Tenant not paying rent because I don’t have consent to let

by Readers Question

16:31 PM, 23rd April 2015
About 4 years ago

Tenant not paying rent because I don’t have consent to let

Make Text Bigger
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 def



Comments

Gary Nock

23:39 PM, 23rd April 2015
About 4 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.

Adrian Jones

9:41 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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..

Robert Mellors

9:44 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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.

Robert Mellors

9:46 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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!

Anthony Endsor

9:49 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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.

Industry Observer

10:05 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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?

Adrian Jones

10:11 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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".

Industry Observer

10:34 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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

Tony Lilleystone

10:40 AM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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.

Jireh Homes

12:31 PM, 24th April 2015
About 4 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

1 2 6

Leave Comments

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

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

Want to avoid empty properties over Christmas?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More