How to prevent scum tenants from trashing the place

[Hol]

I see the Guardian readers are out in force.

[BMWBen]

Hol said:

I see the Guardian readers are out in force.

Strange, what I see is a bunch of people telling him to HTFU because it's not his home it's a business. Doesn't sound very guardian reader friendly to me.

[themanwithnoname]

Pagey said:

TC99 said:

What the three knobs have arrived to big each other up?

Have you got 2 of your mates with you then?

TC99, wind your neck in a bit, obviously ownership = theft, and the establishment is a crime or whatever it is, but you are categorically wrong on this one.

I have a tale to tell which is close to home... We'll call it "Landlords. It's them who get the most out of the benefit system, the wkers, and why should they expect their property to be looked after and returned reasonably well, anyway tenants are beyond the law as well, innit".

My MiL let her home while she took residence abroad for work, principally to clear the mortgage, and to put a little away for the retirement fund.

Taking on some tenants just seemed like a good way to cover the mortgage payments in the interim, so there's the motive. Not (that) evil (even for a MiL), not some kind of capitalist mogul, just your average late middle aged woman, who has worked hard to have nice things, and wanting to work harder to enjoy her later life.

Note that this was a nice, 5 bedroom detached home, well furnished, well appointed, and in a decent area. The tenant was vetted by an agent, and it seems that all came back well and that this was a family with both adults working. All appeared to be good in the world.

Some 18 months into the tenancy things started to look a little odd from time to time. Requests to delay the rent here, the odd red letter in the PO box there, and payments coming from the DSS when the tenant was alleged to be working. Anyway, things were moving on OK, and MiL thought nothing of it. hard times in the country, perhaps there was a lull in work or whatnot. I'm sure it will pan out in the end, so no problems.

Then the rent payments stopped about 8 months before MiL was due back in the country once the contract was done.

The tenancy had a finite expiry etc. now, I don't know the ins and outs of section this and that, however in this case, MiL went through the correct process as a belt and braces approach to the tenancy expiring and to be sure her home would be vacant for her to retake residence, and served notice for the tenants to vacate by x date, all well within the law and with ample notice (something like 6 months notice given as I recall), as again, her work contract was due to end, and she would be moving back to the UK as expected.

Roll on 6 months or so.

MiL flew the 9 hour flight back to the UK, where I picked her up to take her to a local B&B as her stored furniture was due to be delivered a few days later, with a cleaner and decorator going in in the meantime to give the place a once over and spruce up etc. before she moved back into her hard earned home.

We decided to do a quick drive past on route to make sure the place looked secure, and from the outside, the place was clearly ruined. We're talking a block paved driveway partially torn up, rubbish everywhere, a large, double glazed bay window smashed and boarded/binbagged up at the front of the house, but most alarmingly, lights on and people clearly milling about the place.

MiL pulled her phone out of her bag to call the police, and having only just switched the device on, saw a voicemail message. Listened to it, and it was the agent calling the day before, advising that the tenant was refusing to leave, another lot who "Knew their rights" and what should happen next. the agent who had gone to collect the keys and check inventory had effectively been shouted off the premises with menaces. What a welcome return, to find your home occupied and with naught but a couple of suitcases and a 3 might booking at a b&b.

Long story short, a few grand in legal fees, insurance that paid maybe 15% of the total damage to the property, and 9 months later, the garage still has a faint aroma of dog st from where the tenant kenneled their staffies, and never let them out, and used a wheelie bin in the garage as a st repository. (The tenancy was strictly no pets)

So a 3 year stint in the middle east to clear off the mortgage, put a bit aside for retirement and giving what appeared to be some decent folk a home for the time turned into 5 months of getting the scumbags evicted, in the end using court bailiffs and police to remove them.

CCJs were granted for the several thousand pounds of rent arrears which are currently being paid at a total of £5 per month - or were for two months - currently applying for earnings/benefits to be garnished. That would be bad enough for you, right TC99?

