Served with S21 Requiring Posession

[MartinPC]

Ni NewSAHD,

 

Well I'm not up to speed on my tenant's precise circumstances, not that it is any business of mine anyway, but her elder child is now aged circa 21 whilst the youngest is 18.

 

Last I heard her elder child was having difficulty finding work, had words in McDonalds, a shop, etc. whilst her younger child, I believe, is continuing in education beyond 18 y/o.

 

It is a 3 bedroomed house and there are 3 people living in it and occupying all 3 bedrooms, mum and 2 kids.

 

It could be, I have experiences of this myself, that they are only paying the rent equivalent to a one bedroomed abode but it's all deteriorated since the younger child passed 18, it's that factor that has caused this situation.

 

If I recall when the elder child turned 18 council payments dropped and my tenant has been making up the deficits as and when she can, but now the younger child has turned 18 well the council are only paying circa 60% of the rent and this is simply not enough for her to make up the deficits.

 

My tenant has also mentioned that she's getting council tax bills, sounds unusual as housing & CT benefits normally go hand in hand, wonder if this is CT for her children rather than her, I'll ask her.

[MartinPC]

OK Planner,

 

Well let's ignore the one month notice period, so I could serve an S21 to evict at the end of the tenancy or, once 2 months in arrears, serve an S8, providing 2 months notice, at any time, yes?

[MartinPC]

Thanks Planner,

 

So an S21 to evict at the end of the tenancy or, once 2 months in arrears, an S8 at any time and providing 2 months notice, yes?

[NewSAHD]

Ni NewSAHD,

 

....I'll ask her.

 

Hi, seems a ludicrous situation for you and she (and the children, even if they are "adult" children) to all find yourselves in.

 

Fortunately, perhaps, you are on good terms with her, so at least you and she can explore as many avenues as you can - as you already are of course!

 

And, on a slighter bright side, if she approaches other landlords who can assist in some way (although not sure how others could help at this stage) she can, perhaps, provide a decent reference from you too...

[Snorkerz]

Thanks Planner,

 

So an S21 to evict at the end of the tenancy or, once 2 months in arrears, an S8 at any time and providing 2 months notice, yes?

No, a section 8, which is technically a contract breach, requires only 14 days before you start court paperwork.

 

They won't be relevant for you right now, but these are the grounds you can start a s8 for - they all need 14 days notice except for ground 14 which is immediate...

Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) - Statute Law Database

[Snorkerz]

Just a thought, and I know NADA about housing benefit...

 

IF council have reduced rent payable to tenant because she is no longer responsible for the children, then presumably the council would agree that the children are responsible for a proportion of the rent.

 

In which case, they should be able to get housing benefit (unemployed / student) to help cover their housing costs.

 

Maybe a joint tenancy with all 3 would result in sufficient benefits coming in? Or give 3 separate ASTs for 3 rooms with shared facilities. Same principle as a HMO but without the rules because they're all the same family.

[MartinPC]

Snorkerz,

 

Once I thought about the CT earlier, that is was for her children, then it occurred to me regarding them getting such benefits.

 

But ..... in the days when I was young, yes I can still remember , and I was on the rock'n'roll I recall an attitude that if I was living with my parents then all I received was basic unemployment benefit (JSA), it was my parents responsible to support, provide for, me and if my parents couldn't afford to do so then they needed to apply for benefits which, in this scenario, puts us (my tenant) back to square one whereas DHSS have cut her benefits.

 

I would imagine my tenant has, if still applicable, been through the motions of this however I'm definitely going to point her in the direction of this thread, already there is so much information here and perhaps some information, suggestions, that may not have occurred to her.

 

Thanks

[MartinPC]

Hi People,

 

I was around here last year regarding a different matter, my tenant has now vacated my property and I have moved in to renovate, tart it up, to sell.

 

During her tenancy my tenant fell in to arrears with her electricity and the utility company installed a prepay electric meter, as my tenant's tenancy was coming to an end I instructed her to arrange for the meter to be removed upon the end of her tenancy.

 

She got back to me that the utility company would not remove it upon her behest, clearly because they have a standard policy that once such a meter has been installed they cannot trust to individual to pay other than by prepay, and they required that I contact them to have it removed, this I did and was told that I needed to pay £50 for it's removal, I argued, getting nowhere and subsequently proceeded with a county court claim against the company for the cost of it's removal, I am changing to an alternative utility company who charge £125 to remove it.

 

Now I don't want to get in to what was in my tenant's TA whereas she may have to meet such a cost, my tenant vacated with rent arrears, she's fallen on hard times but having been my tenant for 11 years we're sorting that out amicably, my argument is that the installation of that meter was an arrangement between that person and the company, it had nothing to do with me, and if payment is required to remove it then it is between those two parties to deal with it directly and not to involve and third party(s), me!

 

The utility company claim it is standard policy that the person entering a property where such a meter is installed is the one financially responsible for having it removed, to me this sounds ludicrous because had they removed it on her final day of tenancy she would only have had the opportunity to 'steal' perhaps 50p of electricity!

 

They are defending my county court claim quoting their terms & conditions, can anyone please advise if they believe I am in the right, or not, to continue with the county court action, to the effect, that their terms & conditions are between them and my ex tenant and are nothing to do with me ..... or?

 

Thanks

[MartinPC]

Hi People,

 

I was around here last year regarding a different matter, my tenant has now vacated my property and I have moved in to renovate, tart it up, to sell.

 

During her tenancy my tenant fell in to arrears with her electricity and the utility company installed a prepay electric meter, as my tenant's tenancy was coming to an end I instructed her to arrange for the meter to be removed upon the end of her tenancy.

 

She got back to me that the utility company would not remove it upon her behest, clearly because they have a standard policy that once such a meter has been installed they cannot trust to individual to pay other than by prepay, and they required that I contact them to have it removed, this I did and was told that I needed to pay £50 for it's removal, I argued, getting nowhere and subsequently proceeded with a county court claim against the company for the cost of it's removal, I am changing to an alternative utility company who charge £125 to remove it.

 

Now I don't want to get in to what was in my tenant's TA whereas she may have to meet such a cost, my tenant vacated with rent arrears, she's fallen on hard times but having been my tenant for 11 years we're sorting that out amicably, my argument is that the installation of that meter was an arrangement between that person and the company, it had nothing to do with me, and if payment is required to remove it then it is between those two parties to deal with it directly and not to involve and third party(s), me!

 

The utility company claim it is standard policy that the person entering a property where such a meter is installed is the one financially responsible for having it removed, to me this sounds ludicrous because had they removed it on her final day of tenancy she would only have had the opportunity to 'steal' perhaps 50p of electricity!

 

They are defending my county court claim quoting their terms & conditions, can anyone please advise if they believe I am in the right, or not, to continue with the county court action, to the effect, that their terms & conditions are between them and my ex tenant and are nothing to do with me ..... or?

 

Thanks

[MrHandyman]

Hi Martin,

 

I take it that any money owed by your tenant has now been paid off through the prepayment meter?

 

I'm not too familiar with Meter Exchanges to be perfectly honest, but I do know that for example if you switched the energy to certain companies under your own name, then they would switch you over as a prepayment customer; once on supply they would allow you to switch to a credit meter. If I remember correctly, they do this for free providing that a credit check comes back as acceptable, and if not you pay a deposit which is returned after a period of time, but no specific exchange charges - then again this may not apply under certain circumstances!

 

Which supplier is it that you are switching from?

[MartinPC]

Hi Handy,

 

The supplier in question is E-On.

 

I prefer not to involve myself regarding if my tenant remained in arrears with E-On or not because my stance is that it has nothing to do with me, i.e. at the time my tenant was vacating then E-On had a responsibilty, as per the customer's request, to remove that meter.

 

OK I am the property landlord/owner but I could be a new tenant, one who has always paid bills on time and with an excellect credit reference, one who has never signed nor agreed to any contract with E-On, so why the hell should I be financially penalised £50 for another's poor payment of bills?

 

I'm just reading E-On's terms & conditions, pertinent to this situation, that they have forwarded to me, already I think I have the b@stards because it starts off, under definitions:

 

You/Your - the person or people who have entered into the contract with us.

