Current tenant hasn’t paid the rent so is having the section 21 served on him by the agent. This gives him 2 months to vacate.Anyone have experience of what happens if the tenant hasn’t left after this notice ?

A very long and drawn out period of preparing court papers, notices etc all of which have to be correct to the very letter to be accepted, adding 6 more monthly to the whole affair followed by luckily avoiding bailiff action as the tenant then left, followed by yet more thousands of pounds spent clearing up after them and redecorating.

We engaged a legal company to deal with it and I’m glad I did as the whole expert was stressful enough without having to be responsible for the paperwork and I can see how easily it can go wrong resulting in at best an adjourned judgement or at worse a rejected one, meaning starting the whole thing again.

Buckle in for the long haul and be prepared to write off at least 6 months worth of rent on top of what you’ve already lost.

One tip I was given by a friend who is a High Court enforcement agent is to include the request to transfer to the High Court in your County Court application for possession as it reduces the time needed to engage High Court enforcement.

If you rely on County Court bailiffs it’s cheaper but they take their own sweet time and are relatively toothless. The High Court Ones cost you more but are able to act in a more timely fashion and have more ‘rights’ to regain possession.

Good luck!

Exactly as @mattbee says – I used to do this professionally and it can be a real pain.

I presume you/the agent have complied with all the relevant statutory requirements – one issue that we have seen recently is a failure to serve a gas safety certificate has invalidated applications for possession based on s21 notices with the end result that the tenant has in effect a perpetual right to occupy.

Make sure that’s all been done first, as it can be very expensive indeed to get to court only to find the relevant steps haven’t been taken, and then you have the hassle of a claim against the agent/solicitors etc.

A very long and drawn out period of preparing court papers, notices etc all of which have to be correct to the very letter to be accepted, adding 6 more monthly to the whole affair followed by luckily avoiding bailiff action as the tenant then left, followed by yet more thousands of pounds spent clearing up after them and redecorating.

Yep, been there. Solicitor letters, court hearing (inc hiring Barrister), eviction notice costs, serving eviction notice costs, changing locks, redecorating, 6 months lost rent…

I really don’t get how they say all the power is with the landlord, getting rid of a non-paying tenant is a very difficult / expensive and drawn out process (if done by the letter of the law). Added to this we gave our tennant a rent holiday and a couple of months to get back on track before hand, took about 9 months in all…

I really don’t get how they say all the power is with the landlord, getting rid of a non-paying tenant is a very difficult / expensive and drawn out process (if done by the letter of the law). Added to this we gave our tennant a rent holiday and a couple of months to get back on track before hand, took about 9 months in all…

I guess it’s two sides of the law.

When renting legally the landlord holds the power as they can boot you out with a months notice, increace rents and decide if issues get resolved in a timely manner etc. The tennant might have similar rights but isn’t ever going to exercise them as they’re likley got 2-4 months of rent costs tied up in agents fees, removal vans, spurious witholding of deposits (and even if they get 100% back it’s a couple of months later than you needed it for the next place) etc.

It’s only once the contracts been broken that the ‘tennant’ seems to get the upper hand. But I’m guessing that once the tennant’s gone down the non-paying route it’ll be very hard to rent a private house or get credit for a very long time.

All the process gives tennants is a few months to get back on track if they have no other options. I’m sure if there were options available they wouldn’t be voulentarily shafting their credit rating and going through the stress too!

they wouldn’t be voulentarily shafting their credit rating and going through the stress too!

They’d only get this is we paid even more money to get a CCJ against them for outstanding debt, which we didn’t bother with as they didn’t have any money, which is why they ended up homeless…

Anyone have experience of what happens if the tenant hasn’t left after this notice ?

My experience was in Scotland. Tenant clearly had the date in the calendar and left the evening before the Sheriff’s men came knocking.
This was at the end of 6months of no rent being paid and increasing use of legal letters, court action etc.
I was awarded £3.5k in direct costs. Funnily enough the tenant didn’t pay a penny towards the amount owed, and had managed to divest themselves of anything of a court could seize and landed a housing association flat as the big nasty landlord had evicted them for non-payment of rent.
Three months later, when still trying to push the matter too get payment I discovered that the family I evicted were on holiday in Florida and he drove ‘his mums’ nice new car every day to work…

The tenants have it all, and there are no winners.

Sorry chaps but the landords have almost all the power. YOu can throw somone out of their home for no reason. Its grossly unfair to have millions of people living in short term unsecured housing.

What’s your solution then TJ? How would you make the housing secure for everyone who wants it?

(And I’m not agreeing with the premis of your view)

No TJ, you’re wrong. Landlords do have ‘power’ over tenants in some respects I’ll agree but tenants rights are definitely protected to an extent which can seem punitive to landlords in cases such as non payment of rent or similar reasons to evict under S8 or S21.

Its not just a case of ‘turfing out’ a tenant on a whim, process has to be followed otherwise you are shafted and all the tenant has to do is not leave and they basically get at least 18 weeks of rent free living through the S21, court possession application, eviction process.

Sorry chaps but the landords have almost all the power. YOu can throw somone out of their home for no reason. Its grossly unfair to have millions of people living in short term unsecured housing.

Sorry TJ, but the first part of that is utter cobblers. I can recount numerous incidences where the tenant is at fault (non-payment of rent, antisocial behaviour, criminality etc) but the blameless landlords still had to expend tens of thousands of pounds to regain possession of their property. This is even where section 8 of the housing act grants mandatory possession where there are a certain amount of arrears.

You simply can’t “throw someone out of their home” for no reason. Either there are the statutory mandatory grounds here, or the section 21 grounds (i.e. after the expiry of the the contractual term and the appropriate notices have been served. Anything else is an illegal eviction and a criminal offence.

I do agree with your second point, however.

Landlords are more likely to have the resources to support legal action than tenants, and the stakes most often seem to be supplementary income & property rights for the landlord’s side vs potential homelessness for the tenant. To me it makes sense that legal rights should favour the tenant, but obviously there’s people who abuse the system on both sides.

Having said that, it seems strange that its not easier to obtain an eviction for certain reasons, e.g. unpaid rent. That seems like it should be much more clear cut and allow a faster process while still keeping tenant protections against punitive evictions.

Landlords are more likely to have the resources to support legal action than tenants, and the stakes most often seem to be supplementary income & property rights for the landlord’s side vs potential homelessness for the tenant. To me it makes sense that legal rights should favour the tenant, but obviously there’s people who abuse the system on both sides.

Can I suggest you go to a sheriff’s court in Scotland and watch what happens?

There are folk from Council Housing and charities like Shelter who offer legal advice.

I say next to one chap and his girlfriend. The advice was that because he owed other debt, the house debt and eviction was now secondary. The advocate stood up and asked for 3 to 6 months before coming back to court, in order to pay the other (£300 electricity bill) debt. Sheriff granted 3 months.
Landlord (Perth and Kinross council) now has another 3 months of no-rent, on top of the previous 6 months no rent.

I self represented, and saw no other solicitor in the room for 3 hours of cases before mine.

These are not high court with massive legal eagles – they are local and simple, where simply process of law is upheld and a sheriff makes judgement.

By the way, part of eviction includes a landlord having a legal duty to inform council of the impending homelessness of a tenant. I would have lost my case if I did not do this, and was asked for the evidence of this at the hearing.

I understand, but I think my point is still valid? Tenants are often vulnerable in a way landlords aren’t.

I also don’t think small private landlords are the problem when it comes to the lack of affordable housing, or that it’s fair they should be left to foot the bill if a tenant is facing homelessness.

What’s your solution then TJ? How would you make the housing secure for everyone who wants it?

Back to secure tenancies. As is happening in Scotland. A tenancy where the tenant has security of tenure and cannot be turfed out on a whim

And yes – our current setup is appalling. Tenants do not have any security and can be made homeless without any reason.

You simply can’t “throw someone out of their home” for no reason

Yes you can – short assured tenancies give no security of tenure. You can give a tenant notice without any reason ie on a whim. Tenants have no security. YOu do not need a reason to give notice and you will always be granted possession by a court.

Needless to say we let on a secure tenancy not a short assured one.

By the way, part of eviction includes a landlord having a legal duty to inform council of the impending homelessness of a tenant.

I tried to talk to the council about our tennant and housing benefit etc but their response was they didn’t want to know till she was on the streets as whilst she wasn’t paying us rent, she was saving them money! Every month she stayed rent free in our house was a month of not being put in emergency accommodation (B&B) at their expense.

I remember pre thatcher when ALL tenancies were secure. thats why I understand the difference now with short assured tenancies that are not secure. It used to be you could only be evicted if you breached your contract. Now you can be evicted without any reason given. Living in insecure accomodation is an awful situation to be in.

Couldn’t you just turn up one afternoon with several large friends to make the property empty? Change the locks the next hour. If he calls the plod saying I’ve been evicted from that house ‘wtf you on about mate this is my house, look I even have the key that opens the door’

jekkyl that way lies jail for the owner.

Landlords and tenants programe on TV next week new series.

From experience of working in rented properties, some landlords dont do anything to support tenants, and some tenants deliberately avoid paying rent and council tax, electric and gas, also worked in a few repo homes, where the people who had the mortgage for whatever reason didnt/counldnt meet the monthly payments so deliberately cut electric cables, removed cables or cut into pipes etc.

Its called a life experience for both home owners and renters and landlords, and is stressfull and expensive for all

I think the ‘power’ is fairly evenly split. I haven’t taken tenants on for less than a year at a time, as it offers me security as well as the tenant. I got my fingers burnt by taking a 6 month contract on, contract finished, went to a rolling contract (as per the law) then the tenant moved out 2 months later. Leaving me with an empty student flat in April (I assume, when his course finished), couldn’t get it let it again until the following September. Even if they sign up for a year and want to then leave early, I’m obligated to try and limit their losses, I can’t just sit back and say ‘Tough, you signed for a year’

The shorter terms or rolling ones are also good for some folk, they want flexibility. In that case the landlord has to give 2 months notice, where the tenant only has to give a month, on a whim, if you will. Signing up to super long tenancies sort of diminishes one of the advantages of renting too, as you can’t just up and move if circumstances change.

Luckily, I haven’t had any experience of non paying tenants, or any nasty surprises when they have left.

Deposits are now protected too, so no holding on to them for ages without good reason.

You simply can’t “throw someone out of their home” for no reason.

Yes you can.

Pretty sure landlords have a valid reason, it’s just the tenant might not like it.

? Why should a landlord be able to throw someone out of their home for any reason if they are paying rent and keeping to contract? Its simply wrong. HOmes are for people!

To go back to the OP as its drifted away

there is a process to follow with time lines – stick to this and be careful. Make sure yo cross the Ts and dot the Is. If youare paying someone else to do this keep on at them to make sure they hit the right time points to avoid delays and to minimise your loses.

the other thing some landlords do is offer cash for immediate vacant possession. This can save yu money in the long run but it is a bit like being blackmailed

Why should a landlord be able to throw someone out of their home for any reason if they are paying rent and keeping to contract?

They can’t. They can’t put the rent up mid contract, they can’t ‘kick out’ until the end of the contract (and must give two months notice if they intend to end/not renew the contract. if they don’t, the tenant reverts to a 1 month rolling contract, but the LL still has to give 2 months notice to end it) in the same way a hotel can kick you out at the end of a weeks contract to stay in a room. If you want more security, sign for a longer term, rather than reverting to a rolling one once the initial one finishes (or do, if that suits).

Sign for as longer term? what planet are you on. No one offers anything other than short assured tenancies and the landlord can still evict with no reason. YOu used to be able to get secure tenancies. You can now in Scotland. IN england all you can get is short assured tenancies that give NO security.

What are you calling ‘short’? If a tenant came to me offering to let for 3+ years, I’d bite their arm off.

IIRC then you would not be given them a short assured tenancy. You would be giving them a secure tenancy and would then have NO right to evict them unless they didn’t pay rent.

there is a reason why everyone uses the short assured tenancies – its because they are not secure.

But for all the crappy landlords that use them as a means to maximise their revenue and/or minimise the amount of up-keep they do I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s the same or more number of landlords that are just afraid of getting shafted if the tenant fails to pay as it is an expensive and drawn out process to evict. Not everyone with a 2nd property that they rent out is swimming in money and can afford either the costs involved or that lack of rent for months.

https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants

This has gone a bit off track, and whilst I’d love to see a return to full protected tenancies (part of my job as a Rent Officer is to deal with the remaining pre-1989 ones, so it would help keep a roof over my head!),we all know that the only long term solution is adequate provision of appropriate social housing, which governments of all colours have failed to address in the rush to ensure everyone can aspire to a 4 bed detached executive home that their mortgage lender owns.

TJ isn’t being very clear when referring to the lack of secured tenancies, or the landlord’s ability to evict on a whim.

In Scotland, all residential tenancies offered since December 2017 guarantee security of tenure under the new Private Residential Tenancy. There is no minimum, or maximum, length of tenancy now. New short assured tenancies no longer exist, although of course most existing tenants will probably still be on an historic short assured tenancy.

Under the Private Residential Tenancy, landlords cannot evict tenants for “no reason”. There are, however, valid grounds for eviction such as no payment of rent, criminal activity, he property is to be sold etc (https://www.gov.scot/publications/private-residential-tenancies-tenants-guide/pages/grounds-for-eviction/).

The situation in England, Wales and N. Ireland is probably different, and I believe what TJ is referring to in the main.

Indeed kit – I welcome the new tenancies in scotland and did refer to them. A far better deal and a little bit of security to tenants. Thats what my tenants have. I still think it wrong the tenacy can be ended because the landlord wants to sell. I do not think tenants should be able to be evicted unless they have boroken contract

The short assured tenancies are the insecure ones – used in Scotland until 2017 and still in England. No security, can be thrown out on a whim

BTW – its easy and straightforward to evict for non payment. There is no defense to it. I gave the link to the process. the issue most have with evictions is not following process and missing time points because letting agents are shite.

I think landlords who seek to throw someone out on a “whim” are very rare.
Landlords want continuity.Interruptions can be costly.
When my present tenant leaves,and it will be costly for me,then I am seriously considering leaving the property empty and bearing all the ongoing costs.

It’s not easy, although it is straightforward.

It’s intimidating, time consuming and costly. Even if process is followed and possession is awarded the tenant can still drag their heels and stay put until the landlord pays for an eviction by bailiffs.

My local Council housing team actively advised my tenant that they had no reason to leave until bailiffs were at the door and that they wouldn’t consider rehousing until then as if they left earlier they would be classed as ‘intentionally homeless’!

Like many landlords I’d love a tenant to stay for years and years. Unfortunately our property is of a type and in an area where tenants are fairly transient and have always moved on after 6-12 months.

I think we are wandering away from the op here. Even as an ‘evil’ landlord and as one who’s been badly burned by non paying tenant I support the need for tenants to have stability and security if they choose to. But when that tenant stops paying completely after 4 months of late or part payments that you’ve put up with because of the sob stories, or trashes the place, or turns the back bedroom into a weed growing room, or pisses the neighbours  off with endless noisy parties, I really do think it shouldn’t have cost me thousands and thousands of pounds and months of time to regain possession of a property which I do, at the end of the day, own.

Thats also time that it wasn’t available to someone else who may have needed somewhere to live, and indeed our agent was actually surprised we still wanted to let it rather than just selling after what we went through last year.

Its a bit like telling someone who’s just had a car accident that cars are evil pollutants and should be banned. Not really an appropriate thread for the discussion.

joeegg

Member
I think landlords who seek to throw someone out on a “whim” are very rare

Nope – very common. My other half has worked in housing. YOu get the ” you can stay but the rent is going up massivly” and you get the revenge evictions for complaining about the condition of the property. You also get the evictions because the owner wants to sell. Thats common as well

Read up on it. Insecure housing is a real issue and a real feeder to homelessness. This is why in Scotland we have moved away from these insecure tenancies. Sturgeon worked in a law centre and knows how damaging to soceity insecure housing is

I really do think it shouldn’t have cost me thousands and thousands of pounds and months of time to regain possession of a property which I do, at the end of the day, own.

nNope – it shouldnt. shold take a couple of months or less and cost a few hudred.

The court fees alone are circa £300. Add another 1k for legal advice/advocacy. Add the cost of High Court eviction (between £200 and £1000).

Then factor in lost rent of at least 6 months (2 month of none payment, 2 weeks notice of S21, 6-8 weeks for court date, 2 weeks notice of possession, 6 weeks for bailiffs…)  plus whatever you need to spend sorting the property for re-letting.

Oh yes, landlords have power alright. Takes a long time & a lot of money to get that power put to good use though.
I had a tenant who stopped paying rent, gave me all sorts of excuses about housing benefits & how he was waiting for the council to get their finger out. I went down the solicitors/court route but it took ages & cost loads. Transpired that he’d been paid housing benefits but spending it on booze, fags & a big **** off dog i didn’t know about, along with an aviary in the garden to breed budgies!
When the bailiffs eventually went round he’d gone, leaving the house uninhabitable, unpaid rent of 2.5K, solicitors/court fees of about the same, then the house had to be totally sorted.
The worst thing about it was that it used to be my home & didn’t buy it to rent out initially.
It should have been on ‘Can’t Pay, We’ll Take it Away’!

one question for TJ, not read all the thread……

Why would I turf out a good tennant on a whim? – I wouldnt a good tennant is a person and an asset that looks looking after.

would I throw out a crap tennent yes.

simple if you don’t want to be turfed out be a good tennant. pay rent look after the place and youll be left alone as everyone likes the status quo…….