Tenants - Know Your Rights

[Matt Henson]

I'm 2 weeks into a 6 month tenancy agreement, and living in the property with my partner and 3 month old daughter.

I've received a notice that the landlord is about to be repossessed !!!! - Where do we stand legally as tennants?

Presumably he's been pocketing the rent and not paying his mortgage ! - Should we cancel the rent?? - Our contract states there would be a 6% interest charge on late rent, but surely the landlord is in breach of contract for not keeping up his associated payments on the property?

Also what happens with the bond? - It's safeguarded with TDS....

Help please!!!!!!!

Book an appointment as the citizens avice bureau ASAP and take their advice, the LL has acted fraudulently and you can seek criminal action against them for fraud but they may not be able to kick you out for 6 months depending on the circumstances but CAB will advise. I would seek compensation action against the LL in the small claims court, it will cost you £50 and may only result in a CCJ against him (and not money for you) but that would stiff him for a while, also criminal action should hammer him as well

[Busybee]

Isn't everyone rather jumping the gun here?

It is quite likely (as I know from experience) that the landlord has fallen behind with mortgage payments because people are not paying their rent. I have been in my place for almost 6 years now and my landlord has at times had less money than I have becasue he has been covering mortgages on places he is getting no rent from. I have known h im for years and I know landlords are not all fat cats who sit there raking it in. I have on occasion helped him out with paperwork and typing and stuff and I have seen the mess a bad tenant can couse so I think before people jump to conclusions of landlords 'breaking the law' or whatever they should arm themselves with some facts. Or is this a case of not letting the truth ruin a good moan.

I have rented all my life and I am 43 now I wouldn't dream of buying. Not all tenants are suffering from some sort of inferiority complex. Some of us choose to be tenants and we actuallyrespect and understand the vagaries of life and the problems faced by landlords.

I just felt I had to say so as there doesnt seem to be a lot of opinion from my side of the fence.

[Ferienwohnung oder Apparte]

hi topher bear, the links you've shared are very interesting and useful to read. I was also renting before until I bought a property. I'm planning to put up one of my properties for rent in the near future. So, I think the info about the rights and responsibilities of tenants will be very useful for me.

[Haventaclue]

Just found this thread and seen there are some really poor posts on here....... my first point is, if you dont know what your talking about, then stay stum......

To address some key issues raised;

Repairs.......... Always always always put your repair issues in writing. 7 days notice to act end of. If no action taken, then second letter stating unless a response is received within a further 7 days, rent will be witheld. (I use 7 days in the sense of an urgently required repair i.e. the poor posters shower being unuseable and it being the only means of bathing). You MUST document this (recoreded delivery is best) and you MUST give the LL reasonable time to act. After that, and still no action, then get of your asses, get the repairs done and deduct the bill from your rent. End of problem. You cannot force this position however, if you're demanding a relatively minor repair issue, i.e. a tile has cracked.

Secondly, noise, environment issues. Its no difference if you were an owner or a tenant. The LL is NOT responsible for the bloke next door/upstairs. Get onto your council environment department immediately and report the nuisance. They WILL act. So many tenants believe their 'right to quiet enjoyment' of a property means the LL is responsible for nuisance. This is absolutely wrong, he is not. 'Quiet enjoyment' in tenancy terms refers to the LL harassing the tenant. Noise and neighbours are a civil matter and councils are pretty good at getting the ball rolling.

Notice periods - are statutory by law. End of.

And finally, the most ridiculous one, If your landlord (your tenanted property) is being repossessed, the LL HAS NOT acted fraudulently. So for starters save your £50 in small claims for 'compensation (as advised earlier). You are protected under your AST irrelevant as to whom 'owns' the property, so firstly dont panic. Seek CAB advice.

[Topher Bear]

Notice periods - are statutory by law. End of.

You are protected under your AST irrelevant as to whom 'owns' the property, so firstly dont panic. Seek CAB advice.

Not true.

[Haventaclue]

Not true.

Which part tropher bear? The statute law on notice is very clear, and any LL (whether owner, finance house or managing agent) can be heavily fine/imprisioned if they break this.

Or NO protection under an AST? Which again is statute...........

[LettingsLady]

Which part tropher bear? The statute law on notice is very clear, and any LL (whether owner, finance house or managing agent) can be heavily fine/imprisioned if they break this.

Or NO protection under an AST? Which again is statute...........

