Double rent under still-valid old Acts

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

    Double rent under still-valid old Acts

    NOTE: this is genuine and not a wind-up.

    1. Some ancient L&T legislation is still valid- particularly the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 and the Distress for Rent Act 1737. NEITHER of the provisions mentioned below will be affected by the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (abolishing distraint).

    2. By s.1 of LTA 1730, T for a fixed term > 1yr. who wilfully fails to vacate when term expires (i.e. holds over knowing that he has no right to keep possession), and after L has served written notice, has to pay DOUBLE rent. Exception: if T is under a bona fide mistake as to his rights or has statutory protection of Rent Act 1977. If L continues to accept single rent. he may lose his right to the double rent.

    3. By s.18 of DRA 1737, T who determines tenancy by NTQ but then fails to vacate and wilfully holds over has to pay DOUBLE RENT.
    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).

    #2
    Yeh I posted that I had heard about double rent at LLAS accreditation course, but no one confirmed at the time.

    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ead.php?t=8201

    Comment


      #3
      A very interesting read...

      Comment


        #4
        How likely do you think it is that a judge would agree with you if you attempted to sue for double the rent?

        Comment


          #5
          More likely if you dig out a copy of the statute.

          Comment


            #6
            It doesn't matter whether it's FAIR or not, if that's the law then that's the law and the judge should uphold it, if the landlord can prove the paperwork, i.e. show the trail. The odd case should add grist to the mill too.

            The law is an ass, we all know that...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              The law is an ass
              Don't knock asses. Not only does each person need an ass for sitting upon but donkeys are effectively the prototype light goods vehicle.
              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


                #8
                Jeffrey
                Any recent success stories of LL pulling this one off ??
                Simon
                A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
                W.Churchill

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                  Don't knock asses. Not only does each person need an ass for sitting upon but donkeys are effectively the prototype light goods vehicle.
                  Ok, but it is sometimes difficult to have respect for something with long ears, big teeth and grey fur. (However the bite can be painful, the ass can be extremely stubborn and I don't pick fights with asses lightly, even if their logic is distinctly 'ass'inine[sic].)

                  p.s. just re-read what I wrote and that description is earily accurate for the most recent judge I had discussions with!!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Rodent1 View Post
                    Jeffrey
                    Any recent success stories of LL pulling this one off ??
                    Simon
                    Not that I know personally, although I have traced cases in 1996 (Dun & Bradstreet v. Provident Mutual) and 1998 (Ballard v. Oliver Ashworth) both in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
                    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


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                      NOTE: this is genuine and not a wind-up.

                      1. Some ancient L&T legislation is still valid- particularly the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 and the Distress for Rent Act 1737. NEITHER of the provisions mentioned below will be affected by the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (abolishing distraint).

                      2. By s.1 of LTA 1730, T for a fixed term > 1yr. who wilfully fails to vacate when term expires (i.e. holds over knowing that he has no right to keep possession), and after L has served written notice, has to pay DOUBLE VALUE. Exception: if T is under a bona fide mistake as to his rights or has statutory protection of Rent Act 1977. If L continues to accept single rent. he may lose his right to the double value.

                      3. By s.18 of DRA 1737, T who determines tenancy by unconditional NTQ (whether or not in writing) but then fails to vacate and wilfully holds over has to pay DOUBLE RENT. Exception: if L wants to argue that the NTQ is invalid.

                      This is a slightly-revised version of the original post with which I started the thread last year. An interesting article (in July/August 2008 edition of Practical Lawyer, itself based on notes from DLA solicitors) distinguishes between the emboldened bits. "Double value" seems to mean "double what an occupier would pay for use of the freehold and all associated rights"- likely to be more than mere "double rent" in many cases.
                      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


                        #12
                        So in my case, where recently evicted T continued to stay in the property for an additional 4 months after NTQ expired at the end of a 1yr tenancy (having not paid rent for the 3 months prior and not paying any since), I can claim a liablity of double rent for those 4 months - i.e. 4x £3k p.m. becomes 4x £6k p.m. for that period?

                        This would bring the final total rent of owed from £21k to £33k?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Jeffrey's quote stated greater than one year - I assume this does actually mean greater than one year instead of greater than or equal to one?

                          Or did T serve you with a NTQ?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Jeffrey's quote stated greater than one year - I assume this does actually mean greater than one year instead of greater than or equal to one?

                            Or did T serve you with a NTQ?
                            Good point. I suspect it means greater than 1 year, so probably not applicable in my case.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Pelican eats pigeon View Post
                              Jeffrey's quote stated greater than one year - I assume this does actually mean greater than one year instead of greater than or equal to one?

                              Or did T serve you with a NTQ?
                              What the 1730 Act says is in fact that there is a "tenant or tenants for any term of life, lives, or years..."

                              As from 1926, a lease cannot be granted "for life"- but see s.149(6) of Law of Property Act 1925 re the effect of those words.

                              Further, a lease "for [a term of] years" could be for less than a year! See cases re "a term of years absolute", the expression used in s.1(1)(b) of the 1925 Act and presumably having the same meaning as in the 1730 Act. So a letting for one year or even a shorter period ought to be covered by the 1730 Act, I consider.
                              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

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X