Landlord Thieving?
Discussion
Mrs NW and her family do provide me with much to post on here.
Latest is her eldest daughter.
Been renting a flat with a friend for 6 months, tenancy expires at the end of July when she agreed to move out.
Landlord cut of the water last week and on Friday, daughter returns home to find the locks changed and her clothes on the street. Still in the flat were a £5k antique table, laptop, TV, Washing appliances, sofas, cutlery, crockery, towels etc. Landlord refused her access.
Today they arrived with a van and police in tow and landlord says flat was vacant and he cleared it and sold/dumped contents. Police on scene now, not sure what's happening (I am abroad) - Anyone have some advice?
NW
ETA - They have had a number of run-ins with the landlord and on one occasion have his delightful partner on video threatening to have them killed
Latest is her eldest daughter.
Been renting a flat with a friend for 6 months, tenancy expires at the end of July when she agreed to move out.
Landlord cut of the water last week and on Friday, daughter returns home to find the locks changed and her clothes on the street. Still in the flat were a £5k antique table, laptop, TV, Washing appliances, sofas, cutlery, crockery, towels etc. Landlord refused her access.
Today they arrived with a van and police in tow and landlord says flat was vacant and he cleared it and sold/dumped contents. Police on scene now, not sure what's happening (I am abroad) - Anyone have some advice?
NW
ETA - They have had a number of run-ins with the landlord and on one occasion have his delightful partner on video threatening to have them killed
Edited by NormalWisdom on Monday 21st July 20:11
NormalWisdom said:
This is the point - They had not vacated - Tenancy is to the end of this month when they had planned to move.
Well yeah, but the land lord's defence against an unlawful eviction would be that they did vacate early, but that's very hard to explain why the locks needed to be changed if they did NormalWisdom said:
ging84 said:
why would he need to have changed the locks if the tenants vacated early and returned the keys ?
This is the point - They had not vacated - Tenancy is to the end of this month when they had planned to move.
And he only did it to try and cut his losses.
You will want an answer from Wings but the Landlord is in deep s**t from my point of view.
He is effectively guilty of breaking and entering and burglary as I read it. He is not entitled to take possession of the property absent a court order, which I am guessing he doesn't have. He is not entitled to treat the property within the house as his nor to remove it.
I would be asking the police to go and arrest him. Then sue him for your losses and damages.
He is effectively guilty of breaking and entering and burglary as I read it. He is not entitled to take possession of the property absent a court order, which I am guessing he doesn't have. He is not entitled to treat the property within the house as his nor to remove it.
I would be asking the police to go and arrest him. Then sue him for your losses and damages.
Eclassy said:
speedyguy said:
Someone I know (joiner) ended up paying the sponging rent free tenant 3.5k when he did that. (Must have been upset feelings
And he only did it to try and cut his losses.
That was a smart move. I am down double that amount and tenant is still there. And he only did it to try and cut his losses.
Jasandjules said:
You will want an answer from Wings but the Landlord is in deep s**t from my point of view.
He is effectively guilty of breaking and entering and burglary as I read it. He is not entitled to take possession of the property absent a court order, which I am guessing he doesn't have. He is not entitled to treat the property within the house as his nor to remove it.
I would be asking the police to go and arrest him. Then sue him for your losses and damages.
I would be asking a 'mate' to break in and claim squatting rights as surely it's a civil matter and the BIB wouldn't give a fook if the property owner didn't complain as there seem to be many examples where they cannot get involved with squatters to assist property owners.He is effectively guilty of breaking and entering and burglary as I read it. He is not entitled to take possession of the property absent a court order, which I am guessing he doesn't have. He is not entitled to treat the property within the house as his nor to remove it.
I would be asking the police to go and arrest him. Then sue him for your losses and damages.
Another pal with a few houses was legged at court on a technicality which was extremely minor ie wrong letter in postcode, rather than just being allowed to change at court the whole process had to be restarted, fook the landlords wife, kids and commitments eh as long as the feckless tenant is ok
Keep up at the back! Squatting in residential premises is a criminal offence.
As for the opening post, IF (a big if) the facts are as stated, the landlord faces civil and possibly criminal liability, but I am a bit sceptical as to whether we are getting the full story.
As for the opening post, IF (a big if) the facts are as stated, the landlord faces civil and possibly criminal liability, but I am a bit sceptical as to whether we are getting the full story.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st July 23:00
as above, it's quite a 'simple' situation provided the facts are as you claim.
In terms of the right to occupy, unless the landlord is planning on turning up with proof from the court, then she can break back in. She has a legal right to occupancy.
Even if the tenant has left, the landlord is expected to store the items under tort law.
Equally, without significant evidence (see the court stuff above) that the person has left, then the landlord is really up the creek. Putting it simply, even if the property was empty, as long as the rent is being paid then the tenant has a right to occupy.
If the situation is as you have said, then the landlord would be in breach of part 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
Hopefully this has all been resolved but it might be worth having a quick read of naughton v whittle and Greater Manchester Police.
In terms of the right to occupy, unless the landlord is planning on turning up with proof from the court, then she can break back in. She has a legal right to occupancy.
Even if the tenant has left, the landlord is expected to store the items under tort law.
Equally, without significant evidence (see the court stuff above) that the person has left, then the landlord is really up the creek. Putting it simply, even if the property was empty, as long as the rent is being paid then the tenant has a right to occupy.
If the situation is as you have said, then the landlord would be in breach of part 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
Hopefully this has all been resolved but it might be worth having a quick read of naughton v whittle and Greater Manchester Police.
Breadvan72 said:
Keep up at the back! Squatting in residential premises is a criminal offence.
As for the opening post, IF (a big if) the facts are as stated, the landlord faces civil and possibly criminal liability, but I am a bit sceptical as to whether we are getting the full story.
Trust me, it is the full story (in fact, the full story makes even more sordid reading on behalf of the landlord but that is not important now). Recovery of the property or compensation is what we require (the laptop was mine, the table was Mrs NW's all stuff we had loaned her daughter to help her set-up home!).As for the opening post, IF (a big if) the facts are as stated, the landlord faces civil and possibly criminal liability, but I am a bit sceptical as to whether we are getting the full story.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 21st July 23:00
NW
Breadvan72 said:
Instruct a solicitor then. The tenant needs to take prompt action to recover the goods or their value.
It's happening today - Police also involved, crime recorded for theft and LL being arrested today. Sadly LL seems unfamiliar with the laws of our country, worse still, seems like the flat conversions (above his restaurant) are illegal.... My life is uncomplicated, it's everyone else 
littleguy said:
Putting it simply, even if the property was empty, as long as the rent is being paid then the tenant has a right to occupy.
If the situation is as you have said, then the landlord would be in breach of part 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
You are mostly right but the tenant doesnt have to be paying rent to have the right to occupy. All they need to have is a signed AST or without that, to have paid rent once and they can legally live rent free for as long as eviction process takes.If the situation is as you have said, then the landlord would be in breach of part 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
There are valid reasons why a landlord may break into a property they own e.g. abandonment
Eclassy said:
You are mostly right but the tenant doesnt have to be paying rent to have the right to occupy. All they need to have is a signed AST or without that, to have paid rent once and they can legally live rent free for as long as eviction process takes.
There are valid reasons why a landlord may break into a property they own e.g. abandonment
Well yes, you are correct but I didn't want to go into the whole arrears before getting a court order thing as, I was trying to keep it relevant to this.There are valid reasons why a landlord may break into a property they own e.g. abandonment
There's nothing in the Housing Act in relation to abandonment and I have never advised a landlord to simply go in and reclaim the property. Doing so, especially in a case where the tenant then turns up a few months later, leaves them in a very awkward situation. Not that I've ever witnesses the tenant turning up again!
littleguy said:
Well yes, you are correct but I didn't want to go into the whole arrears before getting a court order thing as, I was trying to keep it relevant to this.
There's nothing in the Housing Act in relation to abandonment and I have never advised a landlord to simply go in and reclaim the property. Doing so, especially in a case where the tenant then turns up a few months later, leaves them in a very awkward situation. Not that I've ever witnesses the tenant turning up again!
I once was involved in a case where a landlord had let a flat to a single girl, the girl's boyfriend later verbally advising the landlord that the girl had vacated the property, with the landlord then changing the entrance locks and clearing the flat of furniture and effects. There's nothing in the Housing Act in relation to abandonment and I have never advised a landlord to simply go in and reclaim the property. Doing so, especially in a case where the tenant then turns up a few months later, leaves them in a very awkward situation. Not that I've ever witnesses the tenant turning up again!
The young girl subsequently returned to the flat claiming unlawful eviction, with the local council's housing officer taking legal proceedings against the landlord to the courts for unlawful eviction. Landlord fined £5k plus costs for the girl's personal effects.
In the OP's case, then approach the local council's private housing office, who will both offer advice to the tenant/s, and if it warrants it, take legal proceedings against the landlord/agent etc.
Whilst squatting in a residential property is a criminal offence, the same does not apply for a former tenant.
http://www.maidstone.gov.uk/business/housing/stand...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff