Why is retaliatory eviction not against UK Law?

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

  • jpkeates
    replied
    A no fault means to bring about the end of a tenancy (s21) simply evens the relationship - as, outside the initial period,
    the tenant can end the lease with a short amount of notice for any reason.
    s21 is simply the form for the landlord to do the same thing.

    Simple economics mean that a landlord usually does not want to end a working lease.
    Not wanting the disruption of moving usually means the tenant doesn't want to move for no reason.
    If it's not working - because the tenant wants something the landlord can't afford or simply doesn't want to do - both parties have the means to end the lease.
    The tenant suffers inconvenience and the landlord suffers lower revenues.

    "Retaliatory eviction" and "retaliatory notice by the tenant" seem to me to be essentially the same thing.
    It's just that tenants don't see the landlord's "suffering" and the landlord doesn't see the tenant's, so each side thinks the other is being unreasonable.

    Evicting someone just to put the rent up (which looks like what Labour are trying to defend against) seems to me to be simply bad planning by the landlord,
    who should build in some kind of mechanism to keep the rent in line with the market rate and/or increased cost of ownership.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moderator2
    replied
    Originally posted by boletus View Post
    The linked article makes no mention of retaliatory eviction so is taking things well off topic but the proposals you link to are straight out of the socialist schoolboys book of renting.
    I am not saying that I agree or disagree with that linked article, it was simply an example of what has been discussed recently, and if Labour return to government, maybe even as part of a coalition, then changes could come into effect.

    The listed items would clearly have impact on the use of S21, retaliatory eviction would become very much more difficult, so I don’t agree with you that it is ‘well off topic’.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
    Based on what statute(s)?
    Fair enough, it isn't against statute, what I should have said is that it is not possible to evict in retaliation for repair demands/deposit claims during the agreed contract term. As I then went on to say,
    'What is not against UK law is to end an irretrievably broken business relationship at the end of the mutually agreed term.'

    Leave a comment:


  • jjlandlord
    replied
    Originally posted by boletus View Post
    "Why is retaliatory eviction not against UK Law?"
    It is.
    Based on what statute(s)?

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    Originally posted by Moderator2 View Post
    This has been discussed a few times before in these forums, and I think it would be of benefit to expand on here, especially since there has been recent talk by the Labour party of reform in this area, e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ur-rent-reform
    The linked article makes no mention of retaliatory eviction so is taking things well off topic but the proposals you link to are straight out of the socialist schoolboys book of renting. Totally impractical in the real world, maybe they should have consulted RICS as they initially claimed.

    'Landlords would only be able to terminate contracts with two months' notice if:

    • The tenant was behind with their rent, was guilty of anti-social behaviour or breached their tenancy agreement


    We already have the (nearly) useless section 8 that covers this and is easily defeated.

    • The landlord wanted to sell the property, needed it for their own use, or required it for their family

    Unenforceable.

    • The landlord planned to refurbish or change the use of the property

    A coat of magnolia and new curtains.

    "Landlords would not be able to terminate tenancies simply to put rents up," says Labour.'

    They aren't doing and section 13 already allows for this anyway.

    Ill thought out tinkering will result in good landlords only selecting A1 tenants and the incompetents and Rachmans taking care of the rest.


    But to get back on topic;
    "Why is retaliatory eviction not against UK Law?"
    It is.
    What is not against UK law is to end an irretrievably broken business relationship at the end of the mutually agreed term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moderator2
    replied
    Originally posted by redfrisby View Post
    Well... that's it - go to town, say what you like...
    I don't think so.

    Given the disappointing direction the discussion has taken at times I will not accept any further comment regarding redfrisby or her motives for posting this thread. The thread will remain open if people stick to the topic.

    This has been discussed a few times before in these forums, and I think it would be of benefit to expand on here, especially since there has been recent talk by the Labour party of reform in this area, e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ur-rent-reform

    'Landlords would only be able to terminate contracts with two months' notice if:

    • The tenant was behind with their rent, was guilty of anti-social behaviour or breached their tenancy agreement

    • The landlord wanted to sell the property, needed it for their own use, or required it for their family

    • The landlord planned to refurbish or change the use of the property

    "Landlords would not be able to terminate tenancies simply to put rents up," says Labour.'

    Leave a comment:


  • redfrisby
    replied
    My last post on this thread as some of you have wrongly mistaken it for a thread to slate me when actually it was a thread regarding opinions on retaliatory eviction... I can see how some of you may have mixed that up...

    As some seem to have read all my previous thread posts then I expect you have read that:

    1) All repairs were identified before starting the tenancy in Feb 13 and LL agreed to completing them before we moved in.
    This did not happen but as we were moving 50 miles from our previous property as my mum had developed a gastro intestinal stromal tumour - a rare cancer of the stomach we needed to be closer.
    So we moved down with three young children so I could help care for my mum and my dad despite discovering on moving in day that the promises had not transpired.
    2) We accepted the LLs promises of Easter for the repairs. This never happened.
    3) We had excuses for over a year until I finally emailed them formally asking them to be done. I also asked them for details of our deposit and asked that we could pay rent into an account instead of cash as they would never provide receipts.
    4) I emailed on 6/3/14 - On 7/4/14 they issued the (incorrect) S21(1)(b)
    5) It wasn't until 13/5/14 over a month after they served us with a S21 that we have filed our claim for non protection of deposit.

    And ALL because they did not want to do repairs. Repairs needed as our house is (still)unsafe.
    The LL is the one that has broken the Law. They DID NOT protect the deposit. They DID NOT do any repairs that were needed in over a YEAR.

