Tenant not paying rent because I don’t have consent to let
I am and a landlord and currently completing eviction orders on a tenant who has not paid his rent in 3 months. A section 21 and section8 have been issued.
The tenants defense for non payment is the following:
I do not have consent to let my property (which I am currently working on with my mortgage company so they are aware) my mortgage payments are up to date.
His other defense is that I do not have the correct insurance for the property again which I have now covered. This point should only be my problem not his.
Does he have any case for non payment of rent because of the above matters?
Thanks
Patrick
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Next Article
NLA critical of Labour housing policies
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 1121
11:39 PM, 23rd April 2015, About 11 years ago
This is news to me. Unless there is something buried in L and T law that makes an AST invalid without mortgagees consent and valid landlords insurance then I cannot see what the defence is. However I am curious as to how the tenant is aware of these issues. Normally only someone with quite intimate knowledge of a landlords affairs would know this.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 305
9:41 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Didn’t we have a similar case on here a while ago where the Landlord hadn’t redirected his mail and the tenant opened letters and found out what was happening?
Agree with you Gary, sounds like the tenant is bluffing..
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1308 - Articles: 10
9:44 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
I agree with Gary, I cannot see how that would invalidate an AST, so in relation to eviction, if the s21 and s8 Notices are correct (and correctly served), and of course any deposit has been correctly protected etc, then the court has no choice but to grant possession to the landlord on these mandatory grounds.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1308 - Articles: 10
9:46 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Adrian Jones” at “24/04/2015 – 09:41“:
If tenant has opened landlord’s mail, that would potentially be a criminal offence!
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 193
9:49 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Whether you have consent to let or Insurance for the property is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tenant, and certainly not an excuse or defence for non payment.
The tenant shouldn’t even need to know about those things as they are matters between you and your lender, but if they know, well fine, but it doesn’t alter the fact they are renting the property from you with an AST which is hereby being breached because of non payment of rent.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 704
10:05 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
The only defence against a mandatory possession action, s21 or s8, is a legal defect in the Landlord’s claim. The two matters raised are contractual, not legal.
Interesting word here is “defence” – do you mean as in filed in Court or just what the tenant has said on recipt of the notice?
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 305
10:11 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Robert Mellors” at “24/04/2015 – 09:46“:
I know, I’m just saying I’m fairly sure that is what happened when a similar question was posted before.
Gary asked the question “how the tenant is aware of these issues”.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 704
10:34 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Criminal Offence but an easy defence, just say sorry it was an accident.
To get anywhere with mail offences you have to prove either intent, as evidenced by repeat offences, or the mail actually being withheld
Member Since September 2013 - Comments: 64 - Articles: 1
10:40 AM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
I recollect that there is a long-standing rule of law that a tenant is ‘estopped from denying his landlord’s title’ – in other words a tenant cannot argue in court that because his landlord was not entitled to grant the lease (e.g. because the landlord did not himself have title to the property) the landlord is not entitled to rent under the lease or to obtain possession if the lease has expired.
This is a old Common law rule based on previously-decided case law, and I have to say that I am not entirely sure to what extent it is now applied or whether it has been eroded by modern legislation.
But if it is still applicable then it would seem that your tenant cannot now argue that because you did not have consent from your lender or did not have correct insurance you are not now entitled to rent arrears and to serve valid S21 & S8 notices, i.e. his defence to your claim cannot succeed.
Member Since June 2014 - Comments: 325
12:31 PM, 24th April 2015, About 11 years ago
Hi Patrick – conclusion from above comments is that tenant can not use these claims in their “defence”. Will be interesting if you would post the result of the outcome.
Allan