Landlord broke in and changed locks!
Discussion
My brother runs a sound recording studio and rents a unit on an industrial estate the rent was due on 1st of jan. He went in today to pick some items up only to find the owner has forced entry and changed the locks!
The rent was only 30days late and wasn't paid because the live music venue was stopped due to a licensing problem and that was the main income for the business he now has that sorted and it starts again friday.
Now my brother is absolutely fuming because he needs the stuff in there to run the live music gig on friday and without it he will lose a lot of money.
The owner gave no warning of this no letters no nothing. I would like to know is this legal and does he have any comeback ?
The rent was only 30days late and wasn't paid because the live music venue was stopped due to a licensing problem and that was the main income for the business he now has that sorted and it starts again friday.
Now my brother is absolutely fuming because he needs the stuff in there to run the live music gig on friday and without it he will lose a lot of money.
The owner gave no warning of this no letters no nothing. I would like to know is this legal and does he have any comeback ?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but - the landlord is I believe quite within his rights to change the locks, hard as it may seem. If the rent was due 1st jan, and not received he could have changed them on the 2nd without any form of notification. The terms of the lease should state when payment is due.
Sorry
Suggest a meeting with the landlord to reconcile the situation cos if he enters the building without permission and removes any thing, HE will be breaking the law, i.e. breaking and entering/ theft.
Crazy I know but quite true.
The only glimmer of hope he has is if he can prove something is not right with the property, i.e. roof leaking - reason then to withold rent, but it has to have been notified to the landlord before the rent was due
Sorry
Suggest a meeting with the landlord to reconcile the situation cos if he enters the building without permission and removes any thing, HE will be breaking the law, i.e. breaking and entering/ theft.
Crazy I know but quite true.
The only glimmer of hope he has is if he can prove something is not right with the property, i.e. roof leaking - reason then to withold rent, but it has to have been notified to the landlord before the rent was due
Contrary to popular belief, the tenant has a right to remain.....I quote..
Protection from eviction act 1977 section 1.
(2)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises ofhis occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
(3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises ....
(a) to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or
(b) to refrain from excercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof.
does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3a) Subject to 3b(below) the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if...
(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household or..
(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably requried for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence.
and in either case he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that his conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whold or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
However as with all acts there is a defence...
Paragraph (3b) states...
A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection 13a if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or with holding the services in question.
Hope that helps a bit. sorry for any spelling mistakes, it's early and I'm an insomniac.
Protection from eviction act 1977 section 1.
(2)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises ofhis occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
(3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises ....
(a) to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or
(b) to refrain from excercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof.
does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3a) Subject to 3b(below) the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if...
(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household or..
(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably requried for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence.
and in either case he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that his conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whold or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
However as with all acts there is a defence...
Paragraph (3b) states...
A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection 13a if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or with holding the services in question.
Hope that helps a bit. sorry for any spelling mistakes, it's early and I'm an insomniac.
silverback mike said:
Contrary to popular belief, the tenant has a right to remain.....I quote..
Protection from eviction act 1977 section 1.
Yes, that's all good stuff. It certainly would apply if he were a residential tenant or licensee (bar excluded licensees, where you *can* change the locks and move their furniture out !) ; in fact it would be a job for your lot, it'd be harassment.
But he's not a residential occupier
Commercial tenancies/leases/licenses, low rent or high rent are under a different set of rules. I think it's highly unlikely he could do this. It's (only) just possible because it's a commercial lease and they can be slightly different. You could, I think, have a lease which allows you to reclaim the property if the rent is unpaid for one month. (IANAL)
However, such a clause would be unreasonable - unless this is the end of a long sequence of non or late rent payments (which would seem not to be the case).
The reason quoted for non-payment is irrelevant.
You can, of course, change the locks, but only if you work with the tenant (i.e. it is an improvement !) - not as a way of getting them out.
See your bro's license/tenancy agreement ; if he has broken it you could claim off him for the money he has lost (or will lose).
Autismuk,
Thought I was onto something there....think I should have rtfq, told you I had been up all night with insomnia/kids....For some reason I completely blanked the bit about not paying, and commercial premise.
Still, I tried, and not a lot of people know the act I mentioned anyway, so it's nice to know.
Most people immediately presume it is a civil case. So when it does come up, it can be a good thing, especially if the landlord is being a complete git.
