Student Let Gone Wrong – Advice Required

I wouldn't class myself as one of the clever people, and I must confess I hadn'rt considered this option as in my view Manjinder really needs out of this letting and to start a fresh one with new tenants.

However having other named tenants who would occupy, or one of whom would occupy, would at least keep it as an AST.

However...............

Presumably nether the cousin or the brother are either capable of or want to occupy the property as otherwise they'd have suggested it - especially if the absentee tenant is paying the rent until August 2014!!!

If they can occupy it is a possibility, but bear in mind all three tenants would need to pass referencing to the satiusfaction of the LERG provider assuming they will offer cover anyway.

It's an option, but one that I think is a long shot. I still say when the tenant and partner vacate, possess for abandonment. First thing to do is change the locks in case any keys have been left behind which presumably if the cousin was going to pop in and use the internet and collect the post once or twice a week means he'd have a key for access.

Change locks and debate the impact of doing so later. Normally I would not advise this but it seems to me the best way to proceed.

I agree with IO.

I am twitching about this whole case - something smells and nothing adds up.

Manjinder I have never broken the law in my life - I don't even park on yellow lines and I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU CAN THROW HIM OUT.

If all he needs is a place to store his belongings it would be cheaper to rent a storage unit or ask one of his relative to look after them for him. Who would give a stranger his cash point card? I am sure that it is a very nice flat but it just does not add up - I'm sorry. I feel that there is a lot more to this than you know and as a new landlord there may be issues in future that you really don't want to deal with.

If this were my own property and my own tenant I would tell him nicely that I will not accept his relatives living in the flat nor will I accept rent and that he needs to surrender the tenancy and the keys when he leaves the country. I would return his deposit in full and wish him well. I do not give advice, I am not insured to do so but I am telling you what I would do as another landlord.

You have been very unlucky with this tenant - I am interested to know how you found him and what you meant when you said "I made all the necessary checks before admitting him as a tenant ". Did you actually see his Visa and the offer from the university?

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is here >>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "19/11/2013 - 16:20":

At 11:43 today Manjinder wrote "He says he will pay rent upfront up until end of January 2014. His brother would then start living there until then tenant return to the UK in August 2014."

That's why I made the suggestion of referencing and the Collect & Pay scheme. If there is something dodgy going on this should help flush out the truth. I appreciate 'gut feeling' and I use it myself. However, I also have a Russian wife who constantly reminds me of the KGB motto "Trust but Verify". The combination of the two have served me well in recent years, far better than gut feel alone did in the past, even though my instincts were are very good most of the time. None of us will ever make the right choice all of the time, sometimes being over-cautious can also be the wrong choice. I'm suggesting that Manjider follows similar logic to mine (i.e. a combination of gut-feel/instinct + trust but verify) but it's his decision at the end of the day.
.

Thanks folks

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "18/11/2013 - 22:34":

I don't think that all what you quoted is relevant to the discussion.
As the name indicates, the Act is protect the tenant from eviction, and it sets out a criminal offense. It does not say anything about the tenancy continuing or terminating.
One must also differentiate between illegal eviction, a criminal offense, and unlawful eviction, which is a civil matter. Most clauses about whether an occupier or not relates to the criminal offense of illegal eviction.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "19/11/2013 - 20:50":

(editing does not work very well for me)

I note that no references have been provided to support the claim that when a tenant loses right to remain in UK: tenancy is forfeit, protection of law no longer exists, and landlord can just tell tenant to leave.
I also note that Mary keeps repeating that she is not suggesting that landlord just throws tenant out, which somewhat suggests that perhaps there is a snag.

As for OP: if tenant suggests that you can get his debit card, things are really becoming dodgy IMHO...

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "19/11/2013 - 21:01":

I think I understand one of the angles which is being implied here. Once the tenant leaves due to having no right to reside in this Country, how could he possibly press charges for illegal eviction if he's not allowed back in the Country? To an extent that makes sense.

However, if he keeps paying the rent into the landlords bank account how can the landlord stop that money being paid in? Also, if he does get a Visa to return before the tenancy expires, only to find that his locks have been changed and his property has been re-let or sold then at that point he may well have grounds to claim illegal eviction.

This tenant isn't being deported, he's leaving of his own free will.

Manjinder may not have grounds to terminate the tenancy unless his tenant actually agrees, it may well have another 10 months to run.

Has anybody considered these issues?
.

Of course we have Mark.

I feel there is nothing left to add to this item. Romain you must believe what you want to believe but you clearly do not understand what the PFEA 1977 is saying. Unless the circumstances provided for in section 2 apply then the LL would be evicting illegally. But because they do apply he is not, it really is quite simple - the tenant has simply given up the right to occupy.

Basically if the tenant vacates and it is reasonable to assume they have vacated then the Landlord will be on safer ground if he then takes possession than he would be with the vast majority of alleged abandonment situations.

What is accepted by the Court here is the Landlord acting upon an obvious implied surrender that in effect is actual surrender.

I will add no more to this story. Frankly if you aren't prepared to accept the advice and opinion of an industry expert like Mary Latham on the situation relating to illegal immigrants etc then there isn't much point her adding any more either. But that is up to her.

This is a tricky one, a couple of thoughts though:-

I have not read every single reply to this post so apologies if I have missed any comment on Mark's point about funding. The OP does not say where he is getting his funding and there is no reason to assume it is through the UK loan system. The student has been unable to get his fees transferred from one university to another and as he is Saudi it's highly probable he or his family have paid them. It's not a case of him not affording his fees, it's an admin thing (I would guess, there are rules for changing university after start of term).

What the tenant is suggesting would be quite normal for a Saudi, they are highly family orientated and in all probability this would go without a hitch. I have worked with many of them.

BUT

as others have said the legalities are complicated. I wouldn't be surprised if a judge considered a tenancy enforceable even without right of entry to the UK, they make some daft decisions. However if the flat is looked after and the rent is paid then fine and if it's not then you go through the usual motions. You would need to keep a close eye on it. Perhaps it would be better to have a new tenancy in the name of the cousin or brother who is going to remain in the UK and another when he returns or all three as Mark suggested.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "19/11/2013 - 22:41":

I don't want to go in circle and repeat the same thing ad nauseam, so just to summarize:

- In the present case, the tenant is not "giving up" his right, nor is his conduct amounting to an "implied surrender". He just said you won't be at the property for a few months and that rent will still be paid. He may also leave belongings there.

- There are 2 sorts of unlawful eviction: criminal and civil. I believe PFEA 1977 only mentions the criminal offence of illegal eviction, ie. LL could still be found liable for compensation for unlawful eviction.
Re. PFEA 1977 s.2: It might apply if the tenancy had a forfeiture/re-entry clause, _and_ if the conditions for this clause where met.

- If a tenant is e.g. deported this could indeed be deemed to constitute an implied surrender, but that a specific case and I believe that the immigration status itself does not automatically void the tenancy (which seems to be what has be suggested).

"Frankly if you aren’t prepared to accept the advice and opinion of an industry expert like Mary Latham on the situation relating to illegal immigrants etc then there isn’t much point her adding any more either"

I am prepared to accept anything as long as it is clear and referenced. IMHO it is neither on this issue.
It would be quite risky for landlords to think that they can just evict or take possession back _just_ because of their tenant's immigration status without proper advice regarding their specific circumstances (ie. not just because someone said so in general terms on a public forum).