The story doesn't end there, the house required major redecoration, including re-plastering 4 rooms with big holes knocked in them, having the floor leveled in the dining room - the floor had been pulled up and lumps of concrete knocked out of it, 3 broken double glazed windows replaced, plumbing out to the street completely blocked with stty nappies that had been flushed requiring an ROV of sorts to find the blockage, a new driveway, a new garage door, a completely new kitchen - again the one there had been utterly raped and trashed inside 3 years despite being fitted at great cost 4 years earlier, 12 months before she went abroad - we're talking smashed granite surfaces, what looked like a ball peen hammer through the stove elements, doors ripped off cupboards, light fittings torn from their wiring etc etc.

And you know what the s did at the hearing for getting their deposit back/deny rent arrears/damage/being generally st? Claimed that the house was like that when they got there, and that they were withholding rent until services were fixed....At no point had they contacted the agent, or MiL, and apparently no charge of criminal damage could be brought.

Anyway, now she's been back in the UK for 9 months, her home is now just about habitable, to date she's about £20-25k out of pocket, not counting having to stay in temporary accommodation for 3 months +/-, along with additional storage costs etc. and has a house full of bad memories and a garage that stinks of st.

So please, TC99 explain how the landlord got the most out of any system here?

As you'll see, I'm not a landlord, and neither really is MiL, however she got shafted by scum tenants, and clearly 'won' because its all in the landlords' favour over the tenant.

OP sorry to hear you're having a tough time with them. Getting rid legally is morally the best thing to do, however I understand wholeheartedly why you might want to bring in some 'heavies' for a chat. It's truly sickening to see your property being abused.


TL;DR TC99 is wrong, some people are just scumbags. Landlords, like anyone else can also be scumbags, but you'll find them in the minority. Having tenants can cost a metric stload.

[vanordinaire]

markmullen said:

Tom_C76 said:

vanordinaire said:

We usually try the 'carrot and stick' method. Write up a letter explaining that their actions may lead to proceedings possibly ending in eviction (don't directly threaten). Personally deliver the letter and speak to them explaining the possible negative consequences but offer them a better/ easier way out, eg explain that if they go voluntarily you _may_ waive charges/rent in lieu of notice/ give them a reference. This often works and once they are out(the important bit) you can decide whether it's worth pursuing them for outstanding money.

So you're advocating giving a good reference to scum tenants just to get rid, and then people complain when they end up with scum after having references checked?

As I read it he said he may give a reference, just as I may fly to the moon after work this evening. Once they're out who cares if they think they're hard done by when you don't give a reference.

Exactly what I meant, notice I didn't say a _good_ reference, I've given a reference before which detailed exactly why I would not recommend touching them with a barge pole. Also I said I _may_ not pursue them for outstanding money, I always pursue for anything I think I might have a chance of recovering.

[Rovinghawk]

oyster said:

If you're on top of it then you can get them out in 3 or so months.

Once they've moved in through the front door, if they don't pay a single penny in rent it's 6 months before I could even start proceedings, so you're wrong.
During this time, if I don't fix the dripping tap or similar then it's harassment of tenant & I can have a nice trip to a police station to defend myself.

oyster said:

Unless you are completely unlucky, you'll get such a tenant perhaps once every 5-10 years

The agency got me 3 in a row before I kicked them into touch, so you are wrong.

oyster said:

so 3 months of voids against the rest of the income is just a cost of running a business.

Apart from disputing your figures, surely good business is getting rid of unnecessary costs? Also, if you presume a 7% yield and zero actual damage, 3 months divided by 0.07 is 43 months to get back to square one. You might have envy issues against the alleged rich bds who dare to run a business, but do you not see how much harm that is to someone who might just be trying to provide for their old age?

oyster said:

Do you see it as a business? If so, why can't you run it within the confines of the law?

