Police have forced entry.

roy62

It may be known as a drug den in the area which could be a problem.

seven-day-weekend

roy62 wrote: »

It may be known as a drug den in the area which could be a problem.

I don't think so, he has only been there four months.

Lunchbox

missbiggles1 wrote: »

As I said before, there's no evidence that the tenant is doing anything of the kind - if he were, that would be a different matter.

But he still has a contract, which is coming to an end. The OP can refuse to renew that contract for any reason, even if they just feel like it.

Regarding the point about employment, an employer can suspend an employee whilst a criminal investigation is underway. They can also take disciplinary action including dismissal, even if the employee isn't convicted, if there is a genuine reasonable belief they committed the offence and it either affects the work they do, or brings the organisation into disrepute.

Rosemary7391

Why don't you have a chat with the neighbours? I'd be inclined to wait and see much more if they get on okay with others in the block. Difficult decision you've got here!

moneyistooshorttomention

It has proven perfectly possible for employers to get rid of employees that have done absolutely nothing wrong/are perfectly honest/etc/etc - and indeed have had comments on just how efficiently they are doing the job and they would be capable of a much higher level one

- but the employer gets rid of them just because they personally dont like them...

:cool:ask me how I know:cool:

moneyistooshorttomention

Personally - I dont see this as a "difficult decision".

I'm guessing OP is just feeling that way because it hasnt yet been proved categorically that this tenant is guilty? That is the case - but I think its more appropriate to work out the odds as to whether the police are correct about the man. In this case - I think the odds are extremely low that the police are wrong.

Add the fact that - even assuming the police are correct - that doesnt necessarily mean they will succeed in getting a conviction on this guy. He might - possibly - get proclaimed innocent. But that wouldnt actually mean he definitely WAS innocent - as we all know courts can come up with an inaccurate verdict sometimes.

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We have not yet decided what to do. I have a different opinion to my husband and son. We will decide today after speaking to the agent. ( In the event of disagreement, we will go with the majority decision, but we will probably come to an agreement, we usually do).

However all three of us are merely trying to do the 'right' thing, for both us and the tenant. We do have to think of our investment, and I did say to my husband that we could get a tenant who didn't pay the rent and thrashed the flat. (But not be a drug dealer - and I know that nothing has been proven yet).

We will decide later and I'm sorry you think that I am being prejudiced. I have been awake mulling over what is right and what is wrong here.

Actually, it wasn't you I was referring to when I spoke of prejudice - if it were, I would've said so.:)

Mrs_pbradley936

My opinion is that I could do without the aggravation of police and any possible law breaking. That said how did it come to your attention? I don't suppose that they approached you as a key holder or else the door would not have been broken.

So if it was say a case of mistaken identity and he has done nothing wrong then I would let him stay there. If on the other hand this is the first of many instances of having the police at your own front door I would be giving him Notice.

Morals and ethics do not enter into the matter as far as I am concerned but I can see the dilemma if it conflicts with any religious ideas about "right livelihood". Most people on here would not give the time of day to your feelings on that but then most of them do not share your beliefs.

martindow

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We are going to ring our agent this morning to see if they have any advice for us, then will make our decision.

An agent may well not give you an unbiassed opinion.

Getting a new tenant allows them to charge both of you fees. The last thing they will suggest is letting the tenancy go on to a rolling contract so they miss out on making money from a new tenancy agreement.

seven-day-weekend

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

My opinion is that I could do without the aggravation of police and any possible law breaking. That said how did it come to your attention? I don't suppose that they approached you as a key holder or else the door would not have been broken.

So if it was say a case of mistaken identity and he has done nothing wrong then I would let him stay there. If on the other hand this is the first of many instances of having the police at your own front door I would be giving him Notice.

Morals and ethics do not enter into the matter as far as I am concerned but I can see the dilemma if it conflicts with any religious ideas about "right livelihood". Most people on here would not give the time of day to your feelings on that but then most of them do not share your beliefs.

They broke into the flat and there found a letter I had written to the tenant last week regarding an inspection, which had our address on it.

We have now more or less decided to wait and see, and let him have a 'rolling' tenancy whereby we can give him two months notice at any time if necessary. My husband and son are going to speak to him first. He may o course not wish to continue the tenancy, but seeing as he asked us if he could have a year at thr beginning, I tend to think he will.