Homeless Due To Tenant?

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

    #16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thesaint
    You have nothing to lose by asking the tenant to look for another property, and you helping with the costs of doing so.

    No! This is WRONG.. OP, please ignore it.

    'the saint' : PLEASE STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE. I am sure you are not doing this mischievously or maliciously, but the effect can be the same.

    At this stage we must assume, until proved otherwise, that the T has a fixed term tenancy agreement which expires mid-October. For OP to start suggesting, as you advise, that T 'look for another property' before that could be construed as harassment/illegal eviction - which is why I suggested that any offer of a sweetener must be very carefully phrased and not appear to 'pressure' the T into moving out if he would prefer to stay (as we must assume he does).

    The Protection from Eviction Act, 1977 s.1 ((2),(3)) prohibits unlawful acts (plural) "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 exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;.
    does acts calculated 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."

    to get a T out of premises such as cutting off utilities, changing locks to exclude T etc.

    But, what if T would not mind leaving, or even actually wanted to and would welcome "the sweetener"? How would LL find out?

    All the guidance I can find online from local authorities and others on the meaning of harrassment all suggest persistent acts, a series of incidents, IE more than 1. The Protection From Harrassment Act states harrassment as a
    A “course of conduct” (which) must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

    Would ONE carefully worded written approach cause a problem? If in response the T made it clear that they wish to stay the length of their agreement and the LL wrote again or called, sent a second letter, or did any SECOND act, not necessarily a letter, to ask or persuade T to leave then that would be a breach of the act.

    Rather than "ASKING the tenant to look for another property" would it be acceptable to let T know that IF T WANTED to leave at any time LL would not hold T to the tenancy agreement? This way the decision and control rests with T.

    Has any LL been prosecuted for one approach with such an invitation?

    pm
    Before acting on forum advice, you may wish to consult an expert, someone who has all the relevant facts, and who accepts liability for their advice.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by property mongrel View Post
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by thesaint
      You have nothing to lose by asking the tenant to look for another property, and you helping with the costs of doing so.

      No! This is WRONG.. OP, please ignore it.

      'the saint' : PLEASE STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE. I am sure you are not doing this mischievously or maliciously, but the effect can be the same.

      At this stage we must assume, until proved otherwise, that the T has a fixed term tenancy agreement which expires mid-October. For OP to start suggesting, as you advise, that T 'look for another property' before that could be construed as harassment/illegal eviction - which is why I suggested that any offer of a sweetener must be very carefully phrased and not appear to 'pressure' the T into moving out if he would prefer to stay (as we must assume he does).

      The Protection from Eviction Act, 1977 s.1 ((2),(3)) prohibits unlawful acts (plural) "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 exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;.
      does acts calculated 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."

      to get a T out of premises such as cutting off utilities, changing locks to exclude T etc.

      But, what if T would not mind leaving, or even actually wanted to and would welcome "the sweetener"? How would LL find out?

      All the guidance I can find online from local authorities and others on the meaning of harrassment all suggest persistent acts, a series of incidents, IE more than 1. The Protection From Harrassment Act states harrassment as a
      A “course of conduct” (which) must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

      Would ONE carefully worded written approach cause a problem? If in response the T made it clear that they wish to stay the length of their agreement and the LL wrote again or called, sent a second letter, or did any SECOND act, not necessarily a letter, to ask or persuade T to leave then that would be a breach of the act.

      Rather than "ASKING the tenant to look for another property" would it be acceptable to let T know that IF T WANTED to leave at any time LL would not hold T to the tenancy agreement? This way the decision and control rests with T.

      Has any LL been prosecuted for one approach with such an invitation?

      pm
      Whether or not it is interpreted as an attempt to put pressure on T to leave early (illegal eviction) will, as I have already made clear - twice! - depend on the tone/tenor of the suggestion/offer. That will in turn depend on the language used and the context in which the offer is made. There is a difference between a text message or voicemail message saying : 'I've lost my job, I need my house back and I'd like you to start looking elsewhere so you can move out asap' and a friendly letter saying: 'This offer may well not be of any interest to you because I know you are settled in the property, but I just wanted you to know that if for any reason you did want to move earlier than the end of your fixed term, we could perhaps comes to some agreement about it - but no pressure. It's your right to stay until mid-October if you choose. Get back to me if you're interested but if I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're happy to stay put'.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #18
        Many thanks for all your input. All comments helpful or not are appreciated.

        My letting agent has informed my Tenant of my circumstances, however it is indeed correct, I am going to have to wait until October to gain access at the end of the 6 month lease.

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        Working...
        X