Taking Local Authority to SCC?
Hi, I understand that local authority housing departments routinely advise tenants issued with Section 21 to stay in the property. Obviously, this reducing even further expense to the landlord having to pay for court eviction proceedings, balliffs etc.
How can this be fair or right? They know that ultimately they are going to end up housing the tenant either on temporary basis or permanently so why add further cost to the landlord?
Has anyone ever tried taking a local authority to small claims court to recover the additional expenditure?
Thanks,
Tracey
Editors Note: You can check out Property118 investigation into councils telling tenants to stay put here
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
Previous Article
Tenant demand for rented homes is on the riseNext Article
Landlords now facing the ‘grown-ups’: Don't give up!
Member Since August 2022 - Comments: 5
11:03 AM, 15th July 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by SUSAN RIDINGS at 15/07/2024 – 10:46
Why is a tenant staying on after the possession order, which gives a clear date for leaving and not paying a costs order, not contempt of court? Our tenant stayed (on the advice of the Local authority), at this point he had paid no rent for 5 months, had been refused extra time by the court, it was then another month to get a bailiff warrant of possession, the tenant had changed the locks and moved out without us knowing three weeks before our bailiff appointment. Deposit protection have refused us the deposit on the grounds that the tenant says he paid all his rent, it seems he can refuse arbitration, claim he has paid his rent, with no proof. The DPS have told us we have to get a court order for the rent and repair costs, now over £6000, but guess what he’s moved back to Italy! And left no forwarding address!
Member Since May 2019 - Comments: 121
11:40 AM, 15th July 2024, About 2 years ago
Yes, of course it is Contempt of Court but hey ho the legal system in this country is contemptuous.
Carchester
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
11:47 AM, 15th July 2024, About 2 years ago
Deposit protection have refused us the deposit on the grounds that the tenant says he paid all his rent, it seems he can refuse arbitration, claim he has paid his rent, with no proof.
Go back to them and state unless he can prove he has paid the rent then you have a valid claim on the deposit for rent arrears.
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
4:18 PM, 15th July 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by SUSAN RIDINGS at 15/07/2024 – 11:03
Send the DPS your evidence that he hasn’t paid the rent.