How can I evict my tenant in rent arrears when I didn’t protect deposit

bobbymotors

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Doesn`t matter, right thinking people leave a property when they are asked to by the landlord, with proper notice given of course, gas safety breaches can lead to prison time, most landlords (even accidental) are aware and compliant IMO.

Crashy....you'll never believe this....I completely agree with you.

Crashy_Time

bobbymotors wrote: »

Crashy....you'll never believe this....I completely agree with you.

I believe it, most people would agree I think.

Pixie5740

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Doesn`t matter, right thinking people leave a property when they are asked to by the landlord, with proper notice given of course, gas safety breaches can lead to prison time, most landlords (even accidental) are aware and compliant IMO.

Those things do matter because without them a Section 21 would be invalid even if the OP returns the deposit first.

Right thinking people do not make themselves homeless just because a landlord has served notice. It is notoriously difficult for people reliant on housing benefit to find landlords willing to accept them as tenants and that's just the ones who are not in arrears. Would you make yourself homeless to accommodate a landlord if you couldn't find somewhere else to go? Sometimes hanging on until the council help is the best choice people have.

In the OP's case the tenant is not only reliant on housing benefit but it also in arrears. That tenant is not going anywhere until the council steps in and the council is unlikely to step in until at least a possession order has been granted.

Comms69

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Doesn`t matter, right thinking people leave a property when they are asked to by the landlord, with proper notice given of course, gas safety breaches can lead to prison time, most landlords (even accidental) are aware and compliant IMO.

There’s no legal notice in this country which ‘asks a tenant to leave’-
So what are you talking about now?

Lost_Property

Was the deposit near to being one month's rent? If so then any deposit penalty added to the deposit itself plus any money the tenants suddenly come up with or get awarded for repairs or for any harassment could bring the net arrears below the two-month threshold, which will knock out your S8 mandatory ground, plus the risk of costs awarded against you. Not what you want to hear, but a factor to be aware of.

Okrib

I find this extraordinary. Not being a landlord myself, the actions of this tenant and the Council are disgusting.

The tenant isn't paying rent, there wasn't a full deposit provided, the council don't seem to care. There is no way this tenant should be entitled to any payment - what there is of the deposit should be used to pay off the rent arrears and only if there is anything left over should the tenant get that (assuming they haven't damaged the place, which they probably have / will). They should be thrown out.

Can the landlord take the council to the small claims court for failing to provide the full deposit in the first place?

Comms69

Okrib wrote: »

I find this extraordinary. Not being a landlord myself, the actions of this tenant and the Council are disgusting. - Yes, the ill informed often find reality overwhelming.

The tenant isn't paying rent, there wasn't a full deposit provided, the council don't seem to care. - Funnily enough the council don't care if the tenant hasn't paid their water bill either. There is no way this tenant should be entitled to any payment - the law disagrees - what there is of the deposit should be used to pay off the rent arrears and only if there is anything left over should the tenant get that (assuming they haven't damaged the place, which they probably have / will). They should be thrown out. - by who exactly? Bill and Ed from the pub, big fans of the Red Sox?

Can the landlord take the council to the small claims court for failing to provide the full deposit in the first place?

Although I cant say with absolute certainty; I'd say 95% no.

Okrib

No need to be personal. I've worked in property for well over a decade, but on the sales side. I have zero experience of lettings (except for helping a friend from America find a place to rent, and of course he paid his rent - in fact, he paid it all in advance).

I just think it is wrong that a tenant can not provide a full deposit, and then not pay rent, but be entitled to compensation. I would say the law needs changing.

Comms69

Okrib wrote: »

No need to be personal. I've worked in property for well over a decade, but on the sales side. I have zero experience of lettings (except for helping a friend from America find a place to rent, and of course he paid his rent - in fact, he paid it all in advance).

I just think it is wrong that a tenant can not provide a full deposit, and then not pay rent, but be entitled to compensation. I would say the law needs changing.

You know how to avoid that compensation? - just be a good landlord and do what is required...

Pixie5740

Okrib wrote: »

No need to be personal. I've worked in property for well over a decade, but on the sales side. I have zero experience of lettings (except for helping a friend from America find a place to rent, and of course he paid his rent - in fact, he paid it all in advance).

I just think it is wrong that a tenant can not provide a full deposit, and then not pay rent, but be entitled to compensation. I would say the law needs changing.

No switched on landlord would allow a tenant to move into a property without first having the full deposit before handing over the keys. All a landlord has to do to avoid being sued for not protecting the deposit is register is with one of three government approved schemes. It's hardly onerous is it?