'My lot' as you kindly mention, could class it as harrassment, but a bit tenuous to say the least.
Thought I was onto something there....think I should have rtfq, told you I had been up all night with insomnia/kids....For some reason I completely blanked the bit about not paying, and commercial premise.
Still, I tried, and not a lot of people know the act I mentioned anyway, so it's nice to know.
Most people immediately presume it is a civil case. So when it does come up, it can be a good thing, especially if the landlord is being a complete git.
'My lot' as you kindly mention, could class it as harrassment, but a bit tenuous to say the least.
He should have paid his rent...
He could have contacted his landlord to tell him of the problem....
Its not his fault....
He's not really helped himself much has he. Hes in a business so is the owner of the premises.
The law is very different for commercial and residential premises. Clearly with a home, you cannot just change the locks/throw them out.
Commercial you pretty much can. The lease will state the time/grounds and he will be liable for the cost involved of defaulting.
He could have contacted his landlord to tell him of the problem....
Its not his fault....
He's not really helped himself much has he. Hes in a business so is the owner of the premises.
The law is very different for commercial and residential premises. Clearly with a home, you cannot just change the locks/throw them out.
Commercial you pretty much can. The lease will state the time/grounds and he will be liable for the cost involved of defaulting.
lanciachris said:
Should have been open with the landlord from the start and it probably wouldnt happen.
Now id just accept the costs and deal with it. Why on earth didnt the landlord have a key to the place anyway?
Furthermore, why didn't he try to contact the Landlord before the rent was due? Why has he left it until now?
Slack to say the least. If he had spoken to the Landlord and explained the situation he could probably have avioded all this.
Put yourself in the Landlord's position and forget he's your brother, how would you feel if you were owed money that was 30 days late with no contact from the person who owed it?
Tyre Smoke said:
Should have been open with the landlord from the start and it probably wouldnt happen.
Now id just accept the costs and deal with it. Why on earth didnt the landlord have a key to the place anyway?
Furthermore, why didn't he try to contact the Landlord before the rent was due? Why has he left it until now?
Slack to say the least. If he had spoken to the Landlord and explained the situation he could probably have avioded all this.
Put yourself in the Landlord's position and forget he's your brother, how would you feel if you were owed money that was 30 days late with no contact from the person who owed it?
Try telling that to every small company dealing with large ones. 30 days is very rare these days more usually it's 60.
Oh dear, I believe the landlord is also entitled to keep all the stuff in there if he likes too. There have been a couple of cases of bankrupt business leaving leased photocopiers in buildings and the photocopy companies claiming ownership in court and losing. The law is very in favour of the landlord unless you get certain ommisions from the lease.
Managed to sort it out I must admit my brother is completely to blame for it he is disorganised and I don't think he even realised the rent was overdue until he went in last night and was told by the security guard he was evicted!
At first I couldn’t understand why he had been so heavy handed as half the units on the estate are empty and he doesn’t exactly have people queuing up to rent them either.
Then we found out the new estate manager was appointed last month and was obviously keen to throw his new found weight about. Once we pointed out that the 3 year lease expires in 2 months and we could quite easily move ang leave his unit empty and that we had previously expressed and interest in renting the unit next door and still might consider it. He backed down and we don't have to pay any extra and we got the unit back, with a f**ked door!
At first I couldn’t understand why he had been so heavy handed as half the units on the estate are empty and he doesn’t exactly have people queuing up to rent them either.
Then we found out the new estate manager was appointed last month and was obviously keen to throw his new found weight about. Once we pointed out that the 3 year lease expires in 2 months and we could quite easily move ang leave his unit empty and that we had previously expressed and interest in renting the unit next door and still might consider it. He backed down and we don't have to pay any extra and we got the unit back, with a f**ked door!
Even tho' it's commercial property, I think the Landlord still has to make some attempt to give notice if he intends to re-enter, but this is a hazily remembered item, not certain of it.
If your brother finds a local solicitor who both gives 30 mins free advice (a lot do) and knows about commercial property (less!) it may be worth checking, as if he's been too quick on the draw/failed to give necessary notice it could be a bargaining chip to getting the door replaced.
If your brother finds a local solicitor who both gives 30 mins free advice (a lot do) and knows about commercial property (less!) it may be worth checking, as if he's been too quick on the draw/failed to give necessary notice it could be a bargaining chip to getting the door replaced.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff