Tenant wont leave!!

dktreesea

Pixie5740 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sense of entitlement? divadee is entitled to remain in the property after the Section 21 expires. Legally she is entitled to remain in the property because the notice doesn't end the tenancy whether you like it or not. The landlord and letting agent can be as hesitant as they like but it doesn't really matter because she doesn't have to leave when the notice expires. It's not as though she's saying she won't ever move out. As a landlord you need to accept you've given possession of the property to someone else in exchange for money that's why a landlord on their own cannot end a tenancy.

Which makes a mockery of the law. You give notice. As a landlord you need a section 21, not because the notice you gave isn't valid but because in order to enforce that notice and regain possession you may need bailiffs. Bailiffs who could take weeks to act. So your costs mount up and after a while you get to move the writ to the high court - maybe. Not everyone gets the go ahead to do this. Only then do you get HCEOs who can act within a reasonable time frame and get your property back. But, unlike in the past, not straight away. Nowadays is it not the case that even with a high court writ you have to still give the tenants a further notice period?

Pixie5740

dktreesea wrote: »

Which makes a mockery of the law. You give notice. As a landlord you need a section 21, not because the notice you gave isn't valid but because in order to enforce that notice and regain possession you may need bailiffs. Bailiffs who could take weeks to act. So your costs mount up and after a while you get to move the writ to the high court - maybe. Not everyone gets the go ahead to do this. Only then do you get HCEOs who can act within a reasonable time frame and get your property back. But, unlike in the past, not straight away. Nowadays is it not the case that even with a high court writ you have to still give the tenants a further notice period?

How can it make a mockery of the law if it is the law? I don't know how many further times I need to explain that a tenancy can only be ended by the tenant or a court. A Section 21 notice is just notice that the landlord might start court proceedings to regain possession of the property. Why does a landlord need to do this...because they have given possession of the property to the tenant in exchange for money.

The tenant is responsible for the court and bailiff costs. If the tenant doesn't/cannot pay then then landlord can take the tenant to small claims court. If a judgement is awarded against the tenant and the tenant still doesn't/cannot pay then a county court judgement can be awarded against them. A CCJ being a big warning sign to any future landlord (who bothers to do some due diligence) that this tenant isn't very good at paying things.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Which makes a mockery of the law. You give notice. As a landlord you need a section 21, not because the notice you gave isn't valid but because in order to enforce that notice and regain possession you may need bailiffs. Bailiffs who could take weeks to act. So your costs mount up and after a while you get to move the writ to the high court - maybe. Not everyone gets the go ahead to do this. Only then do you get HCEOs who can act within a reasonable time frame and get your property back. But, unlike in the past, not straight away. Nowadays is it not the case that even with a high court writ you have to still give the tenants a further notice period?

The law always required them to give notice, they were acting incorrectly by not doing so.


The notice had to say that the order had been transferred to the High Court for enforcement.


However this was only clarified recently and until it had been clarified, it was assumed that the HCEOs were acting correctly.


It does not make a mockery of the law, as what you have described is the legal procedure for eviction. I think it makes a mockery of your morals and that is not the same thing. You are entitled to have an opinion and even petition your local MP for a change in the law.

Pennysmakepounds

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The tenant is responsible for the court and bailiff costs. If the tenant doesn't/cannot pay then then landlord can take the tenant to small claims court. If a judgement is awarded against the tenant and the tenant still doesn't/cannot pay then a county court judgement can be awarded against them. A CCJ being a big warning sign to any future landlord (who bothers to do some due diligence) that this tenant isn't very good at paying things.

That's all well and good, but getting a CCJ costs the LL even more money on top of the 4/6 months lost rent and the cost of the eviction.

If the tenant really is in a bad way and has no money, the LL will normally have some idea of depending on what type of tenant they put in, in the first place and will not bother with the whole CCJ effort.

They are just happy to get the property back and draw a line under the whole matter.

Pixie5740

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

That's all well and good, but getting a CCJ costs the LL even more money on top of the 4/6 months lost rent and the cost of the eviction.

If the tenant really is in a bad way and has no money, the LL will normally have some idea of depending on what type of tenant they put in, in the first place and will not bother with the whole CCJ effort.

Eh? So the LL knew at the start of the tenancy that they were going to be letting to a total turkey? Why would any LL with half a brain do that?

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

They are just happy to get the property back and draw a line under the whole matter.

So back to the I'm-all-right-Jack attitude. The tenant is some other poor sucker's problem now. If only the LL before you had gone to the effort of getting a CCJ awarded against the tenant then when you did your referencing you'd know the tenant was crap at paying things on time.

dktreesea

Guest101 wrote: »

The law always required them to give notice, they were acting incorrectly by not doing so.