I do, and I'm careful to stay within the confines of the law. If a tenant strays outside those confines then I might be tempted to do the same.

btw- I have the kind of happy tenants that put their friends in touch when I'm looking for new tenants, so hardly the monster landlord you seem to portray us as.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 11th March 16:38

[Rovinghawk]

TC99 said:

There is definite scum on this thread and surprise it's the landlords.............

the biggest benefit scroungers of the lot, landlords.

I've said it before & it's worth repeating:

Those who resort to insults do so because they have no real argument.

[austinsmirk]

I'll give you two points of view. firstly I am a private landlord.

secondly, professionally I have been previously responsible for a cities rehousing, homeless, temporary accommodation services. my colleagues/staff/mgrs saw 1000's of families seeking housing, claiming homelessness each year. I am extremely well versed in the law.

ALL the odds are stacked in favour of the tenant.

ending a tenancy and gaining occupation is extremely difficult.

Get one single date, element wrong, the courts will reject your application of possession.

typically any local authority will protract the process as much as they possibly can: WHY? well if you have to put said family in temporary accommodation it costs a fortune.

whilst for some, illegal practices of forcing them out have worked and they have got away with it: all you need is for your tenant to be a bit clued up, get free LA or legal advice and you're screwed.

but I completely agree, you are absolutely in the worst place possible.

what can make your plight worse is where you live: typically poor tenants, poor people are the fodder of social housing: is there a plentiful supply of this in your area ? do they have many options ?

[jbsportstech]

austinsmirk said:

I'll give you two points of view. firstly I am a private landlord.

secondly, professionally I have been previously responsible for a cities rehousing, homeless, temporary accommodation services. my colleagues/staff/mgrs saw 1000's of families seeking housing, claiming homelessness each year. I am extremely well versed in the law.

ALL the odds are stacked in favour of the tenant.

ending a tenancy and gaining occupation is extremely difficult.

Get one single date, element wrong, the courts will reject your application of possession.

typically any local authority will protract the process as much as they possibly can: WHY? well if you have to put said family in temporary accommodation it costs a fortune.

whilst for some, illegal practices of forcing them out have worked and they have got away with it: all you need is for your tenant to be a bit clued up, get free LA or legal advice and you're screwed.

but I completely agree, you are absolutely in the worst place possible.

what can make your plight worse is where you live: typically poor tenants, poor people are the fodder of social housing: is there a plentiful supply of this in your area ? do they have many options ?

Its true I have only come accross one badish landlord as a tenant all others have been very pleasant and helpful.


I rent my house out and have had no issues.


When you get a bad tenant its very very damaging and diffcult for the landlord. I have seen a doctors flat that was trashed and the dr in question sacrificed every deposit he ever paid. He did not do any cleaning or maintenance he said he was to busy and that was the deposit was for. The flat he had needed full redec and new kitchen. The deposit did not cover this and he had to pursued through the courts.

My uncle rented his house to two teachers sharers they were fine until they started trying to purchase the house when my uncle suggested he would sell it. They then stopped paying rent and it took 8 months to evict them. Also my uncle stuppidly assume two teachers would look after a house they claimed to want to buy so stopped inspections. In actual fact they did £18k of damage and when the got them through the courts, the court said they could pay it back at £40 a month, thats how fast you can recoup your 18k loss!


Other halfs dad rented to partial housing benefit tenants. After 3 months they stopped their £500 and he only got £200 from the council. Again 9 months to get rid as council cant rehouse as they are housed but in rent arrears so they have to be evicted.

They had looked after the house ok but they were not allowed in the loft due to him locking it and storing stuff in it. The broke in got his funiture down used it and damaged it. I dont know who some people think they are. Never saw a penny back is 4.5k out of pocket.

[surveyor]

Some horrors here, but let's have some facts.

Difficult to compare with Europe, but generally tenants over there have better security of tenure. Having said that I believe landlords gave can easier time getting possession when term are broken.

Tenants such as the above should be caught in the vetting purpose, assuming that there is any point in this other than improving the letting agents income...

While some of the solutions a on this thread are effective, those carrying them out should be aware that they may be classes as harassment, and people have been jailed. Need to be carful as the bad tenants 'know their rights'. Basically know the risks.

[TroubledSoul]

Some of these stories are enough to put a person off renting out a house!

Pure curiosity here, but if it's so easy for a tenant to say that the house was in a state when they moved in, then why can't a landlord change the locks and take their stuff to the tip while they're out then just say "eh? They moved out a couple of days ago!"?

[RWD cossie wil]

TroubledSoul said:

Some of these stories are enough to put a person off renting out a house!

Pure curiosity here, but if it's so easy for a tenant to say that the house was in a state when they moved in, then why can't a landlord change the locks and take their stuff to the tip while they're out then just say "eh? They moved out a couple of days ago!"?

Generally a signed AST agreement.

[surveyor]

TroubledSoul said:

Some of these stories are enough to put a person off renting out a house!

Pure curiosity here, but if it's so easy for a tenant to say that the house was in a state when they moved in, then why can't a landlord change the locks and take their stuff to the tip while they're out then just say "eh? They moved out a couple of days ago!"?

Just because the stuff is gone, it does not mean that the tenant does not have a legal tenancy.

[jbsportstech]

surveyor said:

Just because the stuff is gone, it does not mean that the tenant does not have a legal tenancy.

Some tenancies I have statement such as if you fail to occupy the property for 21 days or more conuiously then the landlord has the right to retake the property. Thats considered abandonment despite you paying the rent.

Vetting only goes so far I have yet to see an housing assocuation or council notify a private landlord that the prescpective tenant has abused the property. They dont tend to disclose that. The only thin they do is notifty of rent arrears.

Once you have tenant on housing benefit who gets into arrears the council will advise that tenant should they leave a property without a court order and full eviction they have made themselves intetionally homeless and therefore they are not entitled to any emergency help. So the councils in these cases make life very difficult for private landlords hence why so many just say no dss of lha! Its not worth the risk.

[surveyor]

jbsportstech said:

surveyor said:

Just because the stuff is gone, it does not mean that the tenant does not have a legal tenancy.

Some tenancies I have statement such as if you fail to occupy the property for 21 days or more conuiously then the landlord has the right to retake the property. Thats considered abandonment despite you paying the rent.

Writing does not make it legal. If that's residential (or even commercial) I'm strongly suggesting that you'd be at risk relying on that, especially if the rent is paid up to date.

[jbsportstech]

surveyor said:

Writing does not make it legal. If that's residential (or even commercial) I'm strongly suggesting that you'd be at risk relying on that, especially if the rent is paid up to date.

Its not in my tenancy with my tenant but my tenancy has this in and the agent pointed it out when signing.

My previous property the agent a so called member of arla issued a section 13 notice to increase the rent after 9 months in the property. This breeched the tenancy in place and I believe is sgainst statoury law but what can you do landlord/agent just said agree to it or we will serve two months notice.

Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 12th March 12:45

Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 12th March 12:46

[TroubledSoul]

RWD cossie wil said:

Generally a signed AST agreement.

But by the same token, when someone moves in, surely they sign something to say the house/inventory are as described by the agent?

[Rovinghawk]

jbsportstech said:

my tenancy has this in and the agent pointed it out when signing.

If it's within the 6 month AST period then it's totally unenforceable.

[jbsportstech]

Rovinghawk said:

If it's within the 6 month AST period then it's totally unenforceable.

Its listed at any time within the tenancy, but that is interesting.

[Rovinghawk]

jbsportstech said:

Its listed at any time within the tenancy, but that is interesting.

The 6 month lock-in is a statutory requirement; they may not get you to sign it away.

[Hol]

BMWBen said:

Hol said:

I see the Guardian readers are out in force.

Strange, what I see is a bunch of people telling him to HTFU because it's not his home it's a business. Doesn't sound very guardian reader friendly to me.

So, you are agreeing with me then???
The op should do whatever he needs to do, to solve his problem - irrespective of a number of small minded self important people imposing rules on him that they would have no intention of following themselves.