Rental agreement expired person wants a letter of eviction

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

    Rental agreement expired person wants a letter of eviction

    I have a tenant who has had no rent increase in 4 years and her rental agreement has expired. She has sought help through housing benefit and they will only allow her a fixed amount and she say she cannot afford the increase. She says if I give her 1) a letter of the rent increase and she takes this to housing benefit and 2) a section 21 eviction notice the council will give her accommodation. Should I do this and does she need 2 months notice?

    #2
    The council won't give her accomodation.
    What they will say is that you the landlord will have to go throughthe full process of evicting her before they will do anything.

    She may be able to get a discretionary housing payment though, but this isn't long term.

    If you require the rent increase, and she can't pay, then your only option is eviction. This will cost a minimum of £390 and take several months.
    Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

    Comment


      #3
      She says she is happy to leave. So do I produce both letter and eviction notice.

      Comment


        #4
        Is there a letter template to tell her about the rent increase as we have only spoke verbally about this and should it state
        she is no longer in a contact

        Comment


          #5
          I understand that she is happy to leave.
          Are you happy to pay £390 for her to leave?
          Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

          Comment


            #6
            If you use the link below, you will be able to find out the maximum LHA that the tenant is entitled to for your property. It doesn't matter how much you increase the rent, the LHA will never be above this rate.

            https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx

            If the tenant cannot afford to rent your property, then you will have to serve a Section 21 notice and evict the tenant through the courts.

            Your tenant does have a contract, only the fixed term of the contract has expired.

            Comment


              #7
              What Councils do is very much like what some employers do to general Practitioners -- forcing them into completely irrelevant consultations to provide sick notes -- the Councils are using (abusing) huge quantities of precious court time in an already crumbling court system, and increasing rental costs across the board playing these ludicrous little games. The Council's game will likely cost you several hundred pounds in court fees if you do a DIY eviction (which are theoretically recoverable from the tenant), or a couple of thousand if you use a lawyer or specialist agency, two or three days of lost salary from your regular employment, several extra months of lost never-to-be-seen rent, and if the tenant is a rogue one, then several thousand £ of damage during the delay.
              They, of course, will pay none of this, nor will they pay the extra rent that everyone else has to pay in consequence.

              Bottom line -- never select tenants where you think there is a reasonable possibility that this is how the tenancy might well end up.

              And next time increase your rent all the time -- don't wait 4 years. Don't forget to ask the tenant whether the Council Official remembered to explain to her that she would owe court costs for the eviction, bailiffs and that she would also have to pay the higher rate of rent in the interim (and would be pursued through the courts for that too). I am all for good relationships with tenants, but It is about time landlords stood up to object to a system which effectively promotes and exaggerates theft. If the tenancy cannot afford the rent they need to leave -- to a cheaper property, city, or country -- save resources (stop smoking, taking drugs and drinking) and get a job. Simply waiting to get evicted so they can sponge off the state is the immoral option - but that type of morality seems to be fading away.

              Rant over.

              Comment


                #8
                AndrewDod,

                I don't think the council are doing this unnecessarily - it's perfectly legitimate, even though it may cause some inconvenience for landlords. Landlords should be aware of the contract they are signing, just as much as the tenants. An AST will detail exactly how the law works, and what obligations they are signing up for as Landlords. If it comes as a surprise that they need to god forbid, actually follow a legal procedure to kick someone out of their home, then that is their own fault, not the councils.
                The reason that councils do it this way is more than likely quite a lot to do with the massive over subscription for council properties. There is already a huge waiting list. There are thousands of tenants who want to move out of their private let homes and get into council properties - so there would be no point in allocating points to every person on the waiting list - therefore extra points are allocated to those who are soon going to be homeless - and these are the people whose landlords are following the correct procedure for evicting them.

                With regard to this case - shouldn't the OP serve the correct document on the tenant to confirm the increase in rent (I'm not 100% clear on this procedure but am sure there is such a form).... Whilst on the surface the OP says the occupier agrees to the increase in rent and wants to move out - it's likely that once he/ she realises a council house will not automatically be provided, and they can't afford the new rent, they will soon not agree with the proposed rent increase?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Why do so many landlords seem to think councils should rehouse any tenants a landlord wishes to evict?? At tax-payers expense?

                  In particular (I accept this case may be different) when a landlord is evicting using s21 - eviction that, as far as the council can see, is for no reason at all apart from Landlord's whim?? And when there are no young children, tenant not vulnerable.

                  Or do councils exist to provide such a service, at no charge, to landlords??

                  Best regards.
                  I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Trawler View Post
                    I don't think the council are doing this unnecessarily - it's perfectly legitimate, even though it may cause some inconvenience for landlords. Landlords should be aware of the contract they are signing, just as much as the tenants. An AST will detail exactly how the law works, and what obligations they are signing up for as Landlords. If it comes as a surprise that they need to god forbid, actually follow a legal procedure to kick someone out of their home, then that is their own fault, not the councils.
                    It isn't that it causes inconvenience to landlords, it causes huge suffering for the tenant.

                    Landlords are due rent until the tenancy ends and a) there's nothing to stop a landlord increasing the rent to pretty much anything they want, the tenant isn't staying and b) the landlord can spend the rent on the legal costs.
                    Which costs, in almost every case, are awarded against the tenant in a successful s21 hearing (because the tenant is essentially wasting the court's time, there's no defence against the notice, and, even though the legislation and the local authority are guiding the tenant to act as they are, the hearing and eviction process could and should be avoided).

                    So the landlord will continue claim the rent from a tenant, plus several hundred pounds of legal fees - which the tenant almost certainly be unable to pay.
                    This destroys the tenants credit history, and burdens them with the debt for a number of years.
                    As the first port of call for recovery is any tenancy deposit, the tenant will find a new rent difficult.

                    The Local Authority is acting against government policy in this situation, which is to regard the tenant as homeless once they have received notice.

                    "The Secretary of State considers that where a person applies for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation, and:
                    (a) the person is an assured shorthold tenant who has received proper notice in accordance with s.21 of the Housing Act 1988;
                    (b) the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession;
                    and
                    (c) there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;
                    then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation beyond the date given in the s.21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to withdraw the notice or allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found."
                    Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (Department for Communities and Local Government), section 8.32

                    "Section 195(4) provides that, for the purpose of section 195A(3), where an applicant has been given a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, the applicant must be treated as threatened with homelessness from the date the notice is issued. This means that the authority must take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for their occupancy.
                    39.Section 195A(2) provides that, for the purpose of section 195A(1), where an applicant has been given a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, the applicant must be treated as homeless from the date the notice expires. It is not necessary for a possession order to have been sought by the landlord for the applicant to be considered homeless."
                    Supplementary Guidance on the homelessness changes in the Localism Act 2011 and on the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. Section 38.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      It isn't that it causes inconvenience to landlords, it causes huge suffering for the tenant.

                      Landlords are due rent until the tenancy ends and a) there's nothing to stop a landlord increasing the rent to pretty much anything they want, ....
                      Oh yes there is something to stop landlord increasing rent to "pretty much anything they want".
                      http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...nt_committeees

                      - but yes, I agree, if an AST tenant refers rent increase that way s21s follow rapidly....
                      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Trawler View Post
                        I don't think the council are doing this unnecessarily - it's perfectly legitimate, even though it may cause some inconvenience for landlords. Landlords should be aware of the contract they are signing, just as much as the tenants. An AST will detail exactly how the law works, and what obligations they are signing up for as Landlords. If it comes as a surprise that they need to god forbid, actually follow a legal procedure to kick someone out of their home, then that is their own fault, not the councils.
                        I am afraid I disagree with you almost totally. You are conflating separate things.

                        a) It is perfectly correct that a procedure should be followed in a civilised society to prevent vulnerable people who are not paying rent from being thrown onto the streets. Their alternatives would be to pay rent, seek money from others (charity or the taxpayer), move to a cheaper property or to a cheaper city, or to find a job - and in the long run one of those things will have to happen.

                        b) However it remains the fact that receiving something under contract (a home) and not paying for that something as contracted is a "crime" - it is a form of theft pure and simple. The fact that a procedure has to be followed to deal with this "crime" does not make it any less of a crime, but that is the impression that is being given - and that is totally wrong as a matter of policy. "It is MY RIGHT not to pay rent and to force this process through the courts instead of taking one of the other reasonable options -- because that is what the council is telling me I have to do" - I have to continue to commit a crime and to damage my reputation and to deprive others of money if I am to be enabled to receive one of those possible reliefs (but strangely not other reliefs such as relocation expenses).

                        c) What we have here is a situation where every such "crime" is precipitated into the legal system, a place where it does not usually belong. It completely distorts the relationship between landlord and tenant (in much the same way as it would disturb employment relations if every denied request for a salary increase had to receive a court hearing). We also have authority (the council) effectively condoning an offense by telling folk that they need to hold out as long as possible while continuing the offense. It is a bit like telling shops that they are not permitted to stop a shoplifter from continuing daily shoplifting or to prevent them from entering the shop until they have damaged the persons reputation via the legal system in every case (i.e., I can continue to shoplift until they follow a procedure).

                        As a matter of principle it is totally wrong. If one believes that the taxpayer should house vast numbers of people, then that should be on the basis of need not on the basis that the person is actually breaching any contract, or continuing to breach a contract and has held out as long as possible to continue breaching that contract via every legal procedure permitted to them.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                          ....b) However it remains the fact that receiving something under contract (a home) and not paying for that something as contracted is a "crime" - it is a form of theft pure and simple. The fact that a procedure has to be followed to deal with this "crime" does not make it any less of a crime, but that is the impression that is being given - and that is totally wrong as a matter of policy. "It is MY RIGHT not to pay rent and to force this process through the courts instead of taking one of the other reasonable options -- because that is what the council is telling me I have to do" - I have to continue to commit a crime and to damage my reputation and to deprive others of money if I am to be enable to receive one of those possible reliefs (but strangely not other reliefs such as relocation expenses). ....
                          Understand your various points Andrew but it is no crime (well, unless under fraud act 2006..) but a civil matter.
                          I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                            Understand your various points Andrew but it is no crime (well, unless under fraud act 2006..) but a civil matter.
                            I meant "crime" in a metaphysical sense - and it is wrong as a society that we encourage it. Note the ""

                            Comment


                              #15
                              This issue has been raised innumerable times over the years and was first documented/challenged in Hansard just over ten years ago - http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/51025h04.htm
                              Whilst the current practice is perfectly legal, local authority response is utterly immoral at every stage. No-one benefits from the current practice.
                              I may be a housing professional but my views, thoughts, opinions, advice, criticisms or otherwise on this board are mine and are not representative of my company, colleagues, managers. I am here as an independent human being who simply wants to learn new stuff, share ideas and interact with like minded people.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to Statutory declaration DPS
                                by jpkeates
                                The form needs to be signed by a solicitor (or notary) who’s checked your identity. But that’s it, from memory.
                                17-05-2022, 07:27 AM
                              • Statutory declaration DPS
                                by Lash
                                Does anyone have experience with DPS stat declaration? When returning the statutory declaration from to DPS is it just literally the form I am returning? Or, do I also send additional information at that time too? Many thanks...
                                17-05-2022, 07:17 AM
                              • Reply to S21 Abolition Query
                                by Sol_1969
                                Many thanks for taking the time to respond. I will follow your advice, let the tenancy become periodic and then serve a S13 notice with the rental increase. I will - out of politeness - give them notice beforehand so that the S13 does not come as a surprise.
                                17-05-2022, 07:21 AM
                              • S21 Abolition Query
                                by Sol_1969
                                Hi,

                                Now that it looks like that S21 will be abolished, can anyone hazard a guess what will happen to S21 notices that were issued before the abolition but have not yet been completed?

                                I have tenants who are 12 months through a 24-month contract. I would like to serve a S21...
                                16-05-2022, 10:32 AM
                              • Reply to S21 Abolition Query
                                by DoricPixie
                                How will the tenants fight tooth and nail against a rent increase? Either the tenancy agreement says how and when the rent can be increased in the tenancy agreement or once the tenancy becomes periodic you can use a Section 13 notice. The former the tenants have already agreed to so there's nothing...
                                17-05-2022, 06:07 AM
                              • Reply to S21 Abolition Query
                                by Sol_1969
                                Thank you for your responses, a bit of explanation. I bought the house with the tenants in situ and it was part of the agreement on purchase that they get a 24-month contract. They are paying well below the market rate for the area. I want to put the rent up at the end of the 24-month period. But this...
                                17-05-2022, 05:45 AM
                              • Reply to Sleeping joint landlord?
                                by Mrs Mug
                                Who's name is on your tenancy agreement? That is your landlord....
                                17-05-2022, 05:42 AM
                              • Sleeping joint landlord?
                                by casual_reader
                                Person A and Person B, two siblings, are unmortgaged owners of a freehold property as tenants-in-common.

                                Person A has permission from Person B to let the property. The tenants sign an agreement with Person A, to whom they pay rent. Person A also addresses all maintenance issues. The contract...
                                16-05-2022, 06:34 AM
                              • Reply to Advice Needed
                                by Hudson01
                                I am very sorry to hear about the issue, i can add little more to what has already been said above, I am one of those lanldords spoken about in terms of about to sell up........ all that has been pointed out as to why we are all leaving is totally true, it has simply become too much hassle and with...
                                16-05-2022, 20:53 PM
                              • Advice Needed
                                by Confused2022
                                Hello!


                                I an trying to get as much information and advice for someone whom is very vulnerable and has many health problems.

                                The issue is they have lived at a property which they’ve rented now for 2 years just over, never missed a rental payment and never had any issues,...
                                15-05-2022, 15:45 PM
                              Working...
                              X