Tenant remains after giving notice

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

  • peter a
    replied
    Originally posted by jta View Post
    I suggest you read 'How to win friends and influence people'
    Thank you for your advice--however- it was a light hearted comment I made-re westminsters avatar.
    Right now this is a very stressful situation for my partner (and also for myself). I welcome constructive, helpful comments and in the future when this mess is all sorted I hope our experience of it will help others in a similar situation.
    thank you
    P.

    Leave a comment:


  • jta
    replied
    Originally posted by peter a View Post
    No need to get 'catty'
    I suggest you read 'How to win friends and influence people'

    Leave a comment:


  • peter a
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • peter a
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • peter a
    replied
    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??.

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    Can yes, may no...

    I can murder Mrs next door.. but may not.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • peter a
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    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]

    Leave a comment:


  • peter a
    replied
    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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snorkerz
    replied
    That is pretty clear! I really ought to hve known that!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X