    Well... that's it - go to town, say what you like, think what you will... I have a clear conscience.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh123
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    redfrisby,

    Just looked at your previous posts. All of them about suing, complaining about, and trying to catch your landlord out in some way. I'm not surprised he's evicting you.
    100% correct.!

    As a landlord, I did not put up with such actions, yet my T wished to pursue legal action, but also wished to remain in my property and also wished to have no further conversations via Email/text etc..

    My simple answer S21 - thankfully I had no trouble

    Appears OP is aiming for financial goal...

    Analogy - Car insurance claim for personal injury, yet NO injury. Government/Insurance companies are moving quickly and efficiently on such claims, I hope they move forward with such claims with Tenancy Deposit - NO personal justified loss by T or LL = NO LOSS

    Agreed, yes there are some rouge LL's out there, but I also in a big way question T's claims.?

    I also add - How on earth could a LL expect to maintain a Tenancy agreement with a T undertaking such a legal action.?

    Pure fact - T issues N1 claim(small claims court) against LL, T is issued with S21(from LL legally)

    Just my view........
    Last edited by josh123; 27-05-2014, 22:46 PM. Reason: further thought

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesHopeful
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    No landlord chucks out a tenant unless they absolutely have to. Doing so inevitably involves the expense of refurbishment, voids, council tax, utilities, and reletting fees.

    If a landlord is willing to pay all those things to get rid of a tenant, the tenant must not have been a 'good' tenant, they must have been an absolute nightmare.
    Originally posted by PJackson View Post
    The LL in ram's case was fined, has had the costs of getting a new tenant and is getting a lower rent.
    He has been punished by the courts and by his own stupidity.
    He hasn't got away with it.
    I think these two posts sum up the situation perfectly. No landlord half a brain would want to evict a good tenant just because the tenant makes sensible requests for repairs, and where there are some idiotic landlords who do do this (as in ram's case) they are usually in the midst of a self-created downward spiral which will ultimately result in their lettings business going down the pan.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Duff
    replied
    redrisby,

    I've read this post and your background (including previous posts) and get the hunch that you are like some of my past tenants.

    I'm a landlord of over 20 years. I have some cheaper terraced properties let which are sound and perfectly legal. I don't accept LHA on tenant application assessment but some tenants undoubtedly go on to claim.

    The properties are SAFE, LEGALLY COMPLIANT, IMPECCABLY CLEAN and SERVICEABLE. They are however very often dated in more than one aspect. However they are for tenants who are on a BUDGET whether through choice or necessity.

    Please note the word BUDGET. I'll say it again BUDGET!

    The same tenants often are grateful/happy to accept a property in the first instance but who then later claim (often without initial contact with landlord) to the council or a "free" legal channel because of alleged "disrepair" issues. These, without exception are ater proved to be without foundation. Some people need to get a grip and realise that if they want something "more-to-their-taste" then they (for want of a better expression) need to work a little harder!

    Leave a comment:


  • thesaint
    replied
    Tenants will often make up repairs, and then go to the Enviromental Health department in order to get council housing.
    A Sec 21 is the only way to get rid of these type of tenants.

    If a landlord can't use a Sec 21, and a Sec 8 is obviously out of the question, what are they to do?

    Leave a comment:


  • mariner
    replied
    Tfihis debate is getting tiresome.
    s21 is the only mandatory Court repo order avail without a T defence.
    Yes, it may be LL retalaition for perceived T aggravation, but it is 'no fault' and reason cannit be attribuble to T
    Even so s21 eviction could take 6+ wks aftefr end of fixed term

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    I don't think JKO statement is nasty, you may not agree with his view, but thats another view.
    I not sure how you can go to court over multiple non-protection, for non-protection yes, but multiple?

    But the question is why would any T want to stay, if the P and LL, are so bad.

    Majority of the time, it is because the T can't afford a well maintained place in the area, so takes on a bad P, at reduce rent, but then starts complaining,( I am not siding the LL, as all P, should be fit to live in), but after he has to paid to fix the place up, I guess if can get a better T, or just wants to sell, as they reliase it more hassle then it worth, or needs the money to pay for the repairs, or do you want a law, to force a LL, to keep being a LL.

    Live would be so much better, if when the LL, asks the T to leave via S21(or even better via a nice letter, I know not legal), the T goes, thank you for letting me live in your house, and then moves out at the agreed time.


    Also as the LL can't force you to stay/pay after the agree term on the AST/SPT, so why should a T insist to stay after this period, regardless of whether they are a good tennant or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • PJackson
    replied
    Originally posted by redfrisby View Post
    It still annoys me though that there is nothing set up in government or courts to deal with retaliatory evictions like Ram for example went through, and that 'bad' LLs can get away with treating people like that.
    The LL in ram's case was fined, has had the costs of getting a new tenant and is getting a lower rent.
    He has been punished by the courts and by his own stupidity.
    He hasn't got away with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • redfrisby
    replied
    JK0,

    1) I am taking my LL to court for multiple non-protection of deposit
    2) The repairs I have previously posted about are unsafe and are being dealt with by the EHO
    3) I do not need to 'catch' my LL out he has done all this for himself
    4) The S21 the LL has served me is incorrect (Verified) and has nothing to do with this forum post as I will not be fighting a S21 when he serves me a valid one.
    5) This was NOT a post about me, this was discussing retaliatory eviction

    and lastly 6) What the hell have I done to you to merit such a nasty statement - you do not know me!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X