Tenants threatening court where do we stand? Newbie.

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

  • #16
    Section 21 must be issued correctly, and it is then valid. However, this is the only the first step and does not end the tenancy, so the date the agents are claiming is the end date/tenants move out date is no such thing.

    Once the S21 expires - you (or a legally qualified representative), not the agent, have to apply to court for a possession order to end the tenancy. This is step 2 of the process.

    Once the possession order is issued, the tenant still do not have to leave, so you then move to step 3, and book baillifs to enforce the possession and evict them.

    As this whole court application depends on the correctly issued and served S21, and you will have to follow this up, you must see a copy of the notice issued by the agents, and get proof of its service. Plus the notice itself can be invalidated if the deposit protection regulations have not been followed to the letter, so you also need proof that this has been done, that the PI from the scheme was correctly issued to the tenant and the date this was done.

    Many S21s fail on minor technicalities and you could wait 2 months to apply to court, only to find you have to start all over again because the agent got a date wrong, didn't get proof it was sent to the tenant correctly etc, etc.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MinusNothing View Post
      Sec 21 sounds flawed.
      How do you know it is flawed? Do you have a copy?
      I offer my advice freely, but I am not an expert, solicitor or judge. It is simply my experience of being a landlord and what I have learnt along the way. I make no warranty for my opinion.

      Comment


      • #18
        I actually meant the whole process of Sec 21 seems flawed.

        What's the usual way to evict tenants? They seem willing to leave but we're concerned about the threat of legal action regarding the damp.

        Comment


        • #19
          Sec 21 is the usual way to evict a tenant. Unless you have grounds under Sec 8, but not recommended if there is the probability of repairs being an issue.
          I offer my advice freely, but I am not an expert, solicitor or judge. It is simply my experience of being a landlord and what I have learnt along the way. I make no warranty for my opinion.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MinusNothing View Post
            All the notice period details and communication is handled by the letting agency. We assume they are doing the right thing.
            This is a really dangerous assumption. Agents aren't legally qualified and ultimately, as LL, you are the liable party. Even so-called established agents have a shaky grasp of legalities in my experience. The only way to ensure that an agent does his job properly is to know a lot more than he does. Reading this forum is very good way to learn.

            Comment


            • #21
              Read post 16 and 20 and take note.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi,

                Thanks for the advice.

                We have used this agency before, and whilst I'm not entirely satisfied with their service we've had no problems with evictions or tenants leaving before.


                I shall educate myself more, what specifically shall I look for?

                Comment


                • #23
                  There is a good thread here for newbie landlords, covering a lot of what you need to know, comply with and understand:

                  http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...2&postcount=12

                  Read, learn and inwardly digest, as if you are breaching any of the rules and regs, the eviction of these tenants could be the least of your worries!

                  If you are considering staying in the letting game, you could join a LL association (fees are deductable against any tax on your rental income), and they have access to all the forms, legal guidance and helplines you could ever need.

                  I would 2nd all the advice about letting agents - there are some good ones out there, but bear in mind there are no minimum qualifications or experience required, and anyone can set themselves up as an LA. They do get things wrong (frequently if you read some of the tales of woes here), and if you do not know the ins and outs of letting, how do you know they are doing it right! Many is the landlord who has put their property in the care of the LA, thinking their troubles are over ... when in fact, they can only just be beginning, as the LL is ultimately liable and tenant will see you in court!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I've read and understood all the info in this thread (and more) and conversed with the letting agent and am confident that the Sec.21 has been implemented correctly. We expect them to vacate on time.

                    The tenant today is seeking advice from the CAB, regarding the matter.

                    The LA thinks they are claiming for loss and damages due to damp in the property, that may or may not be our fault or the lifestyle of the tenant (not ventilating properly etc). Our survey on buying in 2010 showed zero damp in the property.

                    Has anyone got any experience of a similar case?

                    What are the CAB likely to advise them? Will it be a small claims court thing or something else more sinister?

                    Any help appreciated...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MinusNothing View Post
                      I've read and understood all the info in this thread (and more) and conversed with the letting agent and am confident that the Sec.21 has been implemented correctly. We expect them to vacate on time.
                      Even if 'implemented correctly' a s.21 notice does not oblige the T to vacate, so there is no question of vacating 'on time'. This, in itself, suggests that the agent isn't entirely familiar with the legalities. He should be advising you that the T is not obliged to vacate at s.21 notice expiry, and that you'll need to apply to the court for possession.

                      The tenant today is seeking advice from the CAB, regarding the matter.
                      This would surely indicate that the T is not planning to vacate 'on time'.

                      The LA thinks they are claiming for loss and damages due to damp in the property, that may or may not be our fault or the lifestyle of the tenant (not ventilating properly etc). Our survey on buying in 2010 showed zero damp in the property.

                      Has anyone got any experience of a similar case?
                      See http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2010/11/...egal-position/

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by MinusNothing View Post

                        What are the CAB likely to advise them? Will it be a small claims court thing or something else more sinister?

                        Any help appreciated...
                        Who knows?
                        I suggest you do things within your control. i.e Evict them.

                        When you hear more about the "damp", add it to the thread.
                        Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MinusNothing View Post
                          I've read and understood all the info in this thread (and more) and conversed with the letting agent and am confident that the Sec.21 has been implemented correctly. We expect them to vacate on time.

                          The tenant today is seeking advice from the CAB, regarding the matter.

                          The LA thinks they are claiming for loss and damages due to damp in the property, that may or may not be our fault or the lifestyle of the tenant (not ventilating properly etc). Our survey on buying in 2010 showed zero damp in the property.

                          Has anyone got any experience of a similar case?

                          What are the CAB likely to advise them? Will it be a small claims court thing or something else more sinister?

                          Any help appreciated...
                          I assume you just had a House buyers report or similar? Not a specific damp report. The reason could be condensation as discussed, but the cause of the condensation could be structural - lack of insulation, lack of passive/active ventilation. I have damp in my bathroom at home, this is caused because the windows do not have trickle ventilation, and the bathroom does not have extraction, if I were a tenant, I would be hesitant to concede that I should leave my windows and doors fully open in all weather, simply because the properties construction does not comply to current build regs.

                          To be honest, telling the cause of damp, is amazingly simple, I don't know why people struggle over it.

                          Your report is from 3 years ago, its perfectly plausible that a tile could have slipped or gutter become damaged in that time causing the damp issue!
                          [I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          • Mouldy silicone wear and tear?
                            aciduzzo
                            Tenants are moving out today and i am doing the final inspection later; however, last time i was at the flat i noticed the bathroom was in a poor state.

                            What is the general opinion on black mould that has formed inside bathroom silicone? Is it considered wear and tear? Also, the seal...
                            03-07-2017, 08:07 AM
                          • Reply to Mouldy silicone wear and tear?
                            mystic08
                            You might like to gift your new tenants some Kilrock mould cleaner which is magic in a bottle! Cheapest in the Pound shop or The Range but supermarkets sell it too. Works brilliantly on algae too. Garden pots, patios, headstones etc.
                            22-07-2017, 20:52 PM
                          • Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                            MrShed
                            I've just posted something on GDPR and then wondered whether it had been discussed on here before - a quick search implies its never been mentioned.

                            I thought I would raise a topic to discuss it and the implications on landlords.In effect this is a replacement of the Data Protection Act...
                            20-07-2017, 15:01 PM
                          • Reply to Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                            jjlandlord
                            That's the exemption that allows sending data outside of the EEA, which is the issue discussed.



                            No, because of that very exemption....
                            22-07-2017, 19:19 PM
                          • Referencing question
                            kangoo1
                            A couple wants to rent from me, she is on maternity leave and will not be returning to her previous employment, he is permanently employed and moving due to a job transfer. I have referenced him for the full rent and his guarantor has been successfully referenced.
                            I am going to prepare the ast...
                            22-07-2017, 17:19 PM
                          • Claiming for protected deposit
                            mandm
                            This is an interesting one, got me into a spin.
                            Tenants signed AST but decided to leave after 6 months and 3 days (problem with moving) using the break clause in the AST. I protected the deposit using DPS (Insured) and returned the deposit minus deductions when the moved out.
                            I served the...
                            21-07-2017, 08:00 AM
                          • Reply to Claiming for protected deposit
                            JK0
                            I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to get into one of JPK's interminable arguments.
                            22-07-2017, 16:28 PM
                          • Reply to Discussion - GDPR and implications on landlords
                            jpkeates
                            That's simply one of the Schedule 2 exemptions which, if met, allows a process using personal data at all - all the other principles still apply in parallel (where it can be stored, be not excessive, kept up to date etc).

                            So, while it might be OK because it relates to a contract, there...
                            22-07-2017, 15:22 PM
                          • Excessive estate agent fees
                            Cml241
                            I have a property which I started renting out via an agency. When the contract started, they found new tenants, did the relevant checks etc and charged an upfront fee which equates to approx one month's rent. As one year has almost passed, the agent has approached me asking if I want them to 'renegotiate'...
                            21-07-2017, 16:26 PM
                          • Reply to Excessive estate agent fees
                            mariner
                            A new 12 month fixed term does provide LL & T with extra security but can lead to complications for either if their resp circumstances/legislation change during the new AST.
                            Personally, I would prefer if a orig AST was for a fixed 6 month term, followed by an SPT that required both LL &...
                            22-07-2017, 14:09 PM
                          Working...
                          X