Tenant acting unreasonably
Discussion
matchmaker said:
LoonR1 said:
superlightr said:
Just had in a reference request from a new Landlord about this tenant. Tempted to say that we are seeking legal advice on what we can say before replying.
That may get the warning bells ringing.
Clearly we need to be factual and true.
Just decline to comment. Send a letter back saying "we are unable to provide a reference at this point". It doesn't say anything negative, but speaks volumes to the receiving agent. That may get the warning bells ringing.
Clearly we need to be factual and true.
How can omitting the fact that the tenant took the agents/LL to court and lost be viewed as an exception to that? It is the clear truth after all.
Or, have there been cases where a bad tenant has successfully claimed persecution based on their own actions?
zarjaz1991 said:
No negotiation on dates and times of inspection? I'd have something to say about that, along the lines of "I will be at work. I need to work in order to pay the rent". Inspections should be at a mutually convenient time. I wonder if the landlord was aware of the letting agent's inflexibility? Many are not.
Agent was an arse but his business he would say I have a key and have given you 7 days notice in writing I doing that area between 10-11 Thursday morning that was it. He only looked after the landlord as the drains under the garage were pitch fibre and had swelled (common in 60s -70s properties) and I have the water authority out 7 times to jet until they said we won’t come again get the drains replaced. The agent wanted that in writing before the landlord would deal with it and they did after 9 months in the tenancy and wanted a £50 increase in rent. Heard letterbox go and car drive off at speed and it was a section 13 notice which breached the tenancy in place and the law. I spoke to him and pointed out these facts and he said scribble out the date and it will start from 12 montsh then. Nearly reported him to arla but small town and couldn't be arsed to burn my bridges with them.
jbsportstech said:
Agent was an arse but his business he would say I have a key and have given you 7 days notice in writing I doing that area between 10-11 Thursday morning that was it. He only looked after the landlord as the drains under the garage were pitch fibre and had swelled (common in 60s -70s properties) and I have the water authority out 7 times to jet until they said we won’t come again get the drains replaced. The agent wanted that in writing before the landlord would deal with it and they did after 9 months in the tenancy and wanted a £50 increase in rent. Heard letterbox go and car drive off at speed and it was a section 13 notice which breached the tenancy in place and the law. I spoke to him and pointed out these facts and he said scribble out the date and it will start from 12 montsh then.
Nearly reported him to arla but small town and couldn't be arsed to burn my bridges with them.
They certainly wouldn't get me at 7 days notice. AT that level of notice I'd already be committed to work projects anywhere in the country.Nearly reported him to arla but small town and couldn't be arsed to burn my bridges with them.
My agent calls or emails if they need to get in and asks when would be best. That said they don't seem to do inspections but I've made it clear they can turn up on the day and if I'm in I will let them in - or the landlord if he wants to look round. And if I'm not they can let themselves in with their own key. They are trustworthy and if they needed to get in without me knowing in advance then there would be a genuine and serious reason, they would never abuse that position.
It's important to me that the landlord knows that I am looking after his house.
superlightr said:
exactly - its just being sensible. refusing access and then sending silly ergo letters is just mad.
Anyway mad person had his day in court and told he was mad. ergo we won.
Are you saying the Court upheld the eviction on the basis that he refused you access?Anyway mad person had his day in court and told he was mad. ergo we won.
Or simply that the requisite notice was given in accordance with the tenancy agreement?
Jasandjules said:
superlightr said:
exactly - its just being sensible. refusing access and then sending silly ergo letters is just mad.
Anyway mad person had his day in court and told he was mad. ergo we won.
Are you saying the Court upheld the eviction on the basis that he refused you access?Anyway mad person had his day in court and told he was mad. ergo we won.
Or simply that the requisite notice was given in accordance with the tenancy agreement?
No prises for guessing what superlightr gained from that.
JustinP1 said:
LoonR1 said:
superlightr said:
Just had in a reference request from a new Landlord about this tenant. Tempted to say that we are seeking legal advice on what we can say before replying.
That may get the warning bells ringing.
Clearly we need to be factual and true.
Just decline to comment. Send a letter back saying "we are unable to provide a reference at this point". It doesn't say anything negative, but speaks volumes to the receiving agent. That may get the warning bells ringing.
Clearly we need to be factual and true.
The guy ended up being a con-artist who scammed us and also another employee out of about £5000.
I declined, hoping that would send the message, however I got a phone call 6 months later by them asking to speak about my reference, telling me that he had done the same thing the other side of the country.
Jasandjules said:
Are you saying the Court upheld the eviction on the basis that he refused you access?
Or simply that the requisite notice was given in accordance with the tenancy agreement?
no we would be daft to go down that s8 route. We simply gave 2 mth notice s21 - no reason needs to be given. why argue with an idiot over inspections.Or simply that the requisite notice was given in accordance with the tenancy agreement?
Edited by superlightr on Friday 4th September 19:10
PurpleMoonlight said:
superlightr convinced the landlord to evict the tenant simply because they objected to a property inspection. Note they had always paid rent when due.
No prises for guessing what superlightr gained from that.
not "a" property inspection but "any" property inspection after the first plus they started threatening to go mental and start atomic legal action and criminal action on us and the landlord despite their TA confirming they must allow inspections. Have a read of the first page of this topic. this was the 2nd time they went mental.No prises for guessing what superlightr gained from that.
Gain anything? not really - loss of commission whilst its relet, the hassle of preparing the case for court and solicitors, risk of action against us as well. So no we have only ever acted in the best interest of the owner to give them the best advice based upon our experience.
We did explain to the owner why we are concerned about the tenants strange behaviour and unjustified threats and let him make the choice what he wants to do. He sought legal advice and they also agreed. Based upon our experience on lettings this tenant was acting very strangely and unreasonably.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 4th September 19:13
sugerbear said:
What an odd thing to say. There really isn't any difference between leasing a car and a house. If anything you get more protection as a landlord because of the requirement for a big up front deposit which can be used to offset any damage at the end of the tenancy.
Both business assets that are lent to people in return tor a payment.
As for inspections they do seem pointless as the landlord can have their property destroyed at any stage if the tenant really wants. Why can't the landlord protect themselves with insurance if they are that worried about damage?
There is a massive difference! the biggest I can think of off the top of my head is that if you wreck the car the finance company can force you to buy it and pay off the entire balance in one go Both business assets that are lent to people in return tor a payment.
As for inspections they do seem pointless as the landlord can have their property destroyed at any stage if the tenant really wants. Why can't the landlord protect themselves with insurance if they are that worried about damage?
Try that with a house !
I'm a LL and we only found out during a house inspection that the tenant had had a chip pan fire.
It works both ways during an inspection the tenant can point out areas that need attention ie wallpaper peeling, that may be otherwise missed
Property inspections work both ways
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff