Court Order and Legitimate Actions by Landlord

[Consumer]

I now have a possession order for my sole property. Saw this on another site and wondered if it is legal:

Although the possession order does not allow the landlord to forcibly evict his ex-tenants at this point, a landlord may remove a trespasser from his land, but only with "reasonable force".
There are, therefore, several actions that the landlord can legitimately carry out. He can contact the ex-tenants and announce that he intends to carry out the eviction the following day - if he is firm and convincing, they will often save him the time and trouble, and themselves the embarrassment, by hastily packing and leaving. Armed with the court order, he can legally enter, for example, whilst they are out and remove their belongings (provided he does not damage or destroy the goods) although he may not use or threaten violence if he is aware that there is someone present on the premises at the time of the attempted entry, and that person is opposed to the entry3.
The landlord could also arrange to have the services interrupted or disconnected. A landlord could legitimately enter, for example, and remove all fuses from the fusebox or disable the heating system. Although this is a criminal offence whilst the occupiers are still tenants, once the possession order is obtained, the occupiers, as trespassers have no such protection.

Does anyone know if the above information is correct?

[jta]

Does anyone know if the above information is correct?

No it is not correct, the only way to remove your tenants is to use a court appointed bailiff.

Following the actions you have mentioned could result in serious jail time and an unlimited fine.

[Consumer]

Thank you jta. The lead tenant responsible for paying the rent moved out, don't know when, leaving his girlfriend in our home. She applied for LHA and got it (now not paying rent of course). She has moved her new boyfriend in - is he classed as a tresspasser and if so can we have him removed legally?

Also, although we have a possession date we truly believe she will not move out, can we start the process of applying for a bailiff prior to the possession order date to save time?

[YesAdam]

I googled and you got that information from letlink.

Their is a lot wrong with that statement, I do find it interesting that they justify the paragraph by saying "Although this is a criminal offence whilst the occupiers are still tenants, once the possession order is obtained, the occupiers, as trespassers have no such protection".

They have a phone number, be interesting to see if letlink still believes this to be true.

P.S. If the tenant is more than 8 weeks in arrears, you can write to benefits regarding LHA and get paid direct.

[Consumer]

P.S. If the tenant is more than 8 weeks in arrears, you can write to benefits regarding LHA and get paid direct.

The benefit staff are totally incompetent. I found and sent them the following but of course I will not receive a reply as they have not responded to previous emails and have continued to pay her directly:

4.041 To prevent the possibility of arrears accruing, you can make payment to the landlord for a maximum of eight weeks whilst you are gathering evidence to reach a decision about payment to the person's landlord.

HB Reg 96 (3B) and HB(SPC) Reg 77(3B)

4.061 Rent is in arrears once the date it is due to be paid has passed, regardless of whether it is due to be paid in advance or in arrears.

Regarding her new boyfriend: is he tresspassing by living there? We were informed by neighbours and have photo's of his car parked in the driveway.

[Snorkerz]

The discrepancy has arrisen because that statement was valid when HA1988 came into force, but changed. Now, a tenant remains a tenant until the bailiffs evict, he is never a trespasser in these circumstances.

Can we clarify - is anyone currently living in the property mentioned on the original AST or the possession order?
Has any money been accepted from the girlfriend since the tenant moved out?
What paperwork did girlfriend show the benefits office to prove rent liability?

[Lawcruncher]

I do find it interesting that they justify the paragraph by saying "Although this is a criminal offence whilst the occupiers are still tenants, once the possession order is obtained, the occupiers, as trespassers have no such protection".

The bit in bold is quite wrong because, as amended, the HA 1988 specifically provides that an assured tenancy continues until the order is executed.

[Lawcruncher]

Regarding her new boyfriend: is he tresspassing by living there?

Not if he is there with the tenant's permission.

Even if not there with the tenant's permission so long as the tenancy continues it is the tenant and the tenant alone who has the right to possession and the right to eject trespassers.

[Consumer]

Can we clarify - is anyone currently living in the property mentioned on the original AST or the possession order?
Has any money been accepted from the girlfriend since the tenant moved out?
What paperwork did girlfriend show the benefits office to prove rent liability?

Thank you Snorkerz et al.
Re Can we clarify... The lead tenant responsible for rent disappeared and we don't know when. His girlfriend, the remaining tenant is named on the AST and possession order - agent told us that anyone over the age of 18 must be named on the AST. She was not responsible for rent. Now she has moved in new boyfriend. Now not paying rent and receiving LHA. Benefit Office paid us ONCE directly not realising that she had already paid for that month. We informed them of the error but also informed them that although THEY paid us directly SHE did not pay her contribution for that month and subsequent months, now she does not pay anything at all. In their wisdom, and although we have pointed out to them that she is in arrears, they decided to pay her directly again. They also did not inform us of our right to appeal the decision, we found that out ourselves.

If by chance they have suspended her LHA while investigating that her new boyfriend has moved in do we have a right to be informed?

Re paperwork showing rent liability: We don't know what she showed the benefit office. We sent the benefit office (including the CEO), a copy of the search document from the company our letting agency use which states that she is responsible for zero rent. We never receive any response from either the benefit office or the council who told me yesterday of the tenant's right to remain until we obtain a warrant.

[Snorkerz]

Okay, if GF is a tenant, she has every right to remain there until you get bailiffs to execute the possession order. As she has a valid tenancy, she can have whomever she chooses to stay - boyfriends or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, makes no difference.

If she is on the tenancy agreement, she is liable for rent, so would have shown the tenancy agreement to the council. It may be your letter to the benefits agency that has suspended her claim - you'd have been better pushing for payments to be made directly to yourself. TBH the benefits office do not come out of this very well, but it is not their responsibility to advise you of your rights.

When the bailiff remove the tenant (GF) then any other occupants will be removed at the same time.

http://tenancyanswers.ucoz.com/index/bailiffs/0-59

[westminster]

Thank you Snorkerz et al.
Re Can we clarify... The lead tenant responsible for rent disappeared and we don't know when. His girlfriend, the remaining tenant is named on the AST and possession order .... She was not responsible for rent.

Re paperwork showing rent liability: We don't know what she showed the benefit office. We sent the benefit office (including the CEO), a copy of the search document from the company our letting agency use which states that she is responsible for zero rent.

If the 'lead tenant' and his girlfriend were both named as tenants on the contract, then both should be jointly and individually liable for all of the rent. What do you mean by a 'search document' stating that she is not liable for any rent? It sounds like complete nonsense.

[Consumer]

What do you mean by a 'search document' stating that she is not liable for any rent? It sounds like complete nonsense.

The letting agency use a company who do a reference report (I used the term search document - being an accidental landlord and not up to speed) on the prospective tenants; their previous address, CCJ's etc. prior to issuing an AST. We now have a copy of both tenants previous addresses, employers etc. We received the reports only last month when we requested them from agency. The remaining tenant's search report states: Share of Rent £0.

As stated,the reports were only emailed to us when we asked to see them and thought that 'Share of Rent £0' was very odd. The lead tenant's search report (the one who disappeared without notice)states: Share of rent £1,000 (the total rent)

Only upon receipt of the reports did we realise that the tenant remaining in our property was unemployed.

[westminster]

As stated,the reports were only emailed to us when we asked to see them and thought that 'Share of Rent £0' was very odd. The lead tenant's search report (the one who disappeared without notice)states: Share of rent £1,000 (the total rent)

What is written in a reference check is utterly irrelevant. Read the contract. It will almost certainly say that the girlfriend is liable for the rent.

[Snorkerz]

The 'share of rent £0' is a measure of whether she could afford the rent.

On a rent of £500 and a salary of £700 then she would possibly pass the credit check if her specified share of rent was £1, but fail it if it was £499. It has no legal relevance.

If her share of rent was shown as £0, then presumably the departed tenants share of rent (for the credit check) was 100%. If he passed that, then it would suggest he is the one to go after for arrears.