Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

Rosemary7391

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

If they show that the rent is due but not paid they will get an order and their cost. Judges can also see through unreasonable behaviour from tenants...

I guess I don't think it's that unreasonable if the conversation goes something like this:

LL: Lots of bits of paper, E&W address somewhere non obvious or missing.
[Several months later]
Tenant: I haven't got an E&W address, please supply one. I'll pay the rent once I've got it.
LL: I gave it already.
T: Where? It's not on the tenancy agreement.
LL: See you in court!

Court to LL: What's the address?
LL: [address]
Court to T: Got the rent?
T: [Hands over rent]
Court: Was that so hard!?

Obviously if the tenant doesn't start paying when they receive the address that's different, but I thought you were supposed to make a reasonable effort to resolve things before going to court? And a letter and/or email repeating the address seems to be well within the realms of a reasonable effort.

silvercar

jamesb1983 wrote:

# Landlord response
"With regard to the Inland Revenue we informed them before we left the country and I think if you contact [Letting Agent] you will find that it was done, as rent was paid via them in the first year and they needed this so as to not deduct tax. The agent for your friends transaction with me.

^^^This is part of your post at #110.

You may disagree with it, but if your landlord is claiming to you that he found you through an agent, there is a risk that in court he could claim that he gave you the agent's address as the E & W address required in law.
Therefore he may assert that you have no right to with hold rent (and could suggest that you are doing so in revenge for him saying he wants his property back or to save money to move).
If the judge believes the landlord, then you could get evicted under section 8.

Person_one

jamesb1983 wrote: »

# LLResponse
you did not have to pay agents costs to rent our property and you were not vetted by any agent.

silvercar wrote: »

^^^This is part of your post at #110.

You may disagree with it, but if your landlord is claiming to you that he found you through an agent, there is a risk that in court he could claim that he gave you the agent's address as the E & W address required in law.
Therefore he may assert that you have no right to with hold rent (and could suggest that you are doing so in revenge for him saying he wants his property back or to save money to move).
If the judge believes the landlord, then you could get evicted under section 8.

Just another little reminder.

Rosemary7391

silvercar wrote: »

^^^This is part of your post at #110.

You may disagree with it, but if your landlord is claiming to you that he found you through an agent, there is a risk that in court he could claim that he gave you the agent's address as the E & W address required in law.
Therefore he may assert that you have no right to with hold rent (and could suggest that you are doing so in revenge for him saying he wants his property back or to save money to move).
If the judge believes the landlord, then you could get evicted under section 8.

The mandatory grounds for section 8 can be thwarted just by paying the rent to less than 2 months arrears though can't it? As the OP is keeping the rent ready to pay on receipt of the address I imagine he'd do that if it got to that stage. Would a judge order eviction over what is essentially a misunderstanding, particularly if the rent is paid immediately upon the misunderstanding being cleared up?

Miss_Samantha

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I guess I don't think it's that unreasonable if the conversation goes something like this:

There is nothing to add to, or argue about my previous post.

Rosemary7391

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

There is nothing to add to, or argue about my previous post.

Perhaps I'm misinformed about the court process. I thought there were 3 possible outcomes - the LL wins and gets the money+costs, the LL loses and gets nothing, and an intermediate where the LL wins the money but doesn't get their costs because the court thought they could've solved it without going to court. Is that not correct?

This link seems to support my view:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/going-to-court/going-to-court/after-the-court-hearing/

Under "Claiming costs" it says you might not get all your costs back if you weren't reasonable or co operative. So there does seem to be an expectation of trying to sort it out before court, and costs may not be awarded if no attempt was made. Obviously nothing is certain, it depends on the evidence.

Miss_Samantha

Either the tenant was provided with an address or she was not.

If she was but asks again just for the purpose of being difficult then the landlord isn't being unreasonable, the tenant is.

I still don't see the point of this discussion or even of raising the point.

robatwork

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

He's a little unusual unfortunately. You should check out this thread - it's both hilarious and sad.

Thanks.....and....

itchyfeet123

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Either the tenant was provided with an address or she was not.

If she was but asks again just for the purpose of being difficult then the landlord isn't being unreasonable, the tenant is.

I still don't see the point of this discussion or even of raising the point.

How is asking for the address being difficult, exactly? Supplying the address in response to an emailed request, even if it was given previously, is hardly a burden. And, it has the advantage that the landlord is able to prove s/he provided it. Note that the LL's response when the OP brought up the local address wasn't "the address is [address]" but "we can't stop you withholding rent" which is a strange response when the OP has said he'll pay the rent as soon as the address is given.

silvercar

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misinformed about the court process. I thought there were 3 possible outcomes - the LL wins and gets the money+costs, the LL loses and gets nothing, and an intermediate where the LL wins the money but doesn't get their costs because the court thought they could've solved it without going to court. Is that not correct?

The outcome we are concerned with is whether the court will order an eviction, the money is the secondary issue (as OP has always said they will pay it).

itchyfeet123 wrote:

How is asking for the address being difficult, exactly? Supplying the address in response to an emailed request, even if it was given previously, is hardly a burden.

It's not a burden, but the landlord is not obliged to continually answer tenants questions, particularly if they consider that they have already answered the question. LL is obliged to provide an address in E & W once. If relations get stretched then people stop cooperating. LL may feel that the tenant is trying to catch them out, they may even have taken legal advice and been told to stop replying directly to tenant.