What rights do we have after tenant wont move out because of coronavirus

Comms69

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Comms69 said:

Giraffe76 said:

Hi all,
My wife started renting a property out in october and from the beginning the renter has been a nightmare with lots of different things so in april my wife gave her 2 months notice to leave and the renter actually gave her 1 notice to leave to the letting agent too (which we thought was strange) - your notice has zero effect, her notice ends the tenancy. Your wife should know this anyway her last day to stay at the property legally was yesterday but she phoned the letting agent saying that because of the coronavirus she wont be leaving. - She is now liable for double rent. Distress of rent act

We know that we can serve her with a notice to leave - no you cant, because no such notice exists  but does anyone know when we can start that process, whether we can speed it up, roughly how long it will take and the cost please? - you cannot evict, as the courts arent taking possession cases at the moment (and your notice was wrong, it was changed to 3 months - again your wife should know this)

I also wanted to know if i can visit the property if i give her 24/48 hours notice (if thats even needed now because shes broken the agreement) - what is your purpose for visiting? and if i keep to social distancing rules - no such rules exist - legally speaking  is she legally entitled to stop me from entering the property - yes. always. it's her home. using coronavirus or anything else as a excuse as we do have a set of keys to the property.

Any help or advice would be most appreciated

Kind regards Mark

Your wife, the landlord, needs to serve her notice and claim double rent. simple as that.

You are nothing to do with this

The landlord is highly unlikely to be able to claim 'double rent' in this scenario. We don't know if there are rent arrears, firstly, and haven't been informed of what type of tenancy it is, secondly. If it's periodic or an expired AST of 12 months or less then it's not possible. In fact we know the tenancy has been in place for less than a year, so it's best to disregard 'distress for rent' entirely. 

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

As an addendum to the above, the Distress for Rent Act 1689 was abolished in 2007, with the change being enacted in 2014: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/14/crossheading/distress-for-rent-act-1689-c-5

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo2/11/19/section/18 (you've got the wrong act)

saajan_12

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The landlord is highly unlikely to be able to claim 'double rent' in this scenario. We don't know if there are rent arrears, firstly, and haven't been informed of what type of tenancy it is, secondly. If it's periodic or an expired AST of 12 months or less then it's not possible. In fact we know the tenancy has been in place for less than a year, so it's best to disregard 'distress for rent' entirely. 

The minimum 12 month fixed term is a requirement for double rent under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730. It is not a requirement under the Distress for Rent Act 1737 under which LL could claim double rent. 

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

As an addendum to the above, the Distress for Rent Act 1689 was abolished in 2007, with the change being enacted in 2014: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/14/crossheading/distress-for-rent-act-1689-c-5

That is the Distress for Rent Act 1689. Not the same as the Distress for Rent Act 1737 which is still in force. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

Comms69 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo2/11/19/section/18 (you've got the wrong act)

So have you  Only applies in circumstances where tenants give notice of departure, or exercise a break clause, and remain in cases where the landlord hasn't served an eviction notice. In this case the landlord has (attempted) to serve some sort of notice to quit, the tenant said she was going and has since changed her mind. 

Comms69

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Comms69 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo2/11/19/section/18 (you've got the wrong act)

So have you  Only applies in circumstances where tenants give notice of departure, or exercise a break clause, and remain in cases where the landlord hasn't served an eviction notice. In this case the landlord has (attempted) to serve some sort of notice to quit, the tenant said she was going and has since changed her mind. 

The tenant served 1 months notice to leave, it's in the OP. 

Notice to quit doesn't exist, so again i'm not sure what you're suggesting. 

Without being rude, you clearly have some legal background, but this perhaps isnt your specialist subject.

greatcrested

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

As an addendum to the above, the Distress for Rent Act 1689 was abolished in 2007, with the change being enacted in 2014: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/14/crossheading/distress-for-rent-act-1689-c-5

Yes, the Distress for rent Act 1689 was repealed.

But the Distress For Rent Act 1737 S18 was not.

