Thankfully this is nothing to do with me, as it is even worse than some of the silly messes I've got myself into.
A friend of a friend (who knows I'm a landlord) sought my advice. I gave it, they weren't sure that they liked it and so consulted a solicitor, who gave markedly different advice. Anyway, it all adds to the flavour. Enjoy....
The landlady in question is mad, i.e. literally is mentally ill and has been sectioned, so this might have had a bearing on her behaviour.
OK, so the landlady puts in a tenant from Poland. All is going well. For reasons unknown to me the landlady goes along and collects cash for the rent each month rather than having the tenant put it in her bank. One day the washing machine is broken, and the landlady has a row with the tenant, accusing her of running an illegal washing business and wearing out her washing machine (!) and also of being a prostitute. Later on she comes to her senses and feels very embarrassed about her outburst. So she doesn't go back to collect the next lot of rent - FOR 2 YEARS lol.
So recently the landlady is talking to her daughter and son-in-law and all the above comes out. They - naturally - want to bring the situation to a close. The son-in-law goes to the house to speak to the tenant and finds she's gone and 6 people of indeterminate origin are living there. They are under the impression that the missing tenant is the landlady and have been paying her about £1k per month in rent for the last year or so.
When asked my opinion I said that if it was me I would serve a section 8 on the original tenant, get a possession order and let the bailiffs get rid of the sub letters, as they have no legitimate tenancy.
They weren't sure about this and so went to see a property specialist solicitor. Bearing in mind the potential for Chinese Whispers, this solicitor apparently told them to serve an abandonment notice to end the tenancy with the original tenant, at which point the law governing the tenancy as an AST would cease to apply and they could then proceed to end the tenancy as per the terms in the agreement because it becomes just a 'contractual tenancy' under law. So at that point the landlady can change the locks and take over the property. The solicitor also told them the subletters had legal protection under the protection from eviction act and so couldn't be turfed out by bailiffs. She suggested instead that the landlady accept this and start collecting money from them and get them to sign an agreement with her.
Now I'm no lawyer and this might all be correct, but it seems a bit fishy to me. Can anyone comment?
The thing that struck me straight away was what if the tenant, faced with losing her cushy income, simply claims she has not in fact abandoned the property and starts proceedings for illegal eviction? I very much doubt the current residents - who might not even be here legally - are going to want to get involved in this, so it comes down to the landlady's claim that the tenant has abandoned the property against the tenant's assertion that she hasn't! Doesn't sound a very sensible scenario to put yourself into to me.
Even if the sub letting tenants do have rights under the protection from eviction act, the landlady suddenly ends up with an HMO she never expected.
A friend of a friend (who knows I'm a landlord) sought my advice. I gave it, they weren't sure that they liked it and so consulted a solicitor, who gave markedly different advice. Anyway, it all adds to the flavour. Enjoy....
The landlady in question is mad, i.e. literally is mentally ill and has been sectioned, so this might have had a bearing on her behaviour.
OK, so the landlady puts in a tenant from Poland. All is going well. For reasons unknown to me the landlady goes along and collects cash for the rent each month rather than having the tenant put it in her bank. One day the washing machine is broken, and the landlady has a row with the tenant, accusing her of running an illegal washing business and wearing out her washing machine (!) and also of being a prostitute. Later on she comes to her senses and feels very embarrassed about her outburst. So she doesn't go back to collect the next lot of rent - FOR 2 YEARS lol.
So recently the landlady is talking to her daughter and son-in-law and all the above comes out. They - naturally - want to bring the situation to a close. The son-in-law goes to the house to speak to the tenant and finds she's gone and 6 people of indeterminate origin are living there. They are under the impression that the missing tenant is the landlady and have been paying her about £1k per month in rent for the last year or so.
When asked my opinion I said that if it was me I would serve a section 8 on the original tenant, get a possession order and let the bailiffs get rid of the sub letters, as they have no legitimate tenancy.
They weren't sure about this and so went to see a property specialist solicitor. Bearing in mind the potential for Chinese Whispers, this solicitor apparently told them to serve an abandonment notice to end the tenancy with the original tenant, at which point the law governing the tenancy as an AST would cease to apply and they could then proceed to end the tenancy as per the terms in the agreement because it becomes just a 'contractual tenancy' under law. So at that point the landlady can change the locks and take over the property. The solicitor also told them the subletters had legal protection under the protection from eviction act and so couldn't be turfed out by bailiffs. She suggested instead that the landlady accept this and start collecting money from them and get them to sign an agreement with her.
Now I'm no lawyer and this might all be correct, but it seems a bit fishy to me. Can anyone comment?
The thing that struck me straight away was what if the tenant, faced with losing her cushy income, simply claims she has not in fact abandoned the property and starts proceedings for illegal eviction? I very much doubt the current residents - who might not even be here legally - are going to want to get involved in this, so it comes down to the landlady's claim that the tenant has abandoned the property against the tenant's assertion that she hasn't! Doesn't sound a very sensible scenario to put yourself into to me.
Even if the sub letting tenants do have rights under the protection from eviction act, the landlady suddenly ends up with an HMO she never expected.
Comment