Access to Property

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Access to Property

    I'm in the process of court after serving both S8 & S21 notices. The tenant has changed the locks on the property and is refusing to reply to any of my correspondence. Can anyone help on how do I gain access to carry out an inspection? he is 4 months in arrears and has been awarded a CCJ whilst the S8 & S21 have are being processed. Currently awaiting an attachment of earnings order.

    #2
    You can get a court order, compelling them to allow access, which bailiffs can execute.

    Why did you go to small claims before repossessing?
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      Why did you go to small claims before repossessing?
      Interesting question. I wonder, if it will stop the tenant getting a new place, with a CCJ on record?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        Why did you go to small claims before repossessing?
        I think this is generally a great idea JP - why do you object?

        However the OPs story is confusing -- in other thread he/she states the debt was re-paid voluntarily, in this one that T is 4m in arrears. Yet another example of why folk should not start multiple threads on basically the same topic.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
          I think this is generally a great idea JP - why do you object?
          • It's an abuse of process.
          If you sue a tenant for a debt that is not the final debt, you are using multiple amounts of court time for a single debt. You're wasting the courts time and incurring unnecessary costs (which you are obliged to mitigate).

          Collecting rent is a routine business function and the court is a final avenue when everything else has failed, not the first thing you turn to when someone doesn't pay.

          In this case the tenant is 4 months in arrears and the landlord has, in that time, managed to go to court and win.
          They must have started legal action when the debt was still virtually brand new.
          • It can mess up a section 8 hearing.
          If you're claiming repossession on the basis of 2 or more month's rent owed, the court can quite reasonably view that the amount already sued for is now resolved and outside the scope of the repossession hearing.
          • Getting the tenant out is the number 1 priority
          You want to limit the possible debt and get your property back. Winning a claim against someone with possession and control of a valuable asset isn't all positive.
          People don't like being sued and don't, generally, like losing either.
          People in a property owned by someone making them unhappy have immediate scope for making themselves feel better, and, given the circumstances, are unlikely to be in a position to pay for any damage that they might do.

          Possession first and then sue the tenant.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #6
            Thank you for the replies and although most are valid points, the full story is what is behind to small claims court CCJ. After 2 months into the tenancy, he was falling behind and this continued with all the BS excuses you can imagine. I told the tenant I want him to leave after his 6 month agreement to which he replied I had to obtain a S21 in order to do so. It clear by using the terms he has been in this boat before. He then stated he would not continue to speak to me unless of a legal nature which he still didn't anyway after giving warning to court notices. It was clear that the 2 months arrears were only going to grow (which they did)and with the pending time it takes for court dates etc., I had no choice but to pursue other avenues. I am not expecting any money back but I am certain he is not walking away literally Scott free !! I am not a business and it is my first property to let so I am no means wealthy as some of the replies may think regarding court costs being mitigated. Also it is my legal right to use the courts so I don't see how it can be wasting the courts time . I couldn't give two figs if I am paying for it. I just wasn't this scrote out of the house so if it cost me extra money rather than time then so be it. He now has a CCJ which will make getting a new house very difficult and also a pending AoE letter in the post and as for damage to the property... well I wont need the court to resolve that issue .. thanks for the replies for those that meant well and for those that didn't ... tough!!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by jmj1971 View Post
              I am not a business
              Letting property IS a business.

              Comment


                #8
                may be for you but it is NOT my business.. There is a difference between an investment and a business. And just a thought, why respond to a post that you haven't been part of with a comment that isn't relevant to the original post?? I suggest your opinions are kept to those posts that are relevant !

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jmj1971 View Post
                  may be for you but it is NOT my business.. There is a difference between an investment and a business. And just a thought, why respond to a post that you haven't been part of with a comment that isn't relevant to the original post?? I suggest your opinions are kept to those posts that are relevant !
                  You really seem to be making some arrogant comments for a newbie who came here for advice about the fundamentals of managing your business. Your language does you no credit either.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It's my impression that the failure of small landlords to understand that they are running a business, providing housing to people, that is the one of the main problems with the private rental sector.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      • It's an abuse of process.
                      If you sue a tenant for a debt that is not the final debt, you are using multiple amounts of court time for a single debt. You're wasting the courts time and incurring unnecessary costs (which you are obliged to mitigate).

