Removing Tenants Without Written Contract

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

  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by westminster View Post
    So, if anything, T could use the disrepair as a defence to a claim for possession, i.e. the poor condition of the property could reduce your parents' chances of getting a possession order on the ground of unpaid rent.
    To clarify this statement: if your parents claimed possession on the ground that two months' rent was owing and unpaid, T could defend the claim by alleging disrepair, and the compensation awarded for the disrepair could then reduce the amount of rent owing and unpaid to less than two months' thereby removing the mandatory ground for possession.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    The property is generally in bad condition also as they have not cared for it and i believe there is a broken window and damage to the front door, would this help in grounds for eviction or would they just simply repair it before any court hearing leaving no case?
    The landlord has a statutory obligation to make repairs under s.11 LTA1985, see
    http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-fac...ligations.html

    The tenant has an obligation to behave in a tenant-like manner, i.e. to carry out minor maintenance, and not to damage the property. Ground 13 of Schedule 2 of HA1988 relates to T causing damage to the property, but it's very unlikely this would be considered a valid ground for eviction in the circumstances (the damage sounds fairly slight).
    http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-fac...-8-notice.html

    It's also arguable that, in the case of a broken window, it is the LL's responsibility to repair it - and then, if appropriate, seek to recover the cost of repair from the T if there is evidence that T broke it (but unless your parents had an inventory check in carried out, there is no evidence the window wasn't broken at the start of the tenancy). So, if anything, T could use the disrepair as a defence to a claim for possession, i.e. the poor condition of the property could reduce your parents' chances of getting a possession order on the ground of unpaid rent.

    It is therefore highly advisable for your parents to ensure that all necessary repairs are carried out as per their s.11 obligations.

    Also, the LL has an obligation to ensure that the electrical wiring in the property is safe (after 14 years, they really need to get this checked), and if there is a gas supply, to supply an annual gas safety certificate.

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    Thanks Westminister, i will get my parents to serve a S13 notice of rent increase and hope that they cannot afford the new rent.
    The property is generally in bad condition also as they have not cared for it and i believe there is a broken window and damage to the front door, would this help in grounds for eviction or would they just simply repair it before any court hearing leaving no case?

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    Thanks westminister, i was afraid it might be an assured tenancy, would any party have to prove that the tenancy began before Feb 1997 as the tenants say it defintely was 1996but my parents have said it was about then but possibly after 1997?
    Sorry, I don't know but my guess is your parents would have to prove it. It might be worth making some checks to see whether you can find some proof of the date they moved in; I doubt it'd be easy after this length of time (perhaps council tax/utilities archives?) Did anyone live there immediately before the T moved in? Given the huge impact on value of the property it would make if they moved in post Feb1997, perhaps pay a detective to find out?

    Also with assured tenancy does it not mean anything that my parents want to sell the house as a pose to moving them out for new tenants?
    I think i will defintely need to serve a S13 for a rent increase.
    There are various grounds on which you can apply for possession, but if it's an assured tenancy, unpaid rent is the only one likely to succeed (see http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...ssured_tenants). If you increase the rent to market value, it's possible the Ts won't be able to afford it; note that they can, I think, apply to have the increased rent assessed by the rent assessment committee to ensure it's a fair market rent.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    Would you possibly have a S13 notice template that my parents could use to increase rent?
    Use LZ's "Agreements" button, and go to "Rent Arrears" then "Notices" then "Rent increase notice".
    Legalhelpers online s.13 Notice costs £30 here: http://www.legalhelpers.co.uk/?referer=landlordzone.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Yes, a let property with T holding either a Rent act tenancy or an SAT is always worth less.
    By contrast, a let property with T holding an AST is usually valued at approx. the vacant property valuation.

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    I see, but i would guess the property value would be substantially lower without vacant possesion. Does this make the T's 'Sitting Tenants'?
    Would you possibly have a S13 notice template that my parents could use to increase rent?
    Also when serving notices i have heard that it is best to send first class and get a certificate of posting as recorded delivery can be refused by the T, would you agree?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    Ok, sorry it was me being slow, so basically before Feb 1997 will be defaulted to an SAT.
    This being the case i assume there is no way i can get them out unless they break any of the 18 grounds right?
    Yes, that's right. You've got it! However, parents CAN sell (but just without vacant possession).

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    Ok, sorry it was me being slow, so basically before Feb 1997 will be defaulted to an SAT.
    This being the case i assume there is no way i can get them out unless they break any of the 18 grounds right?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    Sorry Jeffrey but i dont understand what your saying?
    You said if the rent is less then £25,000 per year then it is outside the scope of the housing act 1988 (meaning it does not apply) right?
    But then you say the act does apply?
    And if it is down to the parties then im sure the tenants would want it to be an SAT and we would want it to be an AST so how would this dispute then be settled?

    Apologies if i am being slow.
    Look:
    1. 1988 Act applies unless rate of rent is > £25 000 per year.
    2. Yours isn't.
    3. So 1988 Act applies.
    4. Parties' actions/omissions then make the letting an AST or an SAT.
    5. As from 28 Feb. 1997, the default arrangement is AST (i.e. letting is AST unless- by Schedule 2A- the parties make it an SAT).
    6. Before then, the default was an SAT (i.e. letting was SAT unless- by a Notice under s.20- L made it an AST).
    7. So, going back to posts #1-#3, it's clearly very important to decide when letting by L to T first began.

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    Sorry Jeffrey but i dont understand what your saying?
    You said if the rent is less then £25,000 per year then it is outside the scope of the housing act 1988 (meaning it does not apply) right?
    But then you say the act does apply?
    And if it is down to the parties then im sure the tenants would want it to be an SAT and we would want it to be an AST so how would this dispute then be settled?

    Apologies if i am being slow.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by jim_sohal View Post
    The rate of rent is definitely below £25,000 per year (£700 a month). Do you know what this means in this situation?
    Yes- simply that the Housing Act 1988 does apply. It's the Act (not the parties) that decides this.
    As the Act applies, it's then the parties (not the Act) that determine whether the letting is an AST or an SAT.

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    Hi Jeffrey, thanks for your reply.
    The rate of rent is definitely below £25,000 per year (£700 a month). Do you know what this means in this situation?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    First: if the rate of rent > £25 000 per year, the letting is neither an AST nor an SAT but entirely outside the scope of the Housing Act 1988 (whether before or after the Housing Act 1996 amendments took place).

    Leave a comment:


  • jim_sohal
    replied
    Thanks westminister, i was afraid it might be an assured tenancy, would any party have to prove that the tenancy began before Feb 1997 as the tenants say it defintely was 1996but my parents have said it was about then but possibly after 1997?
    Also with assured tenancy does it not mean anything that my parents want to sell the house as a pose to moving them out for new tenants?
    I think i will defintely need to serve a S13 for a rent increase.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X