You really do have to justify such aggressive posts that slag off the comments on here by being ACCURATE otherwise you may appear stupid.

If you knew your stuff you would realise that the lender (with the first charge on the property) has the right to evict in many situations regardless of an AST and without the usual notice. There are also situations where the tenant has a right to be in the property. If you need to know the particular circumstances then look it up. That is why there are so many people asking for the laws to change to better protect those tenants that are paying their rent and have done nothing wrong.

Incorrect notice = invalid. And therefore it is as if it never was. No one is going to go to prison for serving an incorrect notice. What do you mean by 'breaking this' ?

Most people don't wish to be as derogatory as you are but you really do deserve the responses you are about to get.......

[Matt Henson]

Which part tropher bear? The statute law on notice is very clear, and any LL (whether owner, finance house or managing agent) can be heavily fine/imprisioned if they break this.

Or NO protection under an AST? Which again is statute...........

If you want some statute go research clause 2 schedule 2 of the 1988 HA.... oh and the 1925 property act

You may find that the lender can gain a compulsary eviction order with minimal notice, sadly the penalties are paltry for technical errors in tenancy law if they are ever enforced (take a section 48 breach for example) except in the case of unlawful eviction which may be where you are coming from

[Haventaclue]

you are a special sort of troll,who dredges old threads to exhibit their lack of understanding.

you don't know what you're talking about.

so please f*** off you're ruining the atmosphere down here.

Old thread ? No. Its been pinned.

Yes I do know, and whilst its clearly a complete waste of effort pointing out the basic legalities on here as your all 'experts' in this area, I will just re-iterate that I am correct, and yes riding roughshod over statute notice law does indeed result in heavy fines or imprisionment. That does indeed apply to LL, agents AND finance houses.

There is one reason that the 'normal' legal lifecycle of tenanted repossessions isnt evident, is that under AST the mimimum notice period any LL has to give is 2 months. As I stated earlier, who that LL is is irrelevant and in 99% of repossesion situations lenders tacitly run the 2 months tenancy notice to acheive the same ends, without having to subject themselves to Daily Mirror headlines of 'heartless lenders evict salt of the earth families'........ The ONLY way a BTL lender can 'disregard' tenants rights is if you signed a consent statement from the lender at the start of the tenancy, stating you were fully aware of the legal charge against the property. Very very few tenants are asked to do this, (the reason being that theres only ever a 2 month notice requirement anyway) and the first thing a court requests when a lender asks for a possession order on a BTL property, is for the lender to show they have confirmed the position regards occupancy.

Again I will re-iterate, anyone demanding possession of an AST WITHOUT giving the required STATUTE 2 months notice, is acting illegally.

Those properties rented out illegally i.e. having not notified the lender of the let, contact CAB or the Private Tenants Department at your Council, and they will ensure the lender is officially made 'aware' of your existance. Again, lenders once informed, will tacitly run the 2 month notice.

Happy to f*** off tho............

[Matt Henson]

Old thread ? No. Its been pinned.

Yes I do know, and whilst its clearly a complete waste of effort pointing out the basic legalities on here as your all 'experts' in this area, I will just re-iterate that I am correct, and yes riding roughshod over statute notice law does indeed result in heavy fines or imprisionment. That does indeed apply to LL, agents AND finance houses.

There is one reason that the 'normal' legal lifecycle of tenanted repossessions isnt evident, is that under AST the mimimum notice period any LL has to give is 2 months. As I stated earlier, who that LL is is irrelevant and in 99% of repossesion situations lenders tacitly run the 2 months tenancy notice to acheive the same ends, without having to subject themselves to Daily Mirror headlines of 'heartless lenders evict salt of the earth families'........ The ONLY way a BTL lender can 'disregard' tenants rights is if you signed a consent statement from the lender at the start of the tenancy, stating you were fully aware of the legal charge against the property. Very very few tenants are asked to do this, (the reason being that theres only ever a 2 month notice requirement anyway) and the first thing a court requests when a lender asks for a possession order on a BTL property, is for the lender to show they have confirmed the position regards occupancy.

Again I will re-iterate, anyone demanding possession of an AST WITHOUT giving the required STATUTE 2 months notice, is acting illegally.

Those properties rented out illegally i.e. having not notified the lender of the let, contact CAB or the Private Tenants Department at your Council, and they will ensure the lender is officially made 'aware' of your existance. Again, lenders once informed, will tacitly run the 2 month notice.

