Revenge eviction

Miss_Samantha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Landlords cannot just take possession of the property back either the tenant has to agree or the landlord needs a court order.

I don't think she claimed otherwise.

A court order is required only because statute says so. This isn't specifically because of the tenancy,

PersianCatLady

What you don't seem to understand
I fully understand exactly how it works having spent three years at university to get an LLB, thank you.


Landlords cannot just take possession of the property back either the tenant has to agree or the landlord needs a court order.
Yes strictly speaking a LL does have to get a court order to compel a tenant to leave at the end of the lease term as a Section 21 is only a notice of intention to seek repossession of the tenancy.


However what is ridiculous is that tenants think they are doing themselves any favours by making LLs resort to these measures. If a LL legally issues a Section 21 correctly then really tenants should just accept it and if at all possible comply with it but I know that local authorities make this hard for some people as by doing so they classify them as being intentionally homeless.


If tenants choose not to comply with a Section 21 then in circumstances I would recommend that the LL doesn't provide the tenants with a reference and as a lot of the LLs around here actually know each other that information often gets around quite easily.


Basically if tenants choose to make the eviction process as difficult, drawn out and expensive for LLs as possible then they may find that in the future being able to rent a new property just as difficult, drawn out and expensive.

PersianCatLady

I don't think she claimed otherwise.

Exactly thank you for noticing that.


I think that Pixie5740 was trying to make me feel stupid and make out that I don't know what I am talking about but unfortunately she failed on both counts there.

Proxima_Centauri

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Why on Earth do some landlords allow properties to get into such a state of disrepair?

I think the short answer to that is that the landlord doesn't have to live there!

Guest101

PersianCatLady wrote: »

What you don't seem to understand
I fully understand exactly how it works having spent three years at university to get an LLB, thank you.


Landlords cannot just take possession of the property back either the tenant has to agree or the landlord needs a court order.
Yes strictly speaking a LL does have to get a court order to compel a tenant to leave at the end of the lease term as a Section 21 is only a notice of intention to seek repossession of the tenancy.


However what is ridiculous is that tenants think they are doing themselves any favours by making LLs resort to these measures. If a LL legally issues a Section 21 correctly then really tenants should just accept it and if at all possible comply with it but I know that local authorities make this hard for some people as by doing so they classify them as being intentionally homeless.


If tenants choose not to comply with a Section 21 then in circumstances I would recommend that the LL doesn't provide the tenants with a reference and as a lot of the LLs around here actually know each other that information often gets around quite easily.


Basically if tenants choose to make the eviction process as difficult, drawn out and expensive for LLs as possible then they may find that in the future being able to rent a new property just as difficult, drawn out and expensive.

You must live in a very small community....

Guest101

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I don't think she claimed otherwise.

Exactly thank you for noticing that.


I think that Pixie5740 was trying to make me feel stupid and make out that I don't know what I am talking about but unfortunately she failed on both counts there.

I think Pixie was just clarifying some ambiguous points you made

Pixie5740

PersianCatLady wrote: »

What you don't seem to understand
I fully understand exactly how it works having spent three years at university to get an LLB, thank you.

Big whoopdiedoo! Hands down the worst landlord I have ever rented from had a law degree. Wasn't registered with the local council (criminal offence in Scotland). No gas safety certificate because she felt it was just unnecessary red tape for landlords. Didn't protect my deposit because "if I protect your deposit I'll have to do it for all my tenants." Shat herself when she realised I could sue her for that. Issued me with an Assured Tenancy rather than a Short Assured Tenancy. I could go on but the point is that just because you claim to have spent three years at university obtaining a LLB we only have your word for that. Even if you do have a LLB it could be a Richard for all we know.

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Landlords cannot just take possession of the property back either the tenant has to agree or the landlord needs a court order.
Yes strictly speaking a LL does have to get a court order to compel a tenant to leave at the end of the lease term as a Section 21 is only a notice of intention to seek repossession of the tenancy.

No that's not strictly speaking that is actually the law which of course you already know since you claim to have a law degree.

PersianCatLady wrote: »

However what is ridiculous is that tenants think they are doing themselves any favours by making LLs resort to these measures. If a LL legally issues a Section 21 correctly then really tenants should just accept it and if at all possible comply with it but I know that local authorities make this hard for some people as by doing so they classify them as being intentionally homeless.


If tenants choose not to comply with a Section 21 then in circumstances I would recommend that the LL doesn't provide the tenants with a reference and as a lot of the LLs around here actually know each other that information often gets around quite easily.


Basically if tenants choose to make the eviction process as difficult, drawn out and expensive for LLs as possible then they may find that in the future being able to rent a new property just as difficult, drawn out and expensive.

Yes, refusing to give a tenant a reference therefore making it even more difficult to find alternative accommodation, that's a smart move for a landlord trying to get possession of the property back. That said it's not like references can't be faked or landlords who don't reference thoroughly can't be found.

Some tenants can't find suitable, alternative accommodation so have no choice but to drag it out until the council will step in and help. Moving home is both expensive and stressful so if a tenant winds up staying beyond the date given on the Section 21 or is able to buy themselves a bit more time because their landlord is incapable of filing the paperwork correctly or attempts a revenge eviction then so be it.

theartfullodger

Excellent post Pixie!

PersianCatLady

Big whoopdiedoo!
What a childish attitude you seem to have but as you tried to make me look stupid I thought I would just point out that I am not.


The worst landlord I have ever rented from had a law degree
I am sorry about that but not all people with law degrees are bad people.


No gas safety certificate
This is absolutely disgusting also shows what a terrible attitude your LL had with regards to the H & S of their tenants.


Didn't protect my deposit because "if I protect your deposit I'll have to do it for all my tenants."
Not only is this another example of your LL's terrible attitude towards their tenants, you think that they would have realised that by not protecting the deposits they actually cause themselves serious problems when they do want to evict a tenant.


You claim to have spent three years at university obtaining a LLB we only have your word for that.
I am not sure how I can convince you of this but I attended Bournemouth University between 2001 and 2004 and came away with an LLB (Hons) Business Law. If I was trying to really impress people I definitely would have chosen a more reputable university but as I am telling you the truth I have to admit that yes I got my law degree from Bournemouth University. (BU wasn't a particularly reputable university for law back then, I think that it has improved since then but BU is most well-known for its computing and media degrees).


Even if you do have a LLB it could be a Richard for all we know.
I don't know what this means????


that's not strictly speaking that is actually the law
Yes you are totally right.
However once tenants have been served with a Section 21 notice usually unless there is a problem with it, for example when the deposit has not been protected, then the tenant will still end up being evicted from the property.
Whilst they don't have to leave until a court has issued a possession order, the tenants are merely delaying the inevitable and costing the LL money in the process.
After having to go to court to get a possession order LLs are well within their rights to not give the tenant a reference at all, which may cause them considerable difficulties when trying to rent a new property.


Refusing to give a tenant a reference therefore making it even more difficult to find alternative accommodation
Once a tenant has failed to leave at the end of the Section 21 notice period and it is clear that the LL is going to have to go to court to get the property back then there is no incentive for the LL to give a reference.


That said it's not like references can't be faked or landlords who don't reference thoroughly can't be found.
Where I live there is a severe shortage of rental properties and both LLs and EAs are getting very fussy over references and the like as there are so many potential tenants and so few rental properties that they can pick and choose their tenants. I appreciate that this may not be the case everywhere in the UK.


Some tenants can't find suitable, alternative accommodation so have no choice but to drag it out until the council will step in and help.
Now this is one situation in which I really feel for tenants as well as LLs.
You may have someone who has been a wonderful tenant and they want to leave before the Section 21 expires but due to the lack of rental properties around here they absolutely cannot find anywhere.
So they go along to the council and the council tells them that if they leave the property before a possession order is issued then the council will classify them of being intentionally homeless and won't help them at all.
Now this is totally wrong as by not leaving the tenant runs the risk of losing some or all of their deposit (which they may need to secure a new property) and also their reference.
PersonallyI think that council's need to change this policy as it is wrong and unfair to both parties but especially tenants.

theartfullodger

PersianCatLady wrote: »

... ...However once tenants have been served with a Section 21 notice usually unless there is a problem with it, for example when the deposit has not been protected, then the tenant will still end up being evicted from the property. .....

Just for the record, piffle!

Many landlords, particularly in the past routinely serve/served s21s so they were there, ready to be actioned, if ever needed, avoiding the 2-month wait from issuing one. Last time I looked at the law there was no requirement on a landlord to evict a tenant just because an s21 has been served.

As an expert in the law pcl, could you point us to any property related notice which, if valid & having been served, HAS to be actioned through the courts, please?

Haven't read the rest, what else is perhaps rong?

Cheers!