Nightmare tenant - advice please!!

user1977

Slithery said:

Windsorcastle said:
I'm pretty sure that tenants are NOT permitted to change locks without a LL's express permission, even if they do intend to change them back on departure.

You are incorrect. I've always changed the locks on all of the properties that I've rented, you never know who else still has keys.

It's a complete non-issue anyway. Changing the locks merely makes it slightly more hassle to gain possession once the LL is lawfully entitled to do so. Mortgage lenders, or the vast majority of landlords of commercial property, don't have spare keys but they're still entitled to repossess. 

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

AdrianC said:

swingaloo2 said:

Firstly you are calling the tenants criminals without proof of any kind. They may just be smoking for personal use and that is not illegal.

Possession is - and it's hard to smoke what they haven't got...

BUT it is a trivial offence, likely to be dealt with by a caution, if it's only a small amount and they have no previous record.

It's odd, really. Cannabis is a Class B drug. Possession can, at least in theory, result in a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail plus an unlimited fine. Yet, the police barely take any notice of it. 

Budget cuts. Police have to prioritise more pressing areas than folk sparking up a joint. Some police forces have even stopped targeting people who grow cannabis for personal consumption unless they are being "blatant" because there just isn’t the funding to go after them and do everything else. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11767001/Three-more-police-forces-signal-that-they-will-turn-blind-eye-to-cannabis-use.html

[Deleted User]

@Windsorcastle, do you live in an area where landlords are required to be licensed? Might be worth looking into. 

HampshireH

Changing of the locks is completely irrelevant. The landlord should not just walk in with their key anyway.

Presumably the tenants told him they had changed the locks and he didn't just try and get in one day and found out .

It's highly unlikely the police would have done anything even if they had smelt smoke in the block and your neighbours were smoking it. Aside of talking to them that is.

They usually delegate such issues to the PCSOs to monitor on their patrols. 

If the police dealt with every person smoking cannabis then they would do nothing else and there would be uproar that they weren't dealing with serious crimes and catching criminals.

I'm surprised to hear you have been a landlord with little/no knowledge of how tenancy agreements work and the tenants rights. (Comment about talking to their employer is alarming). Even if you had no problems this would be considered normal research and awareness.


Realistically unless they leave your fellow freeholder needs to serve notice and then go through the courts and that could take about 18months.

It doesn't seem your fellow freeholder wants to do this and to me that's your bigger issue.

Perhaps you and your fellow freeholders as a collective should have a freeholder meeting to discuss the issues, ensure you all understand the obligations of the lease and how they can be enforced.

Then the freeholder who isn't interested in taking action will see it's not just you who is impacted and as a collective you can put the pressure on from a more informed position.

This could include getting environmental health involved if the music etc is deemed a statutory nuisance

Windsorcastle

HampshireH said:

Changing of the locks is completely irrelevant. The landlord should not just walk in with their key anyway.

Presumably the tenants told him they had changed the locks and he didn't just try and get in one day and found out .

I'm surprised to hear you have been a landlord with little/no knowledge of how tenancy agreements work and the tenants rights. (Comment about talking to their employer is alarming). Even if you had no problems this would be considered normal research and awareness.


Realistically unless they leave your fellow freeholder needs to serve notice and then go through the courts and that could take about 18months.

It doesn't seem your fellow freeholder wants to do this and to me that's your bigger issue.

Perhaps you and your fellow freeholders as a collective should have a freeholder meeting to discuss the issues, ensure you all understand the obligations of the lease and how they can be enforced.

Another resident informed the LL about the changing of the locks, which he then questioned the tenants about and after repeated denials, they admitted they had done that.  They did not offer any reason, or say that they would reinstate the old lock barrels when they leave.

I agree that it is worrying that the LL in question has little grasp of tenancy agreements or rights.  He seems to be relying on the goodwill of the tenant to move out at the end of their assured shorthold period, and clearly that is unlikely to happen and is unenforceable.  I am concerned that there could be a breach of the peace at some point, as another resident has already gone round there shouting the dds and hammering their door when the weed smoke finally got too much.  Not that this elicited any response.  But it all makes for a very tense atmosphere in the block where several flats are occupied by young families and elderly vulnerable.  

Windsorcastle

Lover_of_Lycra said:

@Windsorcastle, do you live in an area where landlords are required to be licensed? Might be worth looking into. 

Thanks for suggesting this, I have just checked the public register.  The block does indeed fall within the Council's licensing area, and only 1 of the flats has a licence!  I'm not sure what to do with this information now - the others may not appreciate me pointing out that they are all in breach of the law, although at least they could take steps now to get licensed and avoid prosecution.   The problem flat does not have a licence, but will the lack of a licence make it more difficult for him to evict the tenants?  

GDB2222

Lover_of_Lycra said:

GDB2222 said:

AdrianC said:

swingaloo2 said:

Firstly you are calling the tenants criminals without proof of any kind. They may just be smoking for personal use and that is not illegal.

Possession is - and it's hard to smoke what they haven't got...

BUT it is a trivial offence, likely to be dealt with by a caution, if it's only a small amount and they have no previous record.

It's odd, really. Cannabis is a Class B drug. Possession can, at least in theory, result in a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail plus an unlimited fine. Yet, the police barely take any notice of it. 

Budget cuts. Police have to prioritise more pressing areas than folk sparking up a joint. Some police forces have even stopped targeting people who grow cannabis for personal consumption unless they are being "blatant" because there just isn’t the funding to go after them and do everything else. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11767001/Three-more-police-forces-signal-that-they-will-turn-blind-eye-to-cannabis-use.html

I think that cannabis used to be Class C, but it got promoted to Class B. That was a really, really daft thing to do if there was no political will to do anything about it. I'm sure that we all know lots of otherwise very upright citizens who are users. It just brings the law into disrepute.

[Deleted User]

Windsorcastle said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

@Windsorcastle, do you live in an area where landlords are required to be licensed? Might be worth looking into. 

Thanks for suggesting this, I have just checked the public register.  The block does indeed fall within the Council's licensing area, and only 1 of the flats has a licence!  I'm not sure what to do with this information now - the others may not appreciate me pointing out that they are all in breach of the law, although at least they could take steps now to get licensed and avoid prosecution.   The problem flat does not have a licence, but will the lack of a licence make it more difficult for him to evict the tenants?  

If the property doesn't have a licence but should it means that landlord cannot issue a valid Section 21.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/98

I wouldn't be surprised if the tenants don't already know this.

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

GDB2222 said:

AdrianC said:

swingaloo2 said:

Firstly you are calling the tenants criminals without proof of any kind. They may just be smoking for personal use and that is not illegal.

Possession is - and it's hard to smoke what they haven't got...

BUT it is a trivial offence, likely to be dealt with by a caution, if it's only a small amount and they have no previous record.

It's odd, really. Cannabis is a Class B drug. Possession can, at least in theory, result in a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail plus an unlimited fine. Yet, the police barely take any notice of it. 

Budget cuts. Police have to prioritise more pressing areas than folk sparking up a joint. Some police forces have even stopped targeting people who grow cannabis for personal consumption unless they are being "blatant" because there just isn’t the funding to go after them and do everything else. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11767001/Three-more-police-forces-signal-that-they-will-turn-blind-eye-to-cannabis-use.html

I think that cannabis used to be Class C, but it got promoted to Class B. That was a really, really daft thing to do if there was no political will to do anything about it. I'm sure that we all know lots of otherwise very upright citizens who are users. It just brings the law into disrepute.

It was a B but then Blair's government made it a C in 2001 and Brown's government moved it up to a B again in 2008.  The police forces in that article stopped bothering with it as long as people were being discreet and it was only for personal used in 2015. I guess the police just need to pick their battles.

Grumpy_chap

HampshireH said:

I'm surprised to hear you have been a landlord with little/no knowledge of how tenancy agreements work and the tenants rights. (Comment about talking to their employer is alarming). Even if you had no problems this would be considered normal research and awareness.

As I understand it, the OP is not a LL but getting involved trying to sort the problem for the LL of another rented flat in the same block - the OP acting as a "concerned resident" and also as 1/10th of the freeholders for the block.

Windsorcastle said:

Another resident informed the LL about the changing of the locks, which he then questioned the tenants about and after repeated denials, they admitted they had done that.  They did not offer any reason, or say that they would reinstate the old lock barrels when they leave.

The tenant does not have to give a reason for changing the lock barrels.  Nor does the tenant need to tell "another resident" what they have or have not done, or whether they will change the locks back.  

If I was the tenant, I would consider all this prying and questioning from other residents in the block as an intrusion into my privacy and tell the rest of them where to go!

Windsorcastle said:

I agree that it is worrying that the LL in question has little grasp of tenancy agreements or rights.  He seems to be relying on the goodwill of the tenant to move out at the end of their assured shorthold period, and clearly that is unlikely to happen and is unenforceable.  

Maybe the LL does know the rules and is simply not taking any action because the acts of the tenant are not causing any detriment to the LL's interests.

Maybe the LL simply wants his tenant (customer) to be left in peace to enjoy the property that is being rented.  Maybe the LL is not welcoming the constant challenges from other residents in the block and (perhaps like the tenant) just sees this as nosy neighbours making a fuss.

Windsorcastle said:

I have just checked the public register.  The block does indeed fall within the Council's licensing area, and only 1 of the flats has a licence!  

Are you proposing to make this report on the basis of you acting as an individual?

OR are you proposing to make a report as you acting on behalf of the freeholders / management committee?  I assume there are some rules about what the management committee can do and that actions beyond the routine maintenance of common areas needs some agreement from at least the majority of freeholders before anything can be done in the name of the management committee or spend the collective funds.

This would apply, equally, to suggestions upthread about taking legal action.  I doubt the other residents / freeholder's will be appreciative if any "slush" fund in the maintenance budget is blown on spurious legal action. 

Given 6 out of 10 flats are let, any action against lettings through the freeholders / management committee seems unlikely to be worth pursuing.


I have said upthread, simply take heart that the tenants are renting and therefore more likely to consider this a transient arrangement and move on sooner than owner-occupier.  

Are the other residents pleased that you are drawing them into a dispute that will have to be declared at sale time?