Happy to f*** off tho............

Patently wrong I am afraid, you can not end a fixed term AST in the first 6 months for any reason except clause 8 (non payment of rent) and there after clauses 1-7 are compulsary and 9-16 (of which two no longer apply) at a CC judges discresion.

The two month rule only applies to statatory periodic tenancies once the fixed term has ended the only expection is during the fixed term where there are specific break claused terms agreed at a shorter notice period.

A lender will take about 2-3 months to get an eviction order but currently they do not need to inform the tenant of legal proceedings and so the poor tenant is lucky if they get 7-14 days notice once the order is served.

As for your consent statement, you will find it appears in most tenancy agreements as a standard part of the contract so unwittingly most tenants sign up to the clause 2 agreement.

Sever fines and prison sentences only ever got served in the case of violent and treathening cases of unlawful eviction, there are a number of high profile cases but provided you stick by the law and seek eviction based on either schedule 2 of the 1988 HA or a S21 then you will not break the law

[Haventaclue]

Patently wrong I am afraid, you can not end a fixed term AST in the first 6 months for any reason except clause 8 (non payment of rent) and there after clauses 1-7 are compulsary and 9-16 (of which two no longer apply) at a CC judges discresion.

A: Completely agree the first 6 months is indeed protected, however, I was indeed generalising and the majority of UK tenants after their initial 6 month run onto periodic AST's, which is your 1 month tenant / 2month LL statute. I have yet to see a repossession be excercised within the first 6 months of a tenancy.

The two month rule only applies to statatory periodic tenancies once the fixed term has ended the only expection is during the fixed term where there are specific break claused terms agreed at a shorter notice period.

A: Agree

A lender will take about 2-3 months to get an eviction order but currently they do not need to inform the tenant of legal proceedings and so the poor tenant is lucky if they get 7-14 days notice once the order is served.

A: Not correct. All documentation is served to the property and is addressed to both 'owner' and 'occupier'. This avoids situations where a post forwarding service has been used by a LL. This is indeed tacit notification that something is indeed happening. Where lenders then play cute, is not acknowledging a tenant at that stage, for one simple reason, they dont at that point own the property, so why would they enter into communication with housekeeper, neice, gardener or tenant?. Its not the tenant that owes money to the lender. What you must remember is that the repossesion action between a lender and LL is indeed between them at this stage. It is only after the lender obtains possession, can dialogue be entered into regards your position. Repossession between LL and Lender DOES NOT mean you must get out. The lender, if awarded 'possession' must then apply for a warrant of execution, and this is the stage of the process that impacts sitting tenants and you ARE involved in.

As for your consent statement, you will find it appears in most tenancy agreements as a standard part of the contract so unwittingly most tenants sign up to the clause 2 agreement.

A: Disagree. I have yet to see a mortgage consent clause written into an AST. This area is usually covered by a clause that states something along these lines ......'The Landlord consents that he/she is the sole owner of the leasehold or freehold interest in the Property and that all necessary consents to allow him to enter into this agreement (superior lessors, mortgage lenders or others) have been obtained in writing'.

Sever fines and prison sentences only ever got served in the case of violent and treathening cases of unlawful eviction, there are a number of high profile cases but provided you stick by the law and seek eviction based on either schedule 2 of the 1988 HA or a S21 then you will not break the law

A: Agree as to high profile cases . This is where the illegal notice has then been followed through and acted on. In reality, once notice is shown to be inaccurately served, 99% of LLs immediately back off and re-issue correctly, For the above reason...! It doesnt have to be a violent eviction to secure a heavy fine imprisionment. Any illegal one is enough. Making any family homeless illegally is equally abhorrent in the eyes of the law even if the 'heavies' brought flowers on the day, or the tenants left of their own accord due to the obvious threat of repercussions..........

[LettingsLady]

So let's assume that the landlord granted a tenancy without the lenders permission (and that tenancy started after the mortgage completed) are you saying that the lender can't then evict the tenant without a Court Order? My understanding has always been (from lenders) that in this situation the tenancy is not binding on the landlords lender and the tenant can be evicted and without a court order. A mortgagee CAN exercise their power of sale within the first 6 months and a lot of tenants don't go onto periodic tenancies. The reason that lenders consenting to let ask for a maximum of 12 months for an AST is to protect themselves but what if it's a 12 months fixed term AST rather than a 6 months AST and the lender does not recognise that the occupier is legal?