One of the strengths of a forum like this is differing views and levels of knowledge can be shared & benefit everyone. But if you are going to contest other posters' advice, at least make sure of your facts before doing so.

babyblade41

Courts certainly in our area aren't acting on any evictions at the min and I would imagine a big backlog will ensue.

You can't enter the property on a whim as stated above , it's the tenants home so you are in this for the  long haul unless you wave a little sweetener to move her out quicker 

Even under normal circumstances eviction is a long winded process depending on court times even if the tenant isn't paying rent.

Just to be nosy, why did your wife entertain letting a property with very little knowledge of relevant rules and regs that goes with being a LL.. this is not a negative comment but  it may help others who read and can help seeing the different scenarios that can happen 

[Deleted User]

Giraffe76 said:

Hi all,
My wife started renting a property out in october and from the beginning the renter has been a nightmare with lots of different things so in april my wife gave her 2 months notice to leave and the renter actually gave her 1 notice to leave to the letting agent too (which we thought was strange) anyway her last day to stay at the property legally was yesterday but she phoned the letting agent saying that because of the coronavirus she wont be leaving.

We know that we can serve her with a notice to leave but does anyone know when we can start that process, whether we can speed it up, roughly how long it will take and the cost please?

I also wanted to know if i can visit the property if i give her 24/48 hours notice (if thats even needed now because shes broken the agreement) and if i keep to social distancing rules is she legally entitled to stop me from entering the property using coronavirus or anything else as a excuse as we do have a set of keys to the property.

Any help or advice would be most appreciated

Kind regards Mark

What address for the serving of notices is given in the tenancy agreement?  Is it your wife's address or c/o the letting agent?  How did the tenant serve notice?  Email, letter? Where did she serve it?  Your OP says, "leave to the letting agent too."  Is that "too" as in as well as to your wife or "too" as in you think it was an odd thing to do?

What is the exact start date of the tenancy?  How long was the fixed term?  Does the tenancy agreement say anything about a contractual periodic tenancy?

Ditzy_Mitzy

greatcrested said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

As an addendum to the above, the Distress for Rent Act 1689 was abolished in 2007, with the change being enacted in 2014: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/14/crossheading/distress-for-rent-act-1689-c-5

Yes, the Distress for rent Act 1689 was abolished.

But the Distress For Rent Act 1737 S18 was not.

One of the strengths of a forum like this is differing views and levels of knowledge benefit everyone. But if you are going to contest other posters' advice, at least make sure of your facts before doing so.

My point is that the Distress for Rent provisions, as had been contained within the Housing Act 1988 and pertinent to residential tenancies, relied on the earlier Distress for Rent Act, which has been abolished, not the later one. 

Comms69

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

greatcrested said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

As an addendum to the above, the Distress for Rent Act 1689 was abolished in 2007, with the change being enacted in 2014: 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/14/crossheading/distress-for-rent-act-1689-c-5

Yes, the Distress for rent Act 1689 was abolished.

But the Distress For Rent Act 1737 S18 was not.

One of the strengths of a forum like this is differing views and levels of knowledge benefit everyone. But if you are going to contest other posters' advice, at least make sure of your facts before doing so.

My point is that the Distress for Rent provisions, as had been contained within the Housing Act 1988 and pertinent to residential tenancies, relied on the earlier Distress for Rent Act, which has been abolished, not the later one. 

S.18 is perfectly valid law, it doesnt require additional legislation. The housing act has nothing to do with it. 

greatcrested

I re-post the link: explanation here

or

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-517-5027?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

or

shelter.org.uk/

Double rent

In the event that a tenant remains in occupation as a trespasser after the valid notice to quit s/he served takes effect, the landlord can claim ‘double rent’ (in the form of mesne profits or damages for use and occupation) for the period the former tenant remains in occupation.[5] This will apply where a joint tenant has unilaterally ended the joint tenancy by serving a valid notice to quit and the other tenant stays in the property. (or a sole tenant ended the joint tenancy by serving a valid notice to quit and stays in the property).

The landlord can only claim double rent if s/he does not give the former tenant permission to remain and treats the former tenant as a trespasser.[6]

My bold addition.