possession order and bailiff action at same time

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

  • possession order and bailiff action at same time

    The eviction process should be changed as the landlords can not enter the property once the possession order has been made unless they are 101% certain that the tenant has left.. they need to instruct bailiffs to enter the property if they are unsure as to whether the tenant has vacated the property or not ... I think the law needs to be changed as it seems it is a waste of time to have to wait for the bailiffs once the possession order has been made as this can take 6-8weeks to be actioned

  • #2
    Originally posted by mofz1 View Post
    The eviction process should be changed as the landlords can not enter the property once the possession order has been made unless they are 101% certain that the tenant has left.. they need to instruct bailiffs to enter the property if they are unsure as to whether the tenant has vacated the property or not ... I think the law needs to be changed as it seems it is a waste of time to have to wait for the bailiffs once the possession order has been made as this can take 6-8weeks to be actioned
    What would you suggest?

    If you do not use a baliff how else can you chuck someone out? Do it yourself?

    Comment


    • #3
      This all boils down to the tenants having too much power.

      Comment


      • #4
        The tenancy laws in this country give the landlord too much power. Under the AST the tenant has no long term security of tenure. Imagine you are a pregant woman, you can be thrown out of your own home with only 2 months notice. The only thing you can hope for is a few extra months grace as the correct proceedings take place. In a civilised country, having a tenancy law like this is barbaric. The tenant should have security of tenure as long as they pay the rent, and the landlord's obligations to maintain the property should be passed on to the tenant. This will balance things up some what. The AST contract is a step back into the dark ages.

        Comment


        • #5
          Imp: how much do you actually know about the Rent Act 1977 and prior legislation, please?
          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

          Comment


          • #6
            Tahmur says tenants have all the power
            Imp says it is the landlords

            I say it is whoever knows the system best.
            Some tenants know all their rights and the law and then again some landlords find it hard to write their own names !!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
              Imp: how much do you actually know about the Rent Act 1977 and prior legislation, please?
              Jeffrey, I know very little about the Rent Act 1977, except it did not encourage people to let out their houses.

              My slightly off the point point was that the balance of the law is not all in the tenant's favour. Letting law is a very tricky subject, too restrictive on the tenant and it restricts the ability for people to carry on a normal life, have children, settle down. Too restrictive on the landlord and it restricts the number of properties on the market.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Imp View Post
                The tenancy laws in this country give the landlord too much power. Under the AST the tenant has no long term security of tenure. Imagine you are a pregant woman, you can be thrown out of your own home with only 2 months notice. The only thing you can hope for is a few extra months grace as the correct proceedings take place. In a civilised country, having a tenancy law like this is barbaric. The tenant should have security of tenure as long as they pay the rent, and the landlord's obligations to maintain the property should be passed on to the tenant. This will balance things up some what. The AST contract is a step back into the dark ages.
                Interesting thought. but assuming the above was actually the case what would you do as a landlord if you wanted your own property back?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Imp

                  I intend to do just that.

                  As immoral as it may seem, my tenant is expecting a baby, but has been an awful payer, never on time, all the excuses under the sun etc... etc...

                  But I have a BIG mortgage to pay, have given her several warnings, and I simply cannot be messed about any more.

                  From my point of view, as a landlord I provide a service, and I have prided myself in providing a modern home, with new kitchen (not a cheap one either), new bathroom, new carpets/lino, fully replastered and decorated etc etc etc.

                  And it really annoys me when a relatively new tennant with no new extenuating circumstances thinks they can muck you about month after month!

                  Rant over!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kenco,

                    I understand you are acting as a responsible landlord within the current legislation framework. As my previous post stated, I believe tenants should pay the rent, on time, as required in the contract. A tenant who does not pay the rent should be evicted.

                    But

                    I also believe there is very little incentive for a tenant to abide by the contract. Let's say I am a less scrupulous tenant. I pay my deposit and first months rent. If I know the rules I could probably stay in the house for 4-6 months without paying anything further. When I am evicted I then find somewhere else. All the credit checks and reference checks in the world could be circumvented if you know how.

                    After 6 months I could be evicted on a whim by the landlord anyway, so may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

                    Now lets say I have somewhere I can move into and call my home, without having to worry about being evicted every six months. I will become more attached to it and therefore will not want to lose it. My rent will be paid on time so that I don't lose it. If I am having a baby I have the opportunity to bring my child up in a stable environment.

                    Nick 4692, the law of the land states what right you have over the property you own or rent. If the law changes to give the tenant more security, then you would have to re-assess your position as a landlord. As an example, what rights do you think a freeholder should have over the a leased property? Should the freeholder be able to enter the leaseholder's home to inspect it and ensure the freeholders "investment" is being looked after? If the leaseholder abides by the terms of the lease, should the freeholder still be able to terminate the lease? This goes to show that once the leaseholder has signed over the lease to his property, he has very few rights left, even though he still owns the property. I am proposing the same happens with a rental, but with more rights for the landlord.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Imp View Post
                      Kenco,

                      I understand you are acting as a responsible landlord within the current legislation framework. As my previous post stated, I believe tenants should pay the rent, on time, as required in the contract. A tenant who does not pay the rent should be evicted.

                      But

                      I also believe there is very little incentive for a tenant to abide by the contract. Let's say I am a less scrupulous tenant. I pay my deposit and first months rent. If I know the rules I could probably stay in the house for 4-6 months without paying anything further. When I am evicted I then find somewhere else. All the credit checks and reference checks in the world could be circumvented if you know how.

                      After 6 months I could be evicted on a whim by the landlord anyway, so may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

                      Now lets say I have somewhere I can move into and call my home, without having to worry about being evicted every six months. I will become more attached to it and therefore will not want to lose it. My rent will be paid on time so that I don't lose it. If I am having a baby I have the opportunity to bring my child up in a stable environment.

                      Nick 4692, the law of the land states what right you have over the property you own or rent. If the law changes to give the tenant more security, then you would have to re-assess your position as a landlord. As an example, what rights do you think a freeholder should have over the a leased property? Should the freeholder be able to enter the leaseholder's home to inspect it and ensure the freeholders "investment" is being looked after? If the leaseholder abides by the terms of the lease, should the freeholder still be able to terminate the lease? This goes to show that once the leaseholder has signed over the lease to his property, he has very few rights left, even though he still owns the property. I am proposing the same happens with a rental, but with more rights for the landlord.
                      What a load of waffle, what planet do you suggest this takes place on!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ...and a freeholder (or the immediate reversioner, even if only a leasehold reversioner) does have the of re-entry in case of breach of covenant on a long leasehold, and to terminate the lease by Court proceedings, so Imp's analogy is accurate but knocks-down his/her own argument.
                        JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                        1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                        2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                        3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                        4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "This all boils down to the tenants having too much power."

                          My apologies for the irrational and un-thought through posts. I read the above statement and saw red.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Imp, just to clarify, are you suggesting that a good paying tenant should be allowed to stay in a house for as long as they like (and leave when they like having given suitable notice) whilst the person who owns it (the landlord) has no say whatsoever as to when he receives back his property?

                            Surely I must have misunderstood you!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't know what I mean. In the past I believe what you described was the case. A tenancy could even be inherited. I think this is too much "power for the tenant", but 6 month tenancies are to much "power for the landlord". I am not clever enough to come up with a solution. I just wish the landlord would remember the house is the tenant's home and the way everything works should reflects that.

                              A 6 month tenancy would be akin to a 6 month mortgage. Imagine every 6 months wondering whether you will be asked to pay back your mortgage on your home in full, or "be allowed" to continue it for another 6 months, whether or not you have made the necessary payments. It is just unsettling.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X