As far as I am concerned the spirit of the law is as important as statute as is the application of the law and common practice. I have been in Court with judges who interpret the law differently and make different decisions in similar situations.

Obviously tenants should always seek independent advice if it happens to them but if you are saying that they don't actually have to abide by an eviction notice sent to the occupier then why does the law not stop the bailiffs from changing the locks? If it's just a matter of he who shouts the loudest then the law really doesn't need to be changed does it.

The posters on this thread that you have overtly criticised have not claimed to be legal experts and everyone using what is essentially a chat forum knows that they need to do their own research before taking advice. I personally have been surprised by the level of knowledge on this site and the interest that people have taken in other people's problems and trying to solve them.

[Matt Henson]

It would seem we are argueing for the sake of it

Three points though

There is no such thing as a periodic AST (may be why we are argueing over terminology) only a Statatory periodic tenancy

The statement about ground 2 is prevelant in most AST's I have seen it from three high street names now (Hampton, Humberts and KFL)

Partially agree on the point about the court order but a judge has to terminate a tenancy if the lender has valid grounds to reclaim it under clause 2, he has some dicresion on the timing of the eviction order but that is days and not months

[LettingsLady]

It would seem we are argueing for the sake of it

Three points though

There is no such thing as a periodic AST (may be why we are argueing over terminology) only a Statatory periodic tenancy

The statement about ground 2 is prevelant in most AST's I have seen it from three high street names now (Hampton, Humberts and KFL)

Partially agree on the point about the court order but a judge has to terminate a tenancy if the lender has valid grounds to reclaim it under clause 2, he has some dicresion on the timing of the eviction order but that is days and not months

I don't think we are arguing for the sake of it because if things are different to my understanding and interpretation of them then I like to know and be able to refer to case examples.

I agree with you on these points and nothing is as cut and dried as Haventaclue says and there are always examples of tenants being evicted and not being evicted as lenders use their discretion as well as the law. I have heard of tenants being evicted after just 14 days and again if this is not true then I want to know about it.

As regards the fixed term AST the terminology is continued to be used by some people once it goes periodic because most of the the terms and conditions mirror the original AST (with obvious exceptions).

Part of the arguing comes from people being rude about and attacking other people's posts (TB's) when the OP had taken their examples from a source such as Shelter or CAB.

[nickincash]

It would seem we are argueing for the sake of it

Three points though

There is no such thing as a periodic AST (may be why we are argueing over terminology) only a Statatory periodic tenancy

The statement about ground 2 is prevelant in most AST's I have seen it from three high street names now (Hampton, Humberts and KFL)

Partially agree on the point about the court order but a judge has to terminate a tenancy if the lender has valid grounds to reclaim it under clause 2, he has some dicresion on the timing of the eviction order but that is days and not months

I seem to have ended up in a similar situation myself as follows:

I am a tenant and have just received a letter from the landlord's mortgage lender (addressed to 'The Occupier') to say that they understand that I am the tenant but they have not given permission for the property to be let and asking me for the landlord's address and threatening to start proceedings to obtain possession.

As far as I know the landlord is not in arrears with his mortgage payments.

What worries me is that although my tenancy predates the mortgage by several years if they take this to court I could still find myself evicted at very short notice because the court will not be interested in my status as a tenant.

Does anyone know if this is possible or can give me any clues as to what action I can take?

[tim123]

I seem to have ended up in a similar situation myself as follows:

I am a tenant and have just received a letter from the landlord's mortgage lender (addressed to 'The Occupier') to say that they understand that I am the tenant but they have not given permission for the property to be let and asking me for the landlord's address and threatening to start proceedings to obtain possession.

As far as I know the landlord is not in arrears with his mortgage payments.

What worries me is that although my tenancy predates the mortgage by several years if they take this to court I could still find myself evicted at very short notice because the court will not be interested in my status as a tenant.

Does anyone know if this is possible or can give me any clues as to what action I can take?

What type of tenancy do you have?

If you have one that can be terminated (either by notice or by letting the term elapse) then there is nothing that you can do to stop that happening.

In the current situation banks have been asked to honour notice periods where they know that there is a tenant (which they do) so you should have no worries about getting that much notice.

tim

[nickincash]

It started as an AST and so is now Periodic. I don't mind if I get reasonable notice - my landlord would have to give me at least two months. What I'm worried about is having to leave at very short notice - I have a lot of stuff.

