Letting Agreement wording- to shorten eviction process

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

    Letting Agreement wording- to shorten eviction process

    I'm new to the forum, so hi to everyone.

    I'm just signing a new tenant into a property, and I'm looking for the form of words which I can add to a tenancy agreement which will allow me to shorten the process should it come to that in a few years' time - although every sign is that I have an excellent tenant lined up.

    A family member has just taken a bath because they had to go through the full "wait 2 months then gain possession via Court" process and I believe that this process can be shortened.

    My apologies for the imprecise question, but I only run a couple of properties and usually have very long term tenants. So I'm just discovering the joys of EPCs, deposit registration schemes, and the rest.

    Rgds

    Midlands Landlord
    Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.

    #2
    Originally posted by midlandslandlord View Post
    I'm just signing a new tenant into a property, and I'm looking for the form of words which I can add to a tenancy agreement which will allow me to shorten the process should it come to that in a few years' time - although every sign is that I have an excellent tenant lined up.
    Please be more specific about what 'process' it is you think you may wish to 'shorten'. I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid.

    Originally posted by midlandslandlord View Post
    A family member has just taken a bath because they had to go through the full "wait 2 months then gain possession via Court" process and I believe that this process can be shortened.


    Taken a bath? Is that Midlands slang for something criminal?

    If, (as I suspect), you are referring to evicting tenants quickly, then there are no short cuts and nothing you choose to add to or remove from your tenancy agreement can override the procedures for regaining possession which are laid down by law. If you find them tedious and inconvenient, then perhaps you need to seek alternative employment! Perhaps investment banking might suit you better. No moral scruples needed : rolleyes:
    '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


      #3
      Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
      Taken a bath? Is that Midlands slang for something criminal?
      What a shower.
      JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
      1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
      2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
      3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
      4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

      Comment


        #4
        >mind the gap

        >Taken a bath? Is that Midlands slang for something criminal?

        No, it means "suffered a financial loss". In their case it was the usual story of a tenant who just stopped paying rent yet decided to stay. The loss suffered was 4 months worth of rent while a tenant was evicted.

        AFAIK it is a universal term. For example in the Webster's dictionary (and it won't allow me post a link).

        >Please be more specific about what 'process' it is you think you may wish to 'shorten'. I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid.
        >If, (as I suspect), you are referring to evicting tenants quickly, then there are no short cuts and nothing you choose to add to or remove from your tenancy agreement can override the procedures for regaining possession which are laid down by law.

        I'll check up when I can if no one can advise, when she comes out of the other side of a major schools-crisis - which was why I asked here. I think the source was the RLA.

        >If you find them tedious and inconvenient, then perhaps you need to seek alternative employment! Perhaps investment banking might suit you better. No moral scruples needed : rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

        That implication is a bit out of order.

        No ideas about Investment Bankers, except that they are part of an industry which manage most of our pensions .

        My own moral scruples say that it is OK to put a clause in a tenancy agreement which is in accordance with the law.

        Rgds

        ML
        Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.

        Comment


          #5
          But use of the > symbol does not help readers. Please use LZ's 'quote' facility instead!
          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

          Comment


            #6
            Comply or die may be the answer here.



            Freedom at the point of zero............

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
              But use of the > symbol does not help readers. Please use LZ's 'quote' facility instead!
              Thanks. Noted.

              ML
              Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by midlandslandlord View Post
                >

                My own moral scruples say that it is OK to put a clause in a tenancy agreement which is in accordance with the law.

                Rgds

                ML
                OK, so the LL is not you, as you seemed to imply by the use of the first person in #1.

                Perhaps we can be clear about something else. I did not say it was not OK to put a legally acceptable clause into a tenancy agreement - simply that there is no legally acceptable clause which would help a LL get a tenant out of a property more quickly and conveniently than by the process already enshrined in statute. Research 'illegal eviction' and you will see that I was being entirely serious about that.

                The fact that you were even asking the question was what made me raise the question of your 'moral scruples' (or lack of them), although I was not being entirely serious about that.
                '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


                  #9
                  Originally posted by midlandslandlord View Post
                  they had to go through the full "wait 2 months then gain possession via Court" process and I believe that this process can be shortened....

                  In their case it was the usual story of a tenant who just stopped paying rent yet decided to stay. The loss suffered was 4 months worth of rent while a tenant was evicted.
                  How to limit unpaid rent:
                  • take six weeks' deposit
                  • get a guarantor if the tenant's finances are in any way precarious
                  • serve a s.8 notice the day after there are two months' rent owing and unpaid (if rent is payable monthly)
                  • apply for possession the day after the 14 days' notice expires

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Isn't he just talking about issuing a Section 21 at the beginning of a tenancy? At least, that is the impression I got from the OP.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by GillsMan View Post
                      Isn't he just talking about issuing a Section 21 at the beginning of a tenancy? At least, that is the impression I got from the OP.
                      "After", not "At". The AST must have at least started before L can serve T under s.21(1)(b).
                      JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                      1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                      2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                      3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                      4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                        "After", not "At". The AST must have at least started before L can serve T under s.21(1)(b).
                        Ah yes, good point. Cheers for pointing that out! Maybe that isn't what the OP was talking about then.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Mind the Gap, thanks for your reply.

                          Thanks everyone else for the comments. I think I am referring to early (effectively at the start of the tenancy, immediately after the agreement is signed) service of a possession notice.

                          Rgds

                          ML
                          Refer Mad Regulators to Arkell vs Pressdram.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by midlandslandlord View Post
                            Mind the Gap, thanks for your reply.

                            Thanks everyone else for the comments. I think I am referring to early (effectively at the start of the tenancy, immediately after the agreement is signed) service of a possession notice.

                            Rgds

                            ML
                            You're welcome. Thank you for clarifying what you were on about.

                            There are many threads on this forum about the advisability (or otherwise) of serving a section 21 Notice Requiring Possession as soon as a tenancy begins. The most powerful argument against so doing, in my view and that of many experienced LLs, is that it makes a useless 'Welcome to your new home' greeting to your new Ts, who often panic, misunderstand the notice and assume they are going to be 'evicted' even if they have done nothing wrong. Unsurprisingly they are often unconvinced by the LL's/agent's reassurance that it is 'perfectly normal and just routine'. A bit like going to the dentist for a check up and discovering he has booked you in to have all your teeth out 'jut in case they go bad later'.

                            Another good reason not to serve a s21 at the outset (as opposed to two months before the end of the fixed term) is that it makes absolutely no difference at all to the timescale in which you can regain possession. Nor is it a guarantee that T will give up possession anyway. You may still have to apply for a court order and instruct bailiffs, whether you had served the s21 on Day 1, or last day of FT minus 2 months.

                            Some agents (perhaps even some LLs) do serve s21s as a matter of course on Day 1 and if you ask them why, they shuffle embarrassedly in a Uriah Heep sort of way and claim that it is in case they 'forget' later on. Actually it is because it is in the agent's interest for the tenancy to be ended and another one entered into (because they can make more money from this).
                            '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


                              #15
                              ""is that it makes absolutely no difference at all to the timescale in which you can regain possession""

                              i have never understood this argument, that an early serving of S2 saves no time.... this is how i understand it. ..

                              tenant moves in January 1 on 6 months AST
                              landlord serves S21 Feb 1
                              tenant goes bad with poor behaviour, LL wants them out
                              Landlord applies to court for possession ` 2nd July



                              tenant moved in Jan 1
                              tenant goes bad
                              LL serves S21 1st July
                              LL applies to court for possession 2nd September

                              QED landlord gains 2 months ......

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X