How long does it take for a tenant eviction?

How long does it take for a tenant eviction?

19:44 PM, 20th August 2013, About 9 years ago 57

Text Size

This all depends on how obstinate your tenant is, at Landlord Action 61% of the time, when we serve a Section 8 Notice for rent arrears (14 day notice) or section 21 Notice (2 month’s notice) ending the tenancy, the tenants will vacate the property. 

If they ignore the notice served, then the landlord will have to apply to the court for a possession order.

It will take generally between 6-8 weeks for the judge to grant a possession order under section 8/section 21.

Tenants can ignore the possession order granted by the court, which is normally a 14 day order and sometimes tenants are told to stay put by the council and encourage the landlord to go to eviction. In these cases the landlord has to go to the final step 3 to apply for an eviction date with the bailiff, this can take between 5-10 weeks, depending on the court your at and how many bailiffs there are at that court working.

So generally from first serving the eviction notice, to going to court obtaining a possession order, then apply for an eviction date, it can take up to 5 months if undefended case.

EDITORS NOTE

Our sister website http://evicting-tenants.net/ is sponsored by Landlord Action and The Sheriffs Office and provides simple guides to the eviction process. For details please CLICK HERE



Comments

by David Sweeney

23:40 PM, 22nd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jay Jay" at "22/08/2013 - 22:19":

And what if a landlord alleges that but it isn't true?

by Bob Dunn

0:05 AM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "22/08/2013 - 23:40":

Of course some landlords can tell lies. Tenants can tell lies also. But where there is non payment of rent than that is usually more of a black and white clear cut issue.

I would like to see the courts provide an adjudication service where a dispute between landlord and tenant has arisen. The landlord and tenant meet with a court representative. Each states their case and the court representative decides the outcome with the process having some teeth to order an eviction or enforcement to compel the landlord to uphold their obligations of a tenancy. This of course only scratches the surface of the problem but its a start at a time when clearly the S8 and S21 processes are not able to bring satisfaction to landlords in a time frame that is realistic.

The S8 and S21 processes have no teeth as a tenant can simply ignore them. The legal route that eventually results in forced possession can take over 6 months or even longer it you have not ticked the correct box on the form and a judge sends the landlord back to square one. Tenant gets a free ride and landlord gets mortgage arrears. Cant be right.

by David Sweeney

0:14 AM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bob Dunn" at "23/08/2013 - 00:05":

The courts are already over-burdened 🙁

However, I have for some time suggested that a lot of the s21 process could be handled by the soon-to-be-redundant housing benefit admin staff. That would free court resources so hopefully the more time-sensitive s8 hearings (which really do need a judge to make a judgement) could be dealt with more effectively. I must admit, I have no idea why CPR says there must be 28 days between application and hearing - I can understand T needing 14 days to prepare but what's the other 2 weeks for? I think with T already had the 14 days for the s8 notice, 7 days should be enough meaning (if courts got their finger out) the hearing could be 2 weeks after application. Maybe pare down the default 14 days for a possession notice to 7, or allow landlords to apply for bailiffs as soon as the possession order is grante

by Bob Dunn

0:46 AM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "23/08/2013 - 00:14":

Judge orders possession in 21 days. Tenant yawns and ignores possession order. After 21 days landlord has to apply for court bailiffs to evict at his continued expense. Tenant can look forward to another 4 - 8 week free ride

Would it not be fairer if tenant yawned but was then held to be in contempt of court and could be fined for each day they remained non compliant.

It is defiance of a Judical rulling after all.

by David Sweeney

11:10 AM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bob Dunn" at "23/08/2013 - 00:46":

I think my big issue with this is the idea of a 'free ride'. Court fees are usually and CC Bailiff fees are always awarded against the defendant. If we have chosen to let to someone who does not have re resources or can not provide the security to ensure the landlord can enforce such court orders it does not make it right that they take us for a ride, but the landlord has to look carefully at his own decision making and why he let to such a risky proposition.

I have done it myself and was driven to the financial brink - so I am not pretending it can't happen - what I am saying is that more landlords need to factor these possibilities into their whole business thinking so that ether these situations don't happen, or, if they do, it is not going to be a financial proble

by Jay James

15:49 PM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bob Dunn" at "23/08/2013 - 00:05":

a good assessment of a grossly ridiculous situation

by Jay James

15:52 PM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bob Dunn" at "23/08/2013 - 00:46":

sounds good to me. and true, tenants (and all others) should be held on charges of contempt of court (these are criminal even if its a civil court that is breached). that would give some real teeth

by Jay James

15:55 PM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "23/08/2013 - 11:10":

a fair point to consider, but would this not lead over time to much less or even no letting to those of very low resources? Those on HB / its replacement are by definition on very low resources.

by Jay James

16:02 PM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "23/08/2013 - 00:14":

judges should do judging not HB officers, they will just favour tenants as they do now, instead of neutrality that in theory at least one should get from a judge

by Jay James

16:06 PM, 23rd August 2013, About 9 years ago

the basic idea of no payment = no product or service being available should be rigidly enforced. A landlord lie? so what, tenants do too much of it. the house is still there and so LL can easily be traced and sued.
--
Also, one really ought not to make it LL's responsibility to deal wit tenant failings, rather it should be tenants responsibility


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER