Tenant remains after giving notice

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

    Tenant remains after giving notice

    If a tenant gives correct notice, it is my belief that the tenancy ends on expiry of that notice. If the tenant (or some of the tenants in the case of a joint tenancy) remains in the property, the landlord has the choice of either treating the ex-tenant as a trespasser or granting a new tenancy.

    Standard advice seems to be that if the landlord wants to do the former he must apply to the courts for a possession order using forms n5 & n119 (I've been told n120, but that's a different matter). That would involve a subsequent wait for bailiffs too - though I believe 'trespass' gets higher priority than regular possessions.

    However, there is no tenancy. Therefore is a possession order really necessary? Could a landlord not just enter the property when vacant (occupant at shops) and secure the property?

    #2
    As I understand it, a former-tenant-now-trespasser has a different status to an 'ordinary' trespasser.

    See s.3(1) & s.3(2) Protection from Eviction Act 1977

    3 Prohibition of eviction without due process of law.
    (1)Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is neither a statutorily protected tenancy nor an excluded tenancy and—
    (a) the tenancy (in this section referred to as the former tenancy) has come to an end, but
    (b) the occupier continues to reside in the premises or part of them,
    it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.


    (2) In this section “the occupier”, in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy.

    Comment


      #3
      That is pretty clear! I really ought to hve known that!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by westminster View Post
        As I understand it, a former-tenant-now-trespasser has a different status to an 'ordinary' trespasser.

        See s.3(1) & s.3(2) Protection from Eviction Act 1977

        3 Prohibition of eviction without due process of law.
        (1)Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is neither a statutorily protected tenancy nor an excluded tenancy and—
        (a) the tenancy (in this section referred to as the former tenancy) has come to an end, but
        (b) the occupier continues to reside in the premises or part of them,
        it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.


        (2) In this section “the occupier”, in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy.
        Any chance of putting this into plain english Please Westminster ?.
        Please remember- most people on here are laymen when it comes to the complexities of 'lawspeak'.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by peter a View Post
          Any chance of putting this into plain english Please Westminster ?.
          Please remember- most people on here are laymen when it comes to the complexities of 'lawspeak'.
          Yes, I know, but I was replying to someone who I knew would know what I was talking about.

          3 Prohibition of eviction without due process of law.
          (1)Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is neither a statutorily protected tenancy nor an excluded tenancy and—
          (a) the tenancy (in this section referred to as the former tenancy) has come to an end, but
          (b) the occupier continues to reside in the premises or part of them,
          it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.


          (2) In this section “the occupier”, in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy.
          Translation:

          3 Landlords are not allowed to evict a tenant without getting a court order
          (1) In a situation where there's a 'standard' AST or common law tenancy, i.e. not a lodger situation with a live-in landlord, and -
          (a) the tenancy has ended [this can happen if the T, say, serves notice to quit in a periodic AST, or when the fixed term of a common law tenancy ends], but
          (b) the ex-tenant - a.k.a. occupier - doesn't move out like he was meant to,
          the landlord still has to apply for a possession order to regain possession, and it'd be a criminal offence to evict by any other method.

          (2) 'Occupier' means the person who was the tenant up until the tenancy legally ended [not called a tenant anymore because the tenancy has ended]

          Comment


            #6
            How about "double rent jeopardy"? S.18 Distress for Rent Act 1737. That usually frightens them! See http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2009/11/...d-double-rent/
            The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

            Comment


              #7
              If I ever find myself in this situation, with a T holding over, I definitely intend to give the 1737 Act a try.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by westminster View Post
                If I ever find myself in this situation, with a T holding over, I definitely intend to give the 1737 Act a try.
                Thanks Westy- but -- in simple terms- can I change locks and get the scrotes out when their notice to quit ends ?
                please read my ongoing post .
                regards, Pete

                Comment


                  #9
                  Whoa there! No, you can't as other posters have stated. Use lawful procedure ONLY. It's a criminal offence otherwise and unless you have a fetish for prison food then just use the procedure open to you. Try not to take this as a personal affront to your situation but you need to stay calm! Hypertension doesn't solve anything!
                  The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Can yes, may no...

                    I can murder Mrs next door.. but may not.
                    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                      Whoa there! No, you can't as other posters have stated. Use lawful procedure ONLY. It's a criminal offence otherwise and unless you have a fetish for prison food then just use the procedure open to you. Try not to take this as a personal affront to your situation but you need to stay calm! Hypertension doesn't solve anything!
                      I know that Paul--but when a tenant does not respond and the tenancy has ended (because of their quit notice) it's hard to know if they have gone- or not gone. innit??.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                        Whoa there! No, you can't as other posters have stated. Use lawful procedure ONLY. It's a criminal offence otherwise and unless you have a fetish for prison food then just use the procedure open to you. Try not to take this as a personal affront to your situation but you need to stay calm! Hypertension doesn't solve anything!
                        What is the law and what is not the law ? it seems to change to suit interpretations

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by peter a View Post
                          Thanks Westy- but -- in simple terms- can I change locks and get the scrotes out when their notice to quit ends ?
                          please read my ongoing post .
                          regards, Pete
                          Please don't call me 'Westy'. I loathe those revolting dogs.

                          I will look at your other thread...

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by peter a View Post
                            What is the law and what is not the law ? it seems to change to suit interpretations
                            There's no ambiguity in s.3(1) Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The uncertainly lies (in your case) in whether or not the occupier/ex-tenant has or hasn't vacated.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by westminster View Post
                              Please don't call me 'Westy'. I loathe those revolting dogs.

                              I will look at your other thread...
                              No need to get 'catty' Westminster.
                              Thanks,
                              P.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X