 

Well anything written thereafter isn't applicable to me because I hadn't entered in to contract with them at the time they insisted I pay them £50 and whilst they remain the current supplier to this property, for another few weeks, I haven't agreed nor signed any contract with them.

 

Am I correct?

[pelham9]

When your tenant left you took over the occupation of the property. You will remain the occupier until you vacate in favour of new tenants.

 

You have a deemed contract with EON while you are the occupier. There are not many signed contracts these days because deemed contracts work very much in the utility's favour and are cheaper to administer. EON do not need to have a signed contract with you. They can rely on a deemed contract which you entered into as soon as your tenant left and you became the occupier and used the service which I am sure you have done when inspecting, decorating,repairing and showing around prospective tenants.

 

I think you will find that EON are likely to be right that they can insist that if you want to change back to a credit meter they can make a charge on you as the current occupier. I do not think you will win a court case.

 

The charge should fall on your previous tenant through you not through EON. Your tenant has made a material change to the property by allowing a prepay meter and it is up to her to return the property as she found it when she took up the tenancy. If you decide to retain the prepay meter make absolutely certain it is not set to collect your previous tenant's arrears which certainly 'have nothing to do with you.'

 

Deemed contracts make a significant difference to landlords. Because your new tenants will probably not do this is is wise for a landlord to inform the utility of the name of the new tenant and meter readings when your new tenants move in and likewise when they move out. That way you will pay the minimum for sevices during the inter-tenancy period. and there will be no arguments over estimates and who owes what.

[MartinPC]

Pelham,

 

Thanks but one point I believe I am correct in saying is that any terms & conditions of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant have got diddly squat to do with any utility provider and such a provider, as much as they like to involve themselves, should mind their own business.

 

My point is that those two parties entered in to a contract/agreement regarding a prepay meter, I have read E-On's T&C's and because that meter was installed due to a debt then they were never going to remove it whilst that customer remained the customer thus it was always, by E-On's T&C's, going to involve a third party, and at cost to that third party, to have it removed.

 

The meter was installed during 2005 and surely, if it was then known that this would involve three parties, then that contract/agreement should have been agreed by all three parties yet that would have not been feasible because, back in 2005, it couldn't be predicted who the next occupier of the property would be.

 

Now, 5 years later, I find myself implicated in a contract/agreement of 5 years ago!

 

And, my ex tenant and I both requested the removal of this meter some weeks before I occupied this property, at that time I was not using E-On's services thus I was not their customer and since using their services it has been under protest having previously demanded the shifting of their meter.

[nottslad]

why are you so against the PPM? the price is the same as paying a quarterly bill on the standard tariff on demand?

 

The other option is contacting your supplier for your home address to change the supply at the rental property into your name, they will then most likely change it for free

[MartinPC]

nottslad,

 

Who pays standard tariff?

 

I shop around and for recently signing up with Scottish Power I receive, just for signing up, £130 cashback, now you tell me a PPM that gives out £130?

 

But, I'm selling this house and I want, as most potential purchasers would want, a standard meter.

 

The rental property is now, no longer rental, my home address, this is what the whole fiasco is about, they demand that I pay £50 to remove a bad debtor's PPM and they refuse to ask nor allow that bad debtor to have the meter removed even though that bad debtor is no longer resident in the property!

[nottslad]

well it's not exactly a necessary meter exchange. Some companies will remove it free, before leaving my previous employer, eon, PPMs would be removed free for existing customers if they moved home, hence suggesting asking your supplier at your current property to take the supply in the rental home and they may then remove it for free

[45002]

Pelham,

 

Thanks but one point I believe I am correct in saying is that any terms & conditions of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant have got diddly squat to do with any utility provider and such a provider, as much as they like to involve themselves, should mind their own business.

 

My point is that those two parties entered in to a contract/agreement regarding a prepay meter, I have read E-On's T&C's and because that meter was installed due to a debt then they were never going to remove it whilst that customer remained the customer thus it was always, by E-On's T&C's, going to involve a third party, and at cost to that third party, to have it removed.

 

The meter was installed during 2005 and surely, if it was then known that this would involve three parties, then that contract/agreement should have been agreed by all three parties yet that would have not been feasible because, back in 2005, it couldn't be predicted who the next occupier of the property would be.

