Profile incomplete
13:22 PM, 6th November 2017, About 7 years ago 21
Text Size
It has been widely reported that in a bid to cope with Britain’s housing shortage, councils often advise tenants facing eviction, and in need of social housing, to stay put in buy-to-let properties when landlords ask them to leave. This is because, with resources already stretched, councils are reluctant to rehouse tenants until they are legally evicted and ‘technically’ homeless. Now for the first time, specialist tenant eviction company, Landlord Action, has been instructed by a landlord whose tenant vacated his property only to subsequently break back in, allegedly on the advice of Havering Borough Council.
Mr Lewis Selt, a landlord from Hertfordshire, has owned his two bedroom first-floor flat in the town centre of Romford, Essex, for many years. A little over a year ago, he let his property to a single mother in receipt of housing benefit.
A local letting agent, which manages the property for Mr Selt, confirmed that the tenant and the rent guarantor, in place to ensure the tenant’s ability to fulfill her tenancy obligations, passed all referencing checks. However, after 4-5 months payments became irregular and eventually stopped altogether. By this point, the twelve month tenancy agreement had come to an end and with £2000 rent arrears accrued, the landlord had no choice but to serve the tenant notice. The tenant surrendered the property and left with her belongings on the agreed date. The agent retrieved the keys from the property on the same day whilst carrying out his check-out report.
However, the next day the tenant along with her guarantor returned to the letting agent to ask if she could have the keys back and return to the property. She informed them that Havering Council had said they would not rehouse her because she had voluntarily made herself homeless and that she should have remained in the property until she was evicted. When the agent refused, she explained that Havering Council had advised her that if the agent would not give the keys back, she should get a locksmith and break back into the property.
Robert Gordon, Property Manager for Mr Selt said: “I went to the property the next morning to ensure everything was ok but my keys no longer worked. I could see that furniture had been moved back into the property. In an attempt to resolve the matter, I drove straight to the local council but no-one would speak to me or identify who had issued such ludicrous advice to a tenant who felt she had no choice but to break the law.”
Mr Selt is now faced with a sitting tenant and having to start eviction proceedings. Although he could take legal action against the tenant under a trespassing law, he has decided to serve a Section 21 notice and a Section 8 notice in a bid to get his property back and recover money owed as quickly as possible. It will now take approximately six to eight weeks for a judge to grant a possession order and if the tenant still refuses to leave, which she is likely to do based on advice by Havering Council, bailiffs will be called.
Landlord, Mr Lewis Selt, said: “Not only am I not receiving rent on my property, I’m now faced with eviction costs and yet I’m powerless to do anything about it. The agent has done everything possible to protect my interests but landlords and agents are facing a losing battle if local authorities are going to issue such ridiculous advice.”
According to National Landlords Association (NLA), nearly half (49%) of tenants who have been served with a section 21 notice by their private landlord say they have been told to ignore it by their local council or an advice agency such as Shelter or the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB). In March 2016, the former Housing Minister Brandon Lewis wrote to all chief executives of local councils telling them to stop routinely advising tenants to stay put until the bailiff arrives.
Paul Shamplina, Founder of Landlord Action, the company instructed by Mr Selt to evict his tenant, says: “Local authorities are forcing landlords to go to court to gain possession, running up considerable costs. Landlords are losing confidence in the system and turning away from communities which rely on their private housing to bridge the gap in the chronic shortage of social housing. This advice is exasperating the problem and something needs to be done.”
Specialists in tenant eviction and debt collection. Regulated by The Law Society.
Previous Article
Pass the Keys and make Airbnb rental hassle-free
Richard Adams
12:00 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Chris
The unfortunate landlord said this is in his post describing his situation.
"A local letting agent, which manages the property for Mr Selt, confirmed that the tenant and the rent guarantor, in place to ensure the tenant’s ability to fulfill her tenancy obligations, passed all referencing checks. However, after 4-5 months payments became irregular and eventually stopped altogether".
I don't get the point you are making. If I'd been Mr Selt I would have pursued the guarantor already!
Ian Narbeth
12:09 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 07/11/2017 - 11:36"The client then told staff she had handed the keys back to the Estate Agent and had put her belongings in storage. After speaking with the agents, it became clear that she had not handed back her keys, but had left them inside the property." Handing back keys is evidence of surrender but not essential. She could still have surrendered without handing the keys back. The fact she had moved out her belongings is VERY good evidence she had given up the tenancy. The fact that some keys were left in the property is not at all decisive.
“Council staff later advised her to return to the property as she still had the right of occupation. The agents were also reminded that as the case had not gone through the courts, the client had the legal right to remain in the property" This begs the question. The Council are assuming the very thing they need to prove. It suited the Council to say that. However, if the tenant had given up the property she did not have "the right of occupation". The fact that "the case had not gone through the courts" is a complete non-point. Tenants do not have the right to remain in a property where they have surrendered the tenancy. Otherwise, no resi tenancy could end except by court order. Absurd point from Havering.
As an aside, it is an interesting use of the word "client". Whose client was the tenant?
Chris @ Possession Friend
12:13 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 07/11/2017 - 11:57
Havering Council, for Breach of their duties and incurring costs to landlord and further debt & CCJ to the tenant ( for Court fees )
I'm sure we could find the landlord and he'd willingly join the Action group as Life member ?
As I said, lost of Action group members would have experienced this in the past, myself included.
Chris @ Possession Friend
12:14 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Richard Adams at 07/11/2017 - 12:00
Understood
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
12:36 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 07/11/2017 - 12:13
Proving the Council had breached their duties to a Jury would be 'mission impossible'. There is no clear evidence.
TLU does not exist to fund private prosecutions for individual landlords. It exists to fund group actions where several members have been affected by the same crime. In this case, even if a crime could be proven, it is against one landlord and not 15 or more members of TLU. This case is very different to a mortgage lender ripping off a group of landlords or a letting agent absconding owing 15 or more members of TLU money.
We have a duty to our members to pick our battles wisely. It is unlikely that Magistrates would agree that it is in the public interests of the public purse for private prosecution case of this nature to proceed to criminal trial.
Luke P
12:37 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Did the agent get the tenant to sign a Deed of Surrender or is this just assumed surrender based on a series of actions, which would be harder to prove actual surrender.
11:04 AM, 11th November 2017, About 7 years ago
It's about time someone sued a council for aiding and abetting a crime.
H B
12:15 PM, 11th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 07/11/2017 - 12:37
Is this the only way to be sure that a tenancy has been surrendered?
Luke P
12:21 PM, 11th November 2017, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by H B at 11/11/2017 - 12:15It’s proper, undisputable evidence in the absence of a Court Order/Bailiff or Sheriff certificate.
reader
12:45 PM, 11th November 2017, About 7 years ago
The advice to use the LGO seems sound. A person has attended a local government agency or office and has said they have departed a property, removed their property, and left the keys for the agent. All of this following a notice to depart. The fact the council consider they do not have a duty to house the former tenants is entirely separate as to if in law on the facts of the senario there has been sufficient actions by the tenants to amount to a surrender of a tenancy. That sufficientcy is not a question to be entertained by the council. They are not there to give a judgement on the matter but only to consider if they can rehouse.
I am sure we are all familiar with legally how the surrender should have been achieved, but in practice defaulting tenants abscond and do not communicate. If you are certain someone has departed you can always quickly use professional boarding up services. They can install metal shutters on doors and windows and provide protection against an harrassment allegation by providing a chain of communication etc. My property was recently burgled (without a forced entry) and extensively damage, so boarding up services will be used by me next time !