Illegal evictions and bad tenants

Illegal evictions and bad tenants

Author
Discussion

Slagathore

5,808 posts

191 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
SoilPants said:
Given the few rights UK tenants actually have it is good practice for tenants to change the locks for the duration of their tenancy anyway, to prevent rogue landlords 'visiting' without consent.
Yes, so few rights that they can actually wreck a proporty and refuse to move out and stil be within the law until taken to court and told otherwise. Excellent!

Your Mum needs to have all correspondance sent to her solicitors, not her. She has been a bit naive in her dealing so far, so unfortunately the only way to get this sorted now is to let the solicitors deal with it and use the cost as future reminder.

As soon as he was behind on the rent, I thought it would be an abvious sign he was up to no good, and that is when your mother should have first acted.

Good luck with it.


Steve H

5,224 posts

194 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
Sir Bagalot said:
Yes the tenant is a complete and utter cock, but more importantly he is legally in the right and has gone to the trouble of obtaining a solicitor. If she goes down the legal route then it will take a min of 6 weeks, longer if a S21 wasn't served. It will also be a load of grief. The quickest way out, least stressful is to buy the tenant out.
Which is what he is counting on!

If he has done thousands of pounds worth of damage then isn't he is as liable for that as the OPs mum is for the eviction? Obviously this guy is never going to pay but when he hears that the value of the counterclaim against him will be far greater than any amount he is due he will no doubt disappear quickly enough.


JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
As above.

You need to think tactically about who wants what, their motivations and what you want.

With the history - there is no way he should be allowed back. The potential loss there is the £6000 of damage, and the whole season of holiday lets - thousands more. Of course, if he's a druggy who can't pay the subsidised rent - he isn't going to in future, neither cover the losses.

That has to be greater than the potential loss IF he follows through with a legal claim. Of course, a legal claim will be counterclaimed with the claim for damages. He will disappear.

Although it pains me to say so, this is one of the situations where taking the law into your own hands (in a peaceful way) stands you in better stead.

Wings

5,808 posts

214 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
If the AST was for a fixed term tenancy, for example 6 months, then one could argue that the tenant has already received a termination Notice.

Whilst some landlords will serve a Section 21 Notice at the start date of the AST, others LLs will serve the statuary 2 month Section 21 Notice on the 4th anniversary of the starting date of the AST.

Either at the start of an AST, or on or after the 4th anniversary date, and before the end of the fixed term of the AST, then a Section 21 (1)(b) Notice must be served upon the tenant/s. After the fixed term period the AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) becomes a Periodic Tenancy, when to bring the same to an end, then the landlord must serve a Section 21 (4) Notice. Serve the wrong Notice, then the Courts will throw the case out, with the landlord having to start all over again by serving the correct Notice.

If illegal eviction is proven against a landlord, then it can be an extremely costly affair for the landlord, and before your mother considers what action to take on repossessing the property, she needs to first consider whether she has both the front and the strength to face an inevitable confrontation.

For the tenant to clearly have vacated the premises, then there must be no clear signs of the tenant’s effects and clothing etc., if that is the case then your mother should change the main entry door locks, and make the premises secure. Your mother then needs to make the stance that she served a Section 21 (1)(b) upon the tenant, at the start of the 6 months fixed term AST.

If the tenant’s clothing etc. are still in the premises, then your mother is on a far more stickier wicket in taking the above action, but as JustinP1 advised, where “taking the law into your own hands stands you in better stead”.



mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
in the absence of an S.21 notice the tenant can play the card that he thought the tenancy would be extended ...

yes an AST turns to a periodic but only if a S.21 isn't issued ...

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
SoilPants said:
Given the few rights UK tenants actually have it is good practice for tenants to change the locks for the duration of their tenancy anyway, to prevent rogue landlords 'visiting' without consent.
What about such things as inspections & so on? Every place I've ever rented was inspected while I was at work after they made an appointment.

kowalski655

14,599 posts

142 months

Monday 18th June 2012
quotequote all
if this is going before a judge, can your mother not counterclaim for the cost of damage,lost rent etc. At the very least it will mean he wont get anything if he does succeed in winning.
As to the locks,if she thought he had already gone then surely changing the locks is just good practice,securing an empty house,and NOT locking this scumsucker out.

ChrisDB7

163 posts

154 months

Monday 18th June 2012
quotequote all
As much as the law can be an ass in this case, I'm pretty sure what your mother has done is illegal eviction. She needs to seek proper legal advice.

Steve H

5,224 posts

194 months

Monday 18th June 2012
quotequote all
The ex-tennent is just trying to score some free cash for more drugs. make it clear that he isn't getting any payoff and for sure not an easy one and he will disappear.

Allowing this be about the law is how good people get regularly shafted by scumbags.

catfood12

1,410 posts

141 months

Sunday 1st July 2012
quotequote all
OP, your mother is in damage limitation here, illegal eviction is a stinky charge. She's been lucky that tenants in the past have quietly left after the six months.

As other posters have said, I'm sure your mother served a S21 two months before the end of the tenancy, and she could produce a copy if required. There's a procedure now call Accelerated Posession to remove tenants at the end of the AST. She's done it wrong, but can mitigate to some extent.

I'd suggest your mother serves county court proceedings straight away (do this tomorrow, and use money claim online) for the outstanding rent and damage to the property. The cock tenant won't bother to defend this, and you'll get judgement by default. When your mother is in court for illegal eviction (at which the cock tenant will suddenly appear), and probably gets convicted, unless she can make a convincing story of the S21, fine and costs will be minimal, the court will want to compensate the tenant, and will award four figure compensation. At this point she can say that she has judgement against tenant for even more, and show the copy of the County Court judgement to the court, the compensation sum awarded will come off her judgement. She won't be out of pocket as much, then can pursue the local council for the balance from the tenants ongoing benefits.

Good luck fella, some tenants are scum. You're renting them an asset the value of a supercar for a few hundred pounds a month, and they abuse the asset. As for the poster that said renting is easy money, he's either an imbecile or a scumbag tenant.

Caterhamfan

304 posts

169 months

Monday 2nd July 2012
quotequote all
Dublte said:
She's sought legal advice and the solicitor has been in the same situation with the same tenant but no legal case was made against him. The solicitor suggest to just ride it out as he does not think the tenant will be able to get the money/support to allow the issue to go to court and he's trying to get an out of court settlement.
Rather an obvious point but.... as she has engaged a solicitor, why not ask the solicitor what she should do next wink

Dublte

Original Poster:

75 posts

160 months

Monday 2nd July 2012
quotequote all
Thanks for all the advice so far, it is always useful to see what other people say.

As for the reason why I'm asking PH rather than just going with what the solicitor says - had had been adamant that because the tenant is using free legal aid, it will never got to court because they don't have enough money and he's not got a strong case (many past indiscretions on his record).

As an update of what's happened so far - due to the bereavement and desire to get things sorted as quickly as possibly - my mother offered a rather nice out of court settlement and to not charge against the damage he's left in his wake. He declined this offer and wants to pursue the claim in court. As such statements of what happened have been drawn up and exchanged between solicitors. His is full of lies, some of which are easy to prove (such as money transferred into my mother's bank account - easily proved using statements) and complaints from other neighbours that he's denying (written letters from the neighbours are available) as well as phone records between him and my mother.

And for those who are saying my mother is in the wrong and shouldn't have acted as she did - I am well aware of that, hence the thread. What's done is done, we're now just going for damage limitation. I can assure you all, a very valuable lesson has been learnt.

superlightr

12,842 posts

262 months

Monday 2nd July 2012
quotequote all
Dublte said:
After panicking about the mess the property was in and wanting to prevent further damage she got the locks changed on the doors. She's now received notice that she's being sued for illegal eviction.
perfectlly legal to secure the door/property if the landlord notices the property is unsecured and the tenant is out ie door lock broken, windows open. So long as they put a note on the door/contaact the tenant to call the owner to collect new keys due to the fact the property was unsecured.