Tenant acting unreasonably

Author
Discussion

superlightr

Original Poster:

12,842 posts

262 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Just a story of a tenant to add to some balance to bad landlords !. We are a letting agency btw.

Said tenant moved into a property 2 years ago. AST. Deposit protected. LL abroad. We booked in and carried out an inspection after 3 months. Untidy but noting too bad. ok no problems.

8th mth Tenant reported an issue with wc taking long time to refill. contractor attends and adjusts as best as possible but confirms due to design of wc and layout of pipes in walls it works but could be better but will involve quite major works. LL used to live there understands the issues but confirmed it was not that bad and will just take a few mins longer to fill the cistern.

Contractor alerts us that that the property was not being looked after by the tenant and also very untidy.

We book in an inspection at the 9 mth stage, tenant refuses access giving verbose letters as to his right to quiet enjoyment and threatening legal action against LL and us.
We have a key but dont go in a tenant has flatly refused. (why create more hassle for ourselves) We confirm our concern to the LL that we cant check on the condition, the tenant could be doing anything in the flat, inspections are vital to protect his interests in the property. Recommend if the tenant still refuses to give 2 months notice. LL agrees.

We inform the tenant that this will happen, he refuses. Notice to Quit is given. Tenant threatens legal action and verbose letters again. Confirms he will allow access if notice is withdrawn first. LL agrees to withdraw notice against our advice. We carry out inspection with tenants consent - untidy but not unduly worried.

Yah - All happy. rent is paid ok. Thats what we are here for is to help smooth the water and make lettings go well for both parties.

1 year on we write to tenant to confirm we would like to do an inspection - verbose letters again all without prejudice and threatening court action against us and the LL. (oh no not again)

Inform the LL - recommend NTQ and we can relet to a more amenable tenant - LL agrees this time. NTQ given and tenant sends us this:



Without Prejudice

Dear:X
I will use restraint.
I have been treated appallingly badly by X and I will not just lay down and take it, so in light of the recent missive and eviction notice I will now take comprehensive legal action against X and by default that also means Mr.Y.

Please note said action will be vigorous and uncompromising without further recourse to yourselves or Mr Y.

My Solicitor will be in touch in due course.

I believe that X has breached The Landlord Tenant Act of 1985 The Protect From Eviction Act 1977 Consumer Protection Act 1987 As well as other significant legislation.

Ergo, you have exposed yourselves and Mr. Y to potentially unlimited fines, the payment of compensation and damages as well as possible criminal charges ( up to two years in jail)

From
T



--- We have acted by the book and are a reputable agency with professional body membership and omnibus redress. Is he mad? whats does he expect a LL and agent to do?

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 6th May 11:07


Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 6th May 11:10

HantsRat

2,368 posts

107 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
superlightr said:
Is he mad?
Yes he is mad.

Carry on as you were. He will lose.

Wings

5,808 posts

214 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
I once had a similar tenant, refusing both myself and contractors access. Used the Section 8 Notice (beware to use new Section 8 Notice), eventually court and the use of bailiffs for eviction. Resulting in finding evidence of tenant cultivating cannabis and the property/flat completely vandalised.

Once relationship between tenant and landlord/agent breaks down, then proceedings for possession must commence.

From the OP's post, their, the action of the agent is the right course of action, and the OP/agent must continue with the legal process for possession. In light of The Deregulation Act **(Section 33) coming on the statuary books in October 2015, immediate action must be immediate.

  • Section 33 provision to prevent the retaliatory eviction of tenant/s following orders being made by the local authority relating to disrepair at rental properties

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
superlightr said:
Without Prejudice

Dear:X
I will use restraint.
I have been treated appallingly badly by X and I will not just lay down and take it, so in light of the recent missive and eviction notice I will now take comprehensive legal action against X and by default that also means Mr.Y.

Please note said action will be vigorous and uncompromising without further recourse to yourselves or Mr Y.

My Solicitor will be in touch in due course.

I believe that X has breached The Landlord Tenant Act of 1985 The Protect From Eviction Act 1977 Consumer Protection Act 1987 As well as other significant legislation.

Ergo, you have exposed yourselves and Mr. Y to potentially unlimited fines, the payment of compensation and damages as well as possible criminal charges ( up to two years in jail)

From
T
You may already be aware of this but to obtain the privilege of communicating without prejudice, you can't just write anything and put WP on the top.

The type of letter that would get such privilege would be an offer to settle a matter. In such a situation, it could be deemed to have the same privilege even without the heading, although of course the heading removes doubt.

What is bad form is making legal argument in WP communications, and you certainly can't warn about legal action in it.

Although its hypothetical, I am pretty certain that if there was a reason to present that letter to a court as evidence that it would be allowed.

superlightr

Original Poster:

12,842 posts

262 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
JustinP1 said:
You may already be aware of this but to obtain the privilege of communicating without prejudice, you can't just write anything and put WP on the top.

The type of letter that would get such privilege would be an offer to settle a matter. In such a situation, it could be deemed to have the same privilege even without the heading, although of course the heading removes doubt.

What is bad form is making legal argument in WP communications, and you certainly can't warn about legal action in it.

Although its hypothetical, I am pretty certain that if there was a reason to present that letter to a court as evidence that it would be allowed.
Thanks Justin. I agree too. - qualified as a solicitor a long time ago (dont practice now) and have already written to him that his letters are open correspondence and not accepted on a WP basis and perhaps he should look up the usage of such. Barrack room lawyer and very misguided tenant Im afraid. We all want the same thing - for a long safe let - he is just shooting himself in the foot by his actions and forcing our hand.

FrankAbagnale

1,700 posts

111 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Yeah he's gone off on one there.

My advice is do not get in to arguments, debates or pick at things like the WP point - it will only make him more angry and you'll end up arguing over things that are completely outside your remit and waste a lot of your time.

Acknowledge his response and say when you receive correspondence from his legal representative you'll refer the matter to your solicitors in due course. 9 out of 10 times when this happens in my office we don't hear from them again.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
superlightr said:
JustinP1 said:
You may already be aware of this but to obtain the privilege of communicating without prejudice, you can't just write anything and put WP on the top.

The type of letter that would get such privilege would be an offer to settle a matter. In such a situation, it could be deemed to have the same privilege even without the heading, although of course the heading removes doubt.

What is bad form is making legal argument in WP communications, and you certainly can't warn about legal action in it.

Although its hypothetical, I am pretty certain that if there was a reason to present that letter to a court as evidence that it would be allowed.
Thanks Justin. I agree too. - qualified as a solicitor a long time ago (dont practice now) and have already written to him that his letters are open correspondence and not accepted on a WP basis and perhaps he should look up the usage of such. Barrack room lawyer and very misguided tenant Im afraid. We all want the same thing - for a long safe let - he is just shooting himself in the foot by his actions and forcing our hand.
It's a common mistake.

I've even had a solicitor write to me asserting that I was going to be sued for the damage to a heating system caused from not telling a landlord that his heating was broken for six months. Without prejudice of course... As a potential counter claim to my claim for costs because I had to leave the property as they failed to fix the heating despite six months of requests.... smile

Don't want to make this an anti-landlord post though as I am one myself!


Rangeroverover

1,522 posts

110 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Dear Tenant
Thank you for your letter erroneously marked "without prejudice" the contents are noted
Lots of Love etc

Mandalore

4,165 posts

112 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all

That wording looks like it was pulled straight off of the internet.


I can just imagine some peanut brain listening to half a story told by the tenant and then proceeding to give him bad advice.


Sheepshanks

32,525 posts

118 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
While it's an entertaining read, is it reasonable for a professional letting agency to be writing about the actions of a tenant of one of the properties it manages?

