arrival from the landlord amounted to harassment.

Anyway, I'm not particularly sure how this is all relevant to the thread. The moderators need to seriously clamp down on the hostile nature of this forum to prevent its demise.

martin1959

duchy wrote: »

You should really be open to the thought that if your tenants have a healthy income that they may decide to buy this time and will use the extra time waiting for you to go to court for the purchase to progress. A court may even give them extra time if they can prove they have exchanged or are about to rather than render a family homeless for the sake of another month or so. Of course if they DO buy that makes your reference threat even more impotent.

....and maybe they will buy more and more properties, and they will become landlords themselves.....and then buy even more properties..... they may even buy at auction....they may then get to appear on 'Homes under the Hammer'....they may even separate and she may go on to marry Martin Roberts after meeting him on the show......


or they may just rent another property.....