Rental Flat Landlord Lock out... advise on what to do now

adviseforumthanks

propertyrental said:

There are some ambiguities in your post so the full facts are not clear, but from what you say I disagree with other replies above:

• Eventually a date of end of Nov 2022 was provided to the LL via an email sent by the tenant

So the tenant served notice to end the tenancy. This is  valid way for a tenancy to be ended.

• No Section 21 or any other notices were issued by the LL to the tenant ever

Since it was the T who served notice, no S21 is needed.The T has no right to return since they served notice, the notice has expired, and the tenancy has ended. No rent is owed (is it still being paid?) and no right of re-entry exists. If the T has left belongings in the property, the LL has an obligation to take care of them and allow the T to collect them. See

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/information/abandoned-possessions/

Thanks, but this is where we need the help.

The council asked for all the recent email communication with the tenant. In that email chain the tenant was worried that the LL may try and evict illegally again despite the conversations - and sent an email at the beginning of Dec 2022 saying that "as per conversation" there will need to be give and take with move out dates, that they will be back in contact to sort dates considering the upcoming public holidays, rent was paid beyond 30 Nov 2022, also reminding the LL of the previous attempted break-in - and asking to work together with co-operation to end the agreement.

It was email responded to 4hours later by the LL stating that ownership has been taken back. Then when the tenant went back to the flat in the evening they were locked out.

 The council private sector rented officer indicated that even if that email notice was provided by the tenant previously, the LL is still required to issue the right notices and give 2 clear months. Is this incorrect?

 Its a point of law (I think) so it should be clearly a yes or no?

adviseforumthanks

_Penny_Dreadful said:
Your post is a little confusing as you talk about landlords and subletting.  It reads like your friend rented from a landlord and then your friend sublet the flat so your friend became the landlord of the subtenant and your friend's landlord became the head landlord.

The head landlord wants to sell and so who did the head landlord contact, their tenant or the subtenant?  Is it possible the head landlord legally ended the tenancy with his tenant this could mean the subtenant's tenancy has also ended.

Hi yes, this is where there is some ambiguity.

The AST that was traded between the T and the LL (but not signed) stated it had to be the tenants principle home, subletting was allowed and that it was 6m fixed term and then periodic. The LL was encouraging the T to sublet and have some kind of agent relationship with them - but the tenant was using it as a main home over the many years and sometimes just renting the 2nd room out or on other occasions renting it short term over the weekend when they were out and about as they had to travel for work.

The T occupancy changed over the years depending on their travel needs. They did not really tell the LL how they were using the property and the LL never asked or visited the property over the 5 odd years that it was being rented. The LL just was in contact if rent was late or if the T had any repairs or things to get fixed for approval of the LL.

In the AST it stated the LL would pay the electricity bill and council tax (no gas at the property). The LL seems to insist on paying the council tax, which we think was to reduce the tenant footprint in the property and make it look like a agency relationship. Sometimes the T had to pay the electricity when this was not sorted out or other bills.

When the council contacted the LL about the eviction, the LL defence was that it was an agency relationship with the T and that the tenant was not living there. The council could see that the LL was paying the council tax and therefore it was harder for the tenant to prove this otherwise - although some things showed it was the case to the council (council clean air zone car registration) etc.

The LL will be defending their actions by saying that notice was provided by the tenant and that the tenant was not living there as a principle home.

So now, the tenant has access back - what should they do? Should they send a copy of the key to the LL and notify them of these actions? They are trying to work out their rights in their position. IF they are totally in the wrong then the option is to quickly remove their goods and change the locks back again and leave before anyone finds out.

theoretica

What is the tenant actually trying to accomplish short and medium term? 

What I am curious about is what the locksmith has documented - could I get let into a property I used to live at as easily as saying I still lived there?

adviseforumthanks

theoretica said:

What is the tenant actually trying to accomplish short and medium term? 

What I am curious about is what the locksmith has documented - could I get let into a property I used to live at as easily as saying I still lived there?

I understand the same locksmith was called that previously had let him back when keys were left in the flat by accident. No damage was done to any of the property or doors and photos were taken when the door was opened. 

propertyrental

adviseforumthanks said:

propertyrental said:

There are some ambiguities in your post so the full facts are not clear, but from what you say I disagree with other replies above:

• Eventually a date of end of Nov 2022 was provided to the LL via an email sent by the tenant

So the tenant served notice to end the tenancy. This is  valid way for a tenancy to be ended.