                      Collecting rent is a routine business function and the court is a final avenue when everything else has failed, not the first thing you turn to when someone doesn't pay.
                      Each instalment of rent is a separate debt on which you can sue.

                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      • It can mess up a section 8 hearing.
                      If you're claiming repossession on the basis of 2 or more month's rent owed, the court can quite reasonably view that the amount already sued for is now resolved and outside the scope of the repossession hearing.
                      Whilst I would not rule out a court deciding that was the case, I think it would be quite wrong having regard to the clear wording of the statute.

                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      • Getting the tenant out is the number 1 priority
                      You want to limit the possible debt and get your property back. Winning a claim against someone with possession and control of a valuable asset isn't all positive.
                      People don't like being sued and don't, generally, like losing either.
                      People in a property owned by someone making them unhappy have immediate scope for making themselves feel better, and, given the circumstances, are unlikely to be in a position to pay for any damage that they might do.

                      Possession first and then sue the tenant.
                      I think it comes down to tactics having regard to the particular circumstances. If you have a "professional" tenant who can pay and plays the system, suing for the rent is not usually what they are expecting. Enforcement is easier if you know where the tenant is. It has to be worth considering if you have a guarantor.

                      Having one or more judgements against a tenant (especially if unsatisfied) will not do you any harm if applying under grounds 10 and/or 11.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                        It's my impression that the failure of small landlords to understand that they are running a business, providing housing to people, that is the one of the main problems with the private rental sector.
                        I cannot disagree with that. However, BTL is both a business and an investment. Indeed, it is and always has been promoted primarily as an investment. Certainly back in 1988, the promise was along the lines: Put up a small deposit, borrow the rest and sit back while the rent pays the mortgage and in twenty years' time the propery will pay for itself giving you a nest egg or extra income on retirement.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          That leveraging is also a problem, as it means that centre and right governments can't risk raising interest rates or letting property values drop, because of the number of their voters that would be bankrupted. As I've mentioned before, the real harm in the Wall Street crash was because of this sort of investment model. Post the 1920s, it is not an investment model that would be allowed for shares, and BtL investors tend to have everything in the one investment category.

                          Everywhere else, borrowing to invest and with a single investment are characteristics of running a business, where your success depends on what you contribute to the business. Too many BtL landlords seem to treat BtL as a passive investment, and I often hear the claim that day job and family take all their time, when, for example, asked to put time into block management of flats.

                          Even those here who believe that having a large rental sector is good for the country, generally justify it on the grounds of being a business providing flexible housing for those with short term needs, rather than an alternative to other passive investment vehicles.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                            Each instalment of rent is a separate debt on which you can sue.
                            It's not about whether it's possible it's about whether it's a good choice.

                            If a tenant owed a year's worth of rent, a claimant with 12 separate cases (and 12 sets of costs, appearance fees and compensation for travel) I'd expect the judge to start switching the awards of costs - because it's an abuse of proper process.
                            Multiple claims that could be one claim is a form of harassment.

                            And in this case, is tactically a bad idea.
                            A very expensive asset is in the control of a hacked off tenant with, it seems to me, very little to lose.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              It's not about whether it's possible it's about whether it's a good choice.
                              But you seem to be suggesting it is not possible. I am inclined to agree that a series of proceedings for recovery of rent as soon as it is overdue and nothing else is probably not a great idea.

                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              If a tenant owed a year's worth of rent, a claimant with 12 separate cases (and 12 sets of costs, appearance fees and compensation for travel) I'd expect the judge to start switching the awards of costs - because it's an abuse of proper process.
                              Multiple claims that could be one claim is a form of harassment.
                              I just do not see that. For there to be an abuse of process there needs to be some prejudice to the defendant. Abuse of process is “using that process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use” (Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 F.L.R. 759). Each claim is legtimate. You cannot argue that you ought not to make a claim in case more rent becomes overdue. Payment of rent is under the control of the tenant. He can avoid being sued by paying the rent.

                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              And in this case, is tactically a bad idea.A very expensive asset is in the control of a hacked off tenant with, it seems to me, very little to lose.
                              Possibly. However, the average time it takes to evict a tenant is 7 to 8 months so a tenant under threat of eviction is likely to be in control for a lengthy period anyway.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X