Tenant acting unreasonably
Discussion
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 Confirms he will allow access if notice is withdrawn first.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?
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
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.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.
yes - its to check for obvious damage or other clear breaches of the tenancy agreement but also to give the owner an update on possible maintenance issues and to give them an indication if the property will need redecorating or new carpets in the near future, new kitchen, bathroom etc, so the owner can plan ahead and issues dont come out of the blue.
We also chat with the tenant to hear if any issues are affecting them which we can help with and improve etc. We want the tenant to be happy as well but we are here to protect the owners legal and financial interest in the property so when they frustrate that we get worried.
We also chat with the tenant to hear if any issues are affecting them which we can help with and improve etc. We want the tenant to be happy as well but we are here to protect the owners legal and financial interest in the property so when they frustrate that we get worried.
update:
NTQ was given to him and went quiet for 2 months.
When his 2 months were up (last week ) he jubilantly declared that he had not moved out as the notice he received was not signed and ergo and WP he wanted 2 months compensation to move out and generously wont sue us and also wants a 1st class reference.
Had pleasure in telling him we have proof it was signed but in any event the s21 notice does not have to be signed as per a Court of Appeal case and he had not fear that any reference we write will completely be truthful about his conduct during the tenancy.
Instructing Solicitors this week.
Had his Solicitors (just instructed) telephone me trying trying to see if there was a way to stop legal action as he now wanted to move out asap. asked them to write.
oh what a surprise. ergo and WP that silly tenant.
NTQ was given to him and went quiet for 2 months.
When his 2 months were up (last week ) he jubilantly declared that he had not moved out as the notice he received was not signed and ergo and WP he wanted 2 months compensation to move out and generously wont sue us and also wants a 1st class reference.
Had pleasure in telling him we have proof it was signed but in any event the s21 notice does not have to be signed as per a Court of Appeal case and he had not fear that any reference we write will completely be truthful about his conduct during the tenancy.
Instructing Solicitors this week.
Had his Solicitors (just instructed) telephone me trying trying to see if there was a way to stop legal action as he now wanted to move out asap. asked them to write.
oh what a surprise. ergo and WP that silly tenant.
Edited by superlightr on Monday 13th July 12:14
Edited by superlightr on Monday 13th July 12:14
JustinP1 said:
A good friend of mine is actually in this position.
Couple and young child move in, after a bidding war for the 8000sq ft property in rural area, agreed on £3000 per month on the basis tenant would pay 6 months rent up front on a 12 month tenancy.
Moving in day comes, and they don't have it, and they just pay one month's rent as deposit and first month's rent.
That's the last payment they've paid, and they are 8 months in...
They have landlord insurance, who have been very good at getting them out. Tenants turned up to the eviction hearing saying they had problems with their business, and a bank statement showing they had the £10k arrears in their account, and in any case they'd need two months to move out.
They don't pay a penny, and more than two months later, the insurance company had to instruct bailiffs, however, luckily they are out.
It seems that the references must have been dodgy, and the tenant knows full well how to play the system. The insurance company have never seen anything like it with a high-end property.
However, while the insurance company are paying the lost rent, they are not chasing the tenants for the arrears, so, they will have a clean credit record to do the same again...
the tenant - not someone with part of a surname of xxxxx de xxxx by any chance?Couple and young child move in, after a bidding war for the 8000sq ft property in rural area, agreed on £3000 per month on the basis tenant would pay 6 months rent up front on a 12 month tenancy.
Moving in day comes, and they don't have it, and they just pay one month's rent as deposit and first month's rent.
That's the last payment they've paid, and they are 8 months in...
They have landlord insurance, who have been very good at getting them out. Tenants turned up to the eviction hearing saying they had problems with their business, and a bank statement showing they had the £10k arrears in their account, and in any case they'd need two months to move out.
They don't pay a penny, and more than two months later, the insurance company had to instruct bailiffs, however, luckily they are out.
It seems that the references must have been dodgy, and the tenant knows full well how to play the system. The insurance company have never seen anything like it with a high-end property.