• No Section 21 or any other notices were issued by the LL to the tenant ever

Since it was the T who served notice, no S21 is needed.The T has no right to return since they served notice, the notice has expired, and the tenancy has ended. No rent is owed (is it still being paid?) and no right of re-entry exists. If the T has left belongings in the property, the LL has an obligation to take care of them and allow the T to collect them. See

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/information/abandoned-possessions/

Thanks, but this is where we need the help.

The council asked for all the recent email communication with the tenant. In that email chain the tenant was worried that the LL may try and evict illegally again despite the conversations - and sent an email at the beginning of Dec 2022 saying that "as per conversation" there will need to be give and take with move out dates, that they will be back in contact to sort dates considering the upcoming public holidays, rent was paid beyond 30 Nov 2022, also reminding the LL of the previous attempted break-in - and asking to work together with co-operation to end the agreement.

It was email responded to 4hours later by the LL stating that ownership has been taken back. Then when the tenant went back to the flat in the evening they were locked out.

 The council private sector rented officer indicated that even if that email notice was provided by the tenant previously, the LL is still required to issue the right notices and give 2 clear months. Is this incorrect?

 Its a point of law (I think) so it should be clearly a yes or no?

Yes a clear yes, or no. The council officer is wrong and the answer is 'Yes'. If a tenant serves (proper valid) notice (see below) then it s binding on both LL and T, and the tenancy will end. LL does not need to do, or serve, anything.

If a T fails to vacate on the end date of the notice, then they remain but not as a tenant. Two things are then relevant:
1) the Distress for Rent Act can apply, meaning the T owes double rent and
2) rather than accepting rent, or double rent, (which could create a new tenancy), the LL should demand 'mesne profits' (which is not rent)


https://www.druces.com/doubling-your-rent-how-to-maximise-returns-when-tenants-hold-over-wrongfully/

Note : re 'proper valid' notice mentioned above - a T can usually only serve notice in a periodic (rolling) tenancy, not a fixed term (unless via a Break Clause). Indeed to end a fixed term tenancy no notice is required. The T can simply leave on the final day. (hence it's called 'fixed term'!).

And during a periodic tenancy the correct length of notice must be served, which may be a full tenancy period, a calendar month, or some other period, depending on the tenancy type and the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The exception of course is where the LL and T mutually agree an end date ie the T requests an 'Early Surrender' (which could be for the next day) and the LL agrees. That too would be binding (otherwise what's the point?!)

_Penny_Dreadful

adviseforumthanks said:

propertyrental said:

There are some ambiguities in your post so the full facts are not clear, but from what you say I disagree with other replies above:

• Eventually a date of end of Nov 2022 was provided to the LL via an email sent by the tenant

So the tenant served notice to end the tenancy. This is  valid way for a tenancy to be ended.

• No Section 21 or any other notices were issued by the LL to the tenant ever

Since it was the T who served notice, no S21 is needed.The T has no right to return since they served notice, the notice has expired, and the tenancy has ended. No rent is owed (is it still being paid?) and no right of re-entry exists. If the T has left belongings in the property, the LL has an obligation to take care of them and allow the T to collect them. See

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/information/abandoned-possessions/

Thanks, but this is where we need the help.

The council asked for all the recent email communication with the tenant. In that email chain the tenant was worried that the LL may try and evict illegally again despite the conversations - and sent an email at the beginning of Dec 2022 saying that "as per conversation" there will need to be give and take with move out dates, that they will be back in contact to sort dates considering the upcoming public holidays, rent was paid beyond 30 Nov 2022, also reminding the LL of the previous attempted break-in - and asking to work together with co-operation to end the agreement.

It was email responded to 4hours later by the LL stating that ownership has been taken back. Then when the tenant went back to the flat in the evening they were locked out.

 The council private sector rented officer indicated that even if that email notice was provided by the tenant previously, the LL is still required to issue the right notices and give 2 clear months. Is this incorrect?

 Its a point of law (I think) so it should be clearly a yes or no?

I don't think it is a clear yes or no.  The tenant appears to have served notice by email, question is, was the notice valid?  If so the tenant can't just backtrack on it.  Another interesting question given about what you've said about the sub-letting is what kind of tenancy/licence to occupy was in place since the tenant hasn't always occupied the property as their main residence as it may not have been an AST at all.  More questions than answers.  Really this person's problem is beyond the scope of some armchair lawyers, that's certainly what I am, and should perhaps stick their hand in their pocket for some proper, paid for, legal advice.

propertyrental

_Penny_Dreadful said:

adviseforumthanks said:

propertyrental said:

There are some ambiguities in your post so the full facts are not clear, but from what you say I disagree with other replies above:

• Eventually a date of end of Nov 2022 was provided to the LL via an email sent by the tenant

So the tenant served notice to end the tenancy. This is  valid way for a tenancy to be ended.

• No Section 21 or any other notices were issued by the LL to the tenant ever

Since it was the T who served notice, no S21 is needed.The T has no right to return since they served notice, the notice has expired, and the tenancy has ended. No rent is owed (is it still being paid?) and no right of re-entry exists. If the T has left belongings in the property, the LL has an obligation to take care of them and allow the T to collect them. See

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/information/abandoned-possessions/

Thanks, but this is where we need the help.

The council asked for all the recent email communication with the tenant. In that email chain the tenant was worried that the LL may try and evict illegally again despite the conversations - and sent an email at the beginning of Dec 2022 saying that "as per conversation" there will need to be give and take with move out dates, that they will be back in contact to sort dates considering the upcoming public holidays, rent was paid beyond 30 Nov 2022, also reminding the LL of the previous attempted break-in - and asking to work together with co-operation to end the agreement.

It was email responded to 4hours later by the LL stating that ownership has been taken back. Then when the tenant went back to the flat in the evening they were locked out.

 The council private sector rented officer indicated that even if that email notice was provided by the tenant previously, the LL is still required to issue the right notices and give 2 clear months. Is this incorrect?

 Its a point of law (I think) so it should be clearly a yes or no?

I don't think it is a clear yes or no.  The tenant appears to have served notice by email, question is, was the notice valid?  If so the tenant can't just backtrack on it.  ....

Speaking as an armchair lawyer, I'd say yes, provided the LL has accepted the notice.

So even if the tenancy agreement specifies notice to the LL or agent's  postal address, provided the LL/agent accepts the email notice (which appears to be the case here) then it is valid.

adviseforumthanks

propertyrental said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

I don't think it is a clear yes or no.  The tenant appears to have served notice by email, question is, was the notice valid?  If so the tenant can't just backtrack on it.  ....

Speaking as an armchair lawyer, I'd say yes, provided the LL has accepted the notice.

So even if the tenancy agreement specifies notice to the LL or agent's  postal address, provided the LL/agent accepts the email notice (which appears to be the case here) then it is valid.

This is very worrying as the narrative from council private rental sector officer is that the LL must always provide a section 21 notice irrespective of any T's notices (and that is after the PRS officer reviewed the email correspondence between T and LL).  The PRS officer sent a re-instatement demand letter to the LL citing Section 1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977, indicating in the letter that...

"Section 1 of the Protection From Eviction Act provides that any person who unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises or occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction to a fine currently not exceeding £5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or on conviction on indictment to a fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years unless that person proves that they believe and had reasonable cause to believe that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises."

The message from general solictors has been the same as well - so it does seem the T have been given the wrong advise? 

Just to clarify, an email was sent at the beginning of Oct 2022 by the T to the LL saying that the plan was to hand over around 30 Nov 2022 or 2 months from the date the email was sent. Also saying that if anything can be done earlier they will let the LL know but to plan for that date. The LL responded saying OK and would arrange for inspection of the property on that date (so I guess this indicates it was LL accepted?)

I will have to check the 6m AST, but assume if its rolled over to periodic - thus a 2m notice is above the 1m that is usually required to a LL and so seems valid? 

Things changed and the T needed more time, but not sure if anything was documented about the extension verbally agreed with the LL which the LL then backtracked on. The next documented correspondence was the T at the beginning of Dec 2022 emailing about agreed 'give and take' on move out dates - which was responded by the LL with lockout and goodbye email. 

I am unsure if the Dec 2022 email scuppers the first notice in anyway or if there is anything invalid about the T's first notice?

The T was under the impression they were valid in re-entering, but this may not be the case. They was told that if they re-enter they are required to send a key to the LL as well - not sure if this is true either? They wanted to sort their stuff out and move it (no lift in the building so will take some organising) and also sort another place out, which they are unsure is how long, as things fell through. 

They wanted to work something out with the LL - but any calls to the LL after the lock out were getting phone slammed and ignored by the LL. 

I guess the options are?:

1. Try and get out quickly and change the locks back

2. Indicate to the LL they have re-entered by informing the police, will be sending the LL a key, will be co-operative and will be removing their stuff

3. Stand their ground if they have a defendable position with the aim to move on in a less rushed way

HampshireH

Have the paid January's rent? Was it accepted?

This person has had the best part of a year to find somewhere to live did they make any effort to do so?

_Penny_Dreadful

adviseforumthanks said:

propertyrental said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

I don't think it is a clear yes or no.  The tenant appears to have served notice by email, question is, was the notice valid?  If so the tenant can't just backtrack on it.  ....

Speaking as an armchair lawyer, I'd say yes, provided the LL has accepted the notice.

So even if the tenancy agreement specifies notice to the LL or agent's  postal address, provided the LL/agent accepts the email notice (which appears to be the case here) then it is valid.

This is very worrying as the narrative from council private rental sector officer is that the LL must always provide a section 21 notice irrespective of any T's notices (and that is after the PRS officer reviewed the email correspondence between T and LL).  The PRS officer sent a re-instatement demand letter to the LL citing Section 1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977, indicating in the letter that...

"Section 1 of the Protection From Eviction Act provides that any person who unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises or occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction to a fine currently not exceeding £5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or on conviction on indictment to a fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years unless that person proves that they believe and had reasonable cause to believe that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises."

The message from general solictors has been the same as well - so it does seem the T have been given the wrong advise? 

Just to clarify, an email was sent at the beginning of Oct 2022 by the T to the LL saying that the plan was to hand over around 30 Nov 2022 or 2 months from the date the email was sent. Also saying that if anything can be done earlier they will let the LL know but to plan for that date. The LL responded saying OK and would arrange for inspection of the property on that date (so I guess this indicates it was LL accepted?)

I will have to check the 6m AST, but assume if its rolled over to periodic - thus a 2m notice is above the 1m that is usually required to a LL and so seems valid? 

Things changed and the T needed more time, but not sure if anything was documented about the extension verbally agreed with the LL which the LL then backtracked on. The next documented correspondence was the T at the beginning of Dec 2022 emailing about agreed 'give and take' on move out dates - which was responded by the LL with lockout and goodbye email. 

I am unsure if the Dec 2022 email scuppers the first notice in anyway or if there is anything invalid about the T's first notice?

The T was under the impression they were valid in re-entering, but this may not be the case. They was told that if they re-enter they are required to send a key to the LL as well - not sure if this is true either? They wanted to sort their stuff out and move it (no lift in the building so will take some organising) and also sort another place out, which they are unsure is how long, as things fell through. 

They wanted to work something out with the LL - but any calls to the LL after the lock out were getting phone slammed and ignored by the LL. 

I guess the options are?:

1. Try and get out quickly and change the locks back

2. Indicate to the LL they have re-entered by informing the police, will be sending the LL a key, will be co-operative and will be removing their stuff

3. Stand their ground if they have a defendable position with the aim to move on in a less rushed way

Either the council is totally clueless or someone has misunderstood what they’ve said. There are four ways an AST can be ended:

1) The tenant leaves at the end of the fixed term. 

2) The tenant serves notice. 

3) By a court. 

4) Mutual surrender agreed between the landlord and tenant. 

When a tenant serves notices there’s no need for the landlord to serve notice to then apply to the court for a possession order because the tenant’s notice has already ended the tenancy. When a tenant serves valid notice to end an AST and then fails to move out after the notice period ends can be pursued by the landlord for mesne profits equivalent to the value of twice the rent under the Distress for Rent Act 1737.