The notice had to say that the order had been transferred to the High Court for enforcement.


However this was only clarified recently and until it had been clarified, it was assumed that the HCEOs were acting correctly.


It does not make a mockery of the law, as what you have described is the legal procedure for eviction. I think it makes a mockery of your morals and that is not the same thing. You are entitled to have an opinion and even petition your local MP for a change in the law.

Surely though, a tenant must realise that they only have the property for the period of the lease? The landlord should be able to get it back just by giving notice, without having to go through the courts to get it.


Even when they do go through the courts, they often need bailiffs to enforce the court order. Meanwhile the tenants are sitting pretty, sometimes not even paying rent. What about the morals/honesty of the tenants?

FBaby

FBaby, wouldn't verifying the tenant's income and affordability be part of the referencing process? That's a genuine question as I know that when I rented whilst self-employed I had provide evidence of my income.

We actually had what was sold to us as a thorough assessment of income....and were told they had passed. We were especially concerned as both were self-employed.

What I believe happened is that they took tax credits into consideration of income and only did a credit check on her. They had two children who left higher education one year after the other and I expect it is the loss of this income + maybe a reduction in business that meant that their income became such they would never have passed in the first place.

Of course, there is never security of income with anyone at risk of losing their job, but the reliance on tax credits is certainly a higher risk.

I do sincerely feel sorry for good tenants who have paid on time and looked after the property treating it as its own home, to then found themselves having to look for something else within two months. I would hate to be in this situation and frankly, that alone was the incentive to do anything to become a home owner. However, I do agree that most landlords don't tend to be sadistic for the sake of it and usually would only repossess the property in these conditions out of no choice of theirs.

As such, knowing that you are at risk of having to look for somewhere else to leave either at the end of the fixed term or within two months, wouldn't be savvy for any tenant to actually bother to put money aside each month for the purpose of dealing with the situation would it arises?

Pixie5740

dktreesea wrote: »

Surely though, a tenant must realise that they only have the property for the period of the lease? The landlord should be able to get it back just by giving notice, without having to go through the courts to get it.

Yes the tenant does only have the property for the period of the lease and that lease doesn't end until either the tenant ends it or a court does. The landlord absolutely should not be able to end the tenancy without a court order. All landlords have to do is file the paperwork correctly and an eviction order will be granted yet many still manage to !!!! that up so can landlords be trusted to serve valid notice? Besides how many Section 21 cases actually go to court? Probably far less than those that end through mutual surrender or the tenant serving notice.

Landlord give possession of the property to the tenant in exchange for rent surely they must realise that.

dktreesea wrote: »

Even when they do go through the courts, they often need bailiffs to enforce the court order. Meanwhile the tenants are sitting pretty, sometimes not even paying rent. What about the morals/honesty of the tenants?

That's the law, if you don't like it petition your MP. If a tenant needs to be re-housed by the council then the council will tell them to wait until bailiffs physically remove them from the property. If I had the choice between inconveniencing the landlord to keep a roof over my family's head or making my family homeless I know which I would choose. What about all the tenants caught in a bad situation due to caps on housing benefit? What about all the tenants evicted for requesting repairs?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody has to become a landlord, if you don't like the laws then don't become a landlord. If you do decide to become a landlord then do some due diligence when selecting tenants then you lessen the chance of being stuck with a dud. If you don't bother to do your due diligence then you deserve the turkey you end up with.

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

As such, knowing that you are at risk of having to look for somewhere else to leave either at the end of the fixed term or within two months, wouldn't be savvy for any tenant to actually bother to put money aside each month for the purpose of dealing with the situation would it arises?

I guess some people simply can't afford to. I was fortunate enough that when I rented I could always afford to have one (deposit) in the chamber. I'm also fortunate enough never to have had to look for a landlord who accepted tenants on housing benefit and/or other benefits. Then there's the fact that I live in Scotland where all I had to stump up was rent and a deposit, not hundreds in letting agency fees.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Surely though, a tenant must realise that they only have the property for the period of the lease? The landlord should be able to get it back just by giving notice, without having to go through the courts to get it.


Even when they do go through the courts, they often need bailiffs to enforce the court order. Meanwhile the tenants are sitting pretty, sometimes not even paying rent. What about the morals/honesty of the tenants?

What do you suggest? Turning up with 'the boys'?

I'm not going to pass judgment on their morals. Just discussing the legalities