However, while the insurance company are paying the lost rent, they are not chasing the tenants for the arrears, so, they will have a clean credit record to do the same again...
nitrodave said:
Jeez, if you were my managing agent I'd be upset too.
Tenant moves in, and is subjected to frequent inspections which turn up nothing. He pays the rent and hasn;t trashed the place. I'm not surprised he's vexxed with you.
I rented a flat for a few years and not once did I see the managing agent or landlord.
did you read the posts? We are trying to get 1 inspection a year and are being refused. Hardly frequent.Tenant moves in, and is subjected to frequent inspections which turn up nothing. He pays the rent and hasn;t trashed the place. I'm not surprised he's vexxed with you.
I rented a flat for a few years and not once did I see the managing agent or landlord.
jbsportstech said:
I have never seen a tenants reference and have always paid on time and tried not to rock the boat.Do they ask about condition or are the concerned with rent payment?
I assume give them a good reference as they pay and look after the place but just get funny about inspections.
some requests will ask 3 or 4 questions some will ask about 20.I assume give them a good reference as they pay and look after the place but just get funny about inspections.
Its important for the right questions to be asked and to actually read the replies given by the agents.
ie True answers for the same possible tenant
Q- is the rent uptodate. A- yes
should have asked :
Q has the tenant every been in arrears and by how much and how long
A- yes £2100 for 2 months. Rent for this month is uptodate.
Q - has the property been looked after?
A - We have not carried out the final inspection yet as the tenant has not vacated.
Should have ask: Q What is the current condition of the property and has the final inspection been carried out.
A: the property has not been inspected as the tenant has refused access. The tenant has not returned keys yet.
Q- Would you re-let to this tenant
A -
We would write back/email back and ignor that question if its a negative. Often the other agents/ref companies fail to see that we have not answered that question.
Needless to say as an old Hack to this game I run my business with an eye to getting in the right tenants and asking the right questions and understanding the replies and looking for gaps and reading in between the lines. We are very careful with the references we take up and tenants we put into place.
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 14th July 11:29
nitrodave said:
superlightr said:
did you read the posts? We are trying to get 1 inspection a year and are being refused. Hardly frequent.
Yes, I did read it and it came across as though you were hassling the tenant. Even once a year is unnecessary. The tenant should be left alone. It is their home to live in and inspections are an invasion of privacy. They are paying rent on time each month and I can only assume left a deposit.It sounds like you are seeking approval for what you are doing and you don't like it when I disagree with the way you operate.
It's nothing personal, but in this instance I sympathise with the tenant.
We also we had a report from a contractor that the property wasnt being looked after so we were concerned that the owners interests in the property was at risk. If we did not try to inspect we would not be doing a good job for the owner.
The deposit is 1.5 x the rent but the property value is about 200x the rent. The tenant can refuse - we are not going to argue over this - not worth the hassle but equally the owner is in their rights to give notice to recover the property. Hence the tenant now has to leave. Cause and effect.
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 14th July 12:25
just an update.
Possession order granted. Date he has to move out is next week.
The tenant actually got a solicitor involved who tried to defend the notice.
They couldnt and lost. They looked very silly when the mag said after their 'speech' it was not defendable as it was issued correctly.
Hopefully bailiffs wont be involved.
What a silly tenant for not allowing a few inspections and ergo this and that. Waste of everyone time. More fool the private landlord where he is moving to has not asked us for references.
Possession order granted. Date he has to move out is next week.
The tenant actually got a solicitor involved who tried to defend the notice.
They couldnt and lost. They looked very silly when the mag said after their 'speech' it was not defendable as it was issued correctly.
Hopefully bailiffs wont be involved.
What a silly tenant for not allowing a few inspections and ergo this and that. Waste of everyone time. More fool the private landlord where he is moving to has not asked us for references.
Centurion07 said:
superlightr said:
They looked very silly when the mag said after their 'speech' it was not defendable as it was issued correctly.
You'd hope the solicitor would be in some sort of trouble for that.It should be pretty clear if the correct procedures have been followed or not.
The tenant was a barrack room lawyer who though he could be super clever and tricksy - pretty much the only thing he hasnt said is that he is a Freeman of the land crap etc.
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff