Tenant wont leave!!

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Solicitors costs - my relatives recovered all their costs - tenants must've not bothered to turn up to court. Solicitors costs are very rarely awarded. but in the event they hadn't they said they would have taken a private civil action against the tenants, they were so angry about how it had taken months to get their home back. - That would have failed. It wasn't their home.


It totally put me off being a landlord. The police, at one stage late in the proceedings, when repossession was imminent, threatened the tenants with being charged with trespassing if they didn't leave the house. - The police were very, VERY, stupid if they did that. Protection from eviction Act. Trespassing is not a criminal offence. I think you're talking (or writing) rubbish. They definitely weren't bailiffs who came to repossess the property though - there were two of them and they were high court enforcement agents.



They didn't have any problem transferring their action to the high court. And I don't really get why the county court takes so long, given they were presumably capable of both evicting the tenants and collecting any costs/seizing assets. The high court takes no time at all.

They didn't have any problem, because there were continuing rent arrears.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

If you go into a shop and remove goods without paying, then you get charged with theft. What is the difference between that and tenants who occupy a house with no means to pay for it? - Massive difference. Suggest you go learn it.


Yes, tenants may well have a real need for shelter, but if they can't afford it, then it's up to the government to house them, not the private sector. Why should landlords, even those who just want their house back, let alone those who are suffering rent arrears, have to wait months and months for the county court to get it together and force the tenants out? - The LAW, that's why.


I'm old enough to remember when the rent was the very first thing that got paid, ahead of other bills and living costs. Now it seems to be the last thing that gets paid.

Are you a landlord?

Marvel1

Guest101 wrote: »

Are you a landlord?

I hope not, if they are then they need to do a lot of reading.

MARTYM8`

anotheruser wrote: »

Same way it feels to withhold money owed, which in turn could make the Landlord homeless if they can't pay their own mortgage.

Well if you are in that position you should not get into buy to let.

Landlords can make their tenants homeless with two months notice even if they pay their rent on time every month - banks normally give you a lot more time before they repossess if ever.

I have more sympathy for the person owning two homes - than one who has none.

dktreesea

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Well if you are in that position you should not get into buy to let.

Landlords can make their tenants homeless with two months notice even if they pay their rent on time every month - banks normally give you a lot more time before they repossess if ever.

I have more sympathy for the person owning two homes - than one who has none.

Which is where my relative started. A tenancy that had become periodic, and which they were told by their letting agent they needed to give two months notice on. I think originally the tenants wanted to be paid a couple of thousand pounds, so she was telling me, to move out. They had never been a landlord before so had no idea what shenanigans some tenants get up to when the landlord wants to repossess the property.


I'm only going on what my relative told me, but apparently, once the high court takes repossession of the property (she was there and watched all this, right down to the locks being changed) if you then refuse to leave, that's trespassing and the police can be called.


The thing is, landlords, it seems to me, including my family, are an optimistic bunch. No one thinks these kinds of things, like tenants refusing to leave once being given notice, are going to happen until it happens to them, The prospective tenant arrives, job intact, able to afford the rent - until they can't. Everything goes along well - until you want your property back. I can understand their tenants - they wanted a council property, which they now have. To get one they had to drag out the eviction until there was no other choice, just so they wouldn't be labelled intentionally homeless by the council.


But it's hard to be sympathetic when my family had to arrange their own accommodation at some expense, none of which would have been necessary if the tenants had vacated at the end of the notice period, i.e. they gave enough notice so that they would be coming back to an empty house they could move back into.


And no, I wouldn't be a landlord, ever. I would rather buy a property, renovate it and then sell it. This is all the government's fault - they have made being a landlord attractive because they haven't built enough social housing for those who need it. It has never ever been the case in Britain that everyone who wanted to, who aspired to, would be able to afford their own home.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Which is where my relative started. A tenancy that had become periodic, and which they were told by their letting agent they needed to give two months notice on. I think originally the tenants wanted to be paid a couple of thousand pounds, so she was telling me, to move out. They had never been a landlord before so had no idea what shenanigans some tenants get up to when the landlord wants to repossess the property.


I'm only going on what my relative told me, but apparently, once the high court takes repossession of the property (she was there and watched all this, right down to the locks being changed) if you then refuse to leave, that's trespassing and the police can be called.


The thing is, landlords, it seems to me, including my family, are an optimistic bunch. No one thinks these kinds of things, like tenants refusing to leave once being given notice, are going to happen until it happens to them, The prospective tenant arrives, job intact, able to afford the rent - until they can't. Everything goes along well - until you want your property back. I can understand their tenants - they wanted a council property, which they now have. To get one they had to drag out the eviction until there was no other choice, just so they wouldn't be labelled intentionally homeless by the council.


But it's hard to be sympathetic when my family had to arrange their own accommodation at some expense, none of which would have been necessary if the tenants had vacated at the end of the notice period, i.e. they gave enough notice so that they would be coming back to an empty house they could move back into.


And no, I wouldn't be a landlord, ever. I would rather buy a property, renovate it and then sell it. This is all the government's fault - they have made being a landlord attractive because they haven't built enough social housing for those who need it. It has never ever been the case in Britain that everyone who wanted to, who aspired to, would be able to afford their own home.

1: trespassing is a civil matter

2: preventing a HCEO from executing a writ is a criminal offence - which is what they meant

3: then your family should e learnt that a LLs notice does not end a tenancy. Better planning required on their part

4: in your post you suggested the police told the tenants this prior to HCEOs taking legal possesion

dktreesea

Guest101 wrote: »

The police were very, VERY, stupid if they did that. Protection from eviction Act. Trespassing is not a criminal offence. I think you're talking (or writing) rubbish.[QUOTE]


Really? This is what the Protection From Eviction Act states:


If the landlord has obtained a court order for possession against the tenant, and s/he subsequently engages a bailiff in executing the order for possession, this does not constitute an illegal eviction and will not be an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.


Even if trespassing were still not a criminal offence, ( I thought law changes down south a few years ago brought this more in line with Scotland?) it is an offence to obstruct bailiffs in taking repossession of the property. You can be charged with contempt of court and yes, that is a criminal offence.

upoiupou

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Landlords can make their tenants homeless with two months notice even if they pay their rent on time every month - banks normally give you a lot more time before they repossess if ever.

Make their tenants homeless... what an emotive way to describe legally giving them two months to find another place to live. If the tenants can't afford other private rented accommodation, that is for the local council to deal with not the most recent private landlord.

I'm not a landlord and not especially on the landlord's side. I'm definitely not a fan of how buy to let has skewed housing in this country. But "make their tenants homeless"? Please.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Guest101 wrote: »

The police were very, VERY, stupid if they did that. Protection from eviction Act. Trespassing is not a criminal offence. I think you're talking (or writing) rubbish.[QUOTE]


Really? This is what the Protection From Eviction Act states:


If the landlord has obtained a court order for possession against the tenant, and s/he subsequently engages a bailiff in executing the order for possession, this does not constitute an illegal eviction and will not be an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.


Even if trespassing were still not a criminal offence, ( I thought law changes down south a few years ago brought this more in line with Scotland?) it is an offence to obstruct bailiffs in taking repossession of the property. You can be charged with contempt of court and yes, that is a criminal offence.

1: trespass is a civil matter
2: contempt of court is not a criminal offence, however yes you can go to prison for it - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
3: you wrote when possesion was imminent. Hence it had not happened.
4: yes I said that interfering with a HCEO was a criminal offence

[Deleted User]

upoiupou wrote: »

Make their tenants homeless... what an emotive way to describe legally giving them two months to find another place to live. If the tenants can't afford other private rented accommodation, that is for the local council to deal with not the most recent private landlord.

I'm not a landlord and not especially on the landlord's side. I'm definitely not a fan of how buy to let has skewed housing in this country. But "make their tenants homeless"? Please.

That is just a cop out opinion. Time has nothing to do with being able to find another private rental.., you need another deposit, to be able to cover admin fees from a LA, be able to pass a credit check, be able to cover removal costs. Moving is a very expensive business and a lot of tenants don't have that kind of money readily available.., private rents can be a high proportion of earnings.

Believe you me, no tenant on this planet wants to have no idea where they are moving to on the day of eviction because the council hasn't got enough housing stock to give you anything but emergency accommodation (which can be many miles from where the private rental was.., a problem if you have school age children). I've been there, months of stress, no certainty of being given somewhere to live, and wandering the streets for five hours with autistic kids because the council wouldn't see us until then even though I gave them the eviction paperwork as soon as I had it. My LL did make us homeless, we are still homeless although housed in emergency accommodation. And rent was always paid on time. He just wanted to sell. We moved in to find the emergency accommodation had cockroaches.., took a month to get rid of them, but I still regarded myself as lucky. No one wants that if there is an alternative. But alternative private rentals today are not as easy to find as you seem to assume. I live in what is now an expensive area because people from London are moving here.., but I move areas and my son looses services that I've spent 2 years getting put in place.