[tim123]

It started as an AST and so is now Periodic. I don't mind if I get reasonable notice - my landlord would have to give me at least two months. What I'm worried about is having to leave at very short notice - I have a lot of stuff.

Then I should talk to the bank now. You may find that they are prepared to let you stay on paying the rent to them after reposession.

tim

[nickincash]

I tried talking to them - they can't or won't say anything (Data Protection Act). They will have to sort it out with my landlord now they know where he lives.

[Jie Bie]

I added this post onto the SoD thread but nobody seems to be checking that one. Anyone got any advice?

I now realise that me and my flatmate were issued with an S21 when moving into our flat! The lease is up in early march, however we're quite happy to stay on until Q3/4 2010.

Now on the early pages of this thread it seems to be the opinion that once you enter into written negotiation with the LA or LL regarding a new lease the S21 becomes invalid, however later pages disagree with this. Can anyone tell me how I can get the S21 notice invalidated?

I'd prefer to go onto periodic, however I am guessing that the LA will want us to sign a new lease so they can get some more fees from the LL. Also I'm in Scotland so I'm not sure if the law is different up here in terms of S21s.

Also, if I am unable to invalidate the S21 does this mean that after March my LL/LA is able to ask us to leave with no notice if we have not signed a new lease?

[Damocles]

Simply entering into negotiations for a new tenancy cannot invalidate a section 21 notice.

If the notice was validly served, then no further notice needs to be given. Of course the landlord needs a court order to get possession if you stay on.

The notice will be invalid if served before the tenancy began. The tenancy began the day you took up occupation.

[Jie Bie]

Simply entering into negotiations for a new tenancy cannot invalidate a section 21 notice.

Yep, reading through the SoD thread seemed to confirm that. However I still plan on writing to my LL/LA in January to find out his intentions as I think its probably a good idea. If he were to confirm to me in writing that he had no intention of taking possession and was happy to go onto periodic would that protect me?

If the notice was validly served, then no further notice needs to be given. Of course the landlord needs a court order to get possession if you stay on.

Does this mean I am allowed to refuse to vacate until the LL/LA has a court order? In this case do I need to continue to pay rent? Does the LL/LA need to advise me if they are applying for a court order?

The notice will be invalid if served before the tenancy began. The tenancy began the day you took up occupation.

It was issued to me and my flatmate on the day we got the keys along with the lease. Our LA were very clever about getting us to look at it nearly last after we had read through pages of paperwork. For some reason the wording didn't seem to imply what an S21 means (that the LL/LA can take possession at the end of the AST). Will look it out when I get home later on.

[Damocles]

If he were to confirm to me in writing that he had no intention of taking possession and was happy to go onto periodic would that protect me?

I do not think so. The Act is clear. If the conditions set out are met, the court must award possession

Does this mean I am allowed to refuse to vacate until the LL/LA has a court order?

Yes.

In this case do I need to continue to pay rent?

Yes.

Does the LL/LA need to advise me if they are applying for a court order?

Obviously you have to be given notice of the proceedings.

It was issued to me and my flatmate on the day we got the keys along with the lease.

If it was issued before you went into the property it is invalid. However, if you went in on the day of the notice you may have a problem, since the court may assume that everything was done in the right order to make the notice effective.

[Jie Bie]

Many thanks for your replies Damocles. One final question though. Lets assume that the LL/LA allow the AST to turn periodic and me and my flatmate continue paying the rent on time every month. The fact that the S21 remains valid means that the LL/LA can, at the drop of a hat, notify us he will be applying for a court order for possession, and there is nothing we can do about it?

Of course I have a feeling I already know your answer, thats why its called the "Sword of Damocles"!

[Damocles]

Many thanks for your replies Damocles. One final question though. Lets assume that the LL/LA allow the AST to turn periodic and me and my flatmate continue paying the rent on time every month. The fact that the S21 remains valid means that the LL/LA can, at the drop of a hat, notify us he will be applying for a court order for possession, and there is nothing we can do about it?

Of course I have a feeling I already know your answer, thats why its called the "Sword of Damocles"!

Correct, except that the landlord does not need to notify you that he will be applying for a court order; he can just do it. Of course you will get notice that proceedings have been started.