Rangeroverover

1,522 posts

110 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
I didn't notice any names, addresses or even town names, so does it really matter, sometimes the level of pompous behaviour on this forum is beyond belief

He was merely trying to show things from another perspective

boyse7en

6,671 posts

164 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
While it's an entertaining read, is it reasonable for a professional letting agency to be writing about the actions of a tenant of one of the properties it manages?
Don't see why not. The tenant nor landlord are identified, neither is the letting agency.

dacouch

1,172 posts

128 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
I'm guessing anyone taking you up on your Omnibus Redress would feel like they've been hit by a bus afterwards

pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
OP you need a thicker skin or a different job

as for the tenant, regardless of all the other guff anyone using 'ergo' is a prick
- but then who cares since he's not your or the LL's friend

over_the_hill

3,185 posts

245 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
dacouch said:
I'm guessing anyone taking you up on your Omnibus Redress would feel like they've been hit by a bus afterwards
As long as no one gets taken for a ride and conducts themselves that's a fare comment.

dacouch

1,172 posts

128 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Rangeroverover said:
I didn't notice any names, addresses or even town names, so does it really matter, sometimes the level of pompous behaviour on this forum is beyond belief

He was merely trying to show things from another perspective
It's not difficult to find the town and his employers names

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
Sheepshanks said:
While it's an entertaining read, is it reasonable for a professional letting agency to be writing about the actions of a tenant of one of the properties it manages?
Don't see why not. The tenant nor landlord are identified, neither is the letting agency.
For a practising solicitor, with instructions from either side, to have posted something like that up as a word for word account (even minus identifiers) it would be slightly shaky ground (IMO). For one to retell the tale in their own words without hint of location or parties is just about okay. although you could get a negative reaction from your Client which is defensible, but obviously bye, bye Client. For a letting agent (of dubious past profession wink ) there is no such question - if they want to they can post it.

As I see it I see nothing wrong in the OP's post being made the way it was. There are no identifiers and you would have to have been a party or closely associated with the parties to this correspondence to even make a link to a property and/or tenant.

I see it as a salutary tale of how many good landlords who exercise forbearance and restraint often end up with the stty end of the stick when they come across a chancer, especially one with Googlelegalfoo 2nd Dan.

These days I am seeing more and more of my Landlord Clients take a strict 'by the letter of the law' approach all the time. Many of them would in the past have let things slip a bit here and there so long as it all worked out in the end. The problem is they have all now come across at least one chancer of a tenant and once bitten, twice shy.

Yes there are bad landlords, but as a rule they can be sniffed out a mile, but for every bad landlord I can point you to at least two bad tenants who seemed so nice on check in and passed all the agents checks...

Sheepshanks

32,525 posts

118 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
As I see it I see nothing wrong in the OP's post being made the way it was. There are no identifiers and you would have to have been a party or closely associated with the parties to this correspondence to even make a link to a property and/or tenant.
I wasn't bothered about identifying the parties.

Perhaps it's just me, but isn't dealing with this stuff what letting agents are for? I'd expect it to be dealt with quietly and without drama.

surveyor

17,767 posts

183 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
He's not asking for help - just relating to bad landlord with a bad tenant story.

jbsportstech

5,069 posts

178 months

Wednesday 6th May 2015
quotequote all
Assuming inspections are mentioned in the tenancy agreement I can't see the tenant has a leg to stand on.

Sounds like a) armchair legal expert who has taken advice of dodgy forum or read some legal text and thinks they have the upper hand here, deluded however. b) is bully character hoping to scare with legal sounding letter. Either way your can't let them carry on like this re-afirm you agreement allows for inspections and previous ones have shown property to be in untidy state. On two separate occasions they have now refused access for inspections as laid down in the agreement and landlord wishes issue notice to quit and retake possession they have two months to leave and if not will be evicted.

Your company is experienced in legal matters relating to rental law and is confident you have and always act lawfully and so any legal action the tenant takes will fail.