Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet?

Guest101

Pyxis wrote: »

Re the certificates, I had read this........(Government website).



There are certain circumstances in which the law says that you cannot seek possession against your tenant using section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, in which case you should not use this form.

These are:
(a) during the rst four months of the tenancy (but where the tenancy is a replacement tenancy, the four month period is calculated by reference to the start of the original tenancy and not the start of the replacement tenancy – see section 21(4B) of the Housing Act 1988);

(b) where the landlord is prevented from retaliatory eviction under section 33 of the Deregulation Act 2015;

(c) where the landlord has not provided the tenant with an energy performance certi cate, gas safety certi cate or the Department for Communities and Local Government’s publication “How to rent: the checklist for renting in England” (see the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015);

(d) where the landlord has not complied with the tenancy deposit protection legislation; or

(e) where a property requires a licence but is unlicensed.

ah yes I see, that is only for tenancies which began after 1st October 2015, which I suppose is becoming more common now.

Pyxis

00ec25 wrote: »

it appears you both know the law but are giving shortened answers to each other and so are talking at cross purposes

both of you know full well that where the deposit is NOT already protected a S21 cannot be served unless the deposit is returned, in full, before the S21 is issued.

for the avoidance of doubt: that means you can issue a S21 if you failed to protect the deposit in the first place, but only after you have repaid the deposit without making any deductions and obviously well before the tenant has actually moved out.

Therefore as LL you now have no deposit from which to make deductions and so would need to make a small claims court case for any damages etc that you regard the tenant as liable for. The court will then decide, patently neither the LL nor tenant can use the protection scheme for such a dispute.

As tenant once the deposit is returned to you in full the S21 can be served and will be valid. There is no defence against a S21 so you as tenant now know that your tenancy will end once the LL goes all the way through the court processes. The only possible further defence is if the tenant can prove to the court that the S21 is a "retaliation" for the tenant having reported repairing issues that remain unresolved. In that latter case the court would invalidate the S21 and the cycle can begin again but this time the argument will be about repairs.

I wouldn't say I know the law! I didn't know, that's why I asked for clarity, as I was confused.

However, the bold bits now make everything clear!
I really didn't know that!

Thank you!

higgledypiggledy_pop

saajan_12 wrote: »

But unless they choose to leave, how will you make them? You'd need to serve a Section 21 notice which requires deposits to be protected or returned to the tenant before serving.

Yes, I am hoping that they will choose to leave.

aneary

higgledypiggledy_pop wrote: »

Yes, I am hoping that they will choose to leave.

Have you got the money to return the deposit and the over payment of rent??

Whether they have caused damage or not return the lot, if you try and take money out of the deposit for any damage they will want to dispute it and your screw up will be exposed.

Guest101

aneary wrote: »

Have you got the money to return the deposit and the over payment of rent??

Whether they have caused damage or not return the lot, if you try and take money out of the deposit for any damage they will want to dispute it and your screw up will be exposed.

And the OP will be sued for upto £5400 if memory serves me correctly? Deposit was £1800?

PierremontQuaker03

cloo wrote: »

I wouldn't bother if they are otherwise good tenants and trying to get them our early is more trouble than it's worth. I had good tenants who got a cat without asking me, but I didn't mind seeing as they were good tenants and it was only a cat. I would have been less happy had it been a dog, but I wouldn't have lost them over it.

If it makes you that unhappy you could give them notice at the end of their tenancy, which means no more than two months before the end of the 12-month period, and if there is any real damage from the dog (for example, some friends had a tenant with a dog that scratched the back door to pieces) it can justifiably come out of the deposit.

Same thing happened to me, it stated quite clearly on the advert no pets, but then when I popped round to see how they were doing there was a cat there.
The previous people signed up paid the deposit, paid a first months rent up front, and then said we have a dog you don't mind do you? The bloody advert says no Pets!!!
People do this deliberately, as they no once you are too far down the line you cant back out!

moneyistooshorttomention

PierremontQuaker03 wrote: »

Same thing happened to me, it stated quite clearly on the advert no pets, but then when I popped round to see how they were doing there was a cat there.
The previous people signed up paid the deposit, paid a first months rent up front, and then said we have a dog you don't mind do you? The bloody advert says no Pets!!!
People do this deliberately, as they no once you are too far down the line you cant back out!

That I can believe:cool:.

It's astonishing how many people "re-read" an advert to suit themselves. Back when I was taking lodgers in for some years in 1st house I always put "no smoking" on the advert. Despite that - I landed up with 4 smokers moving in over that period - 3 of whom had every intention of carrying right on smoking and it was my own home and I was still living in it myself. So if lodgers believe they can override what they've actually agreed to even in someone's own home/with them still living there - then goodness knows what proportion of tenants are dishonourable and think they can unilaterally amend a contract to suit them and get away with it. In hindsight - I should have said to the 3 dishonourable lodgers out of those 4 - "Oh I'm so sorry you never learnt to read. You must be at such a disadvantage in our literate society you poor thing" in the most dripping with sarcasm voice I could muster.

.....and, as we can see, have people feeling protective towards them and thinking they have every right to get away with it.

Guest101

PierremontQuaker03 wrote: »

Same thing happened to me, it stated quite clearly on the advert no pets, but then when I popped round to see how they were doing there was a cat there.
The previous people signed up paid the deposit, paid a first months rent up front, and then said we have a dog you don't mind do you? The bloody advert says no Pets!!!
People do this deliberately, as they no once you are too far down the line you cant back out!

And that your clause may not be valid too....

LadyL2013

I cannot believe people are arguing about legal nuances of an event that isn't even real.

Guest101

LadyL2013 wrote: »

I cannot believe people are arguing about legal nuances of an event that isn't even real.

It may help real people though