 

Now, 5 years later, I find myself implicated in a contract/agreement of 5 years ago!

 

And, my ex tenant and I both requested the removal of this meter some weeks before I occupied this property, at that time I was not using E-On's services thus I was not their customer and since using their services it has been under protest having previously demanded the shifting of their meter.

 

I don't think you could have got a agreement between 3 parties anyway.

 

The agreement to supply Electric and Gas is just between the utility supplier and tenant.

 

If the tenant leaves with a debt,its up to the utility company to chase that debt,a new tenant would have to prove they are not the old tenant to the utility company or go to another utility company for a supply

 

you could get a tenant moving in who has debt from a previous address and the utility company can fit pre payment meter at the new address to recovery the previous debt and current charges,a LL couldnt stop that

 

I'm afraid the LL or new tenant will be stuck the pre payment meter for sometime to come.

 

This is just some information i found to do with LL who wanted to stop a tenant from changing utility company

 

Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements (September 2005) - The Office of Fair Trading

 

Right click on this link http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf and save as to your desktop,its 127 pages

 

On page 113

 

Its is Potentially unreasonable restriction

Unfair term

Way of revising term

[The tenant must not] change the utility supplier without the landlord's consent in writing.

Edited May 5, 2010 by 45002

[45002]

Hi People,

 

I was around here last year regarding a different matter, my tenant has now vacated my property and I have moved in to renovate, tart it up, to sell.

 

Forgot to ask,if your selling up is a pre payment meter going to affect the price of the house or stop anyone from buying ?

 

Pointless trying to get the meter removed,i would just sell up and leave it at that.

[marksmiles]

Pel

 

You wrote " When your tenant left you took over the occupation of the property. You will remain the occupier until you vacate in favour of new tenants.

You have a deemed contract with EON while you are the occupier. There are not many signed contracts these days because deemed contracts work very much in the utility's favour . . . "

 

This is well written and does present a strong argument. My question is, when it is a LL taking keys back from a vacating tenant, does he necessarily take over 'occupation'? Clearly in the real world the expectation would be that the LL is just a LL and he lives elsewhere at his private family residence, and it is not a natural concept that he occupies more than one property.

 

Are you saying, in the same way as he is deemed to assume the old tenant's uitility contracts, that ( legally ) he is deemed to be the occupier?

 

When your tenant left you took over the occupation of the property. You will remain the occupier until you vacate in favour of new tenants.

 

You have a deemed contract with EON while you are the occupier. There are not many signed contracts these days because deemed contracts work very much in the utility's favour and are cheaper to administer. EON do not need to have a signed contract with you. They can rely on a deemed contract which you entered into as soon as your tenant left and you became the occupier and used the service which I am sure you have done when inspecting, decorating,repairing and showing around prospective tenants.

 

I think you will find that EON are likely to be right that they can insist that if you want to change back to a credit meter they can make a charge on you as the current occupier. I do not think you will win a court case.

 

The charge should fall on your previous tenant through you not through EON. Your tenant has made a material change to the property by allowing a prepay meter and it is up to her to return the property as she found it when she took up the tenancy. If you decide to retain the prepay meter make absolutely certain it is not set to collect your previous tenant's arrears which certainly 'have nothing to do with you.'

 

Deemed contracts make a significant difference to landlords. Because your new tenants will probably not do this is is wise for a landlord to inform the utility of the name of the new tenant and meter readings when your new tenants move in and likewise when they move out. That way you will pay the minimum for sevices during the inter-tenancy period. and there will be no arguments over estimates and who owes what.

 

A follow up question.

The following is a standard clause in many AsT's :

'Not to make any alterations to the property, without the prior written consent of the landlord.'

 

Does permitting the change of a standard meter to a pre payment meter, in the absence of landlord's consent, constitute such an alteration?

Edited May 8, 2010 by marksmiles
another question

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[marksmiles]

What has this got to do with whether or not it constitutes an alteration?

 

If the old tenant had cemented in a pair of Doric columns lifted from the British Museum into the wall of the sitting room, whether for fun or in pursuit of wanton destruction, that would prima facie constitute 'an alteration' even though it was not the LL's property.

 

No, because the meter does not belong to the landlord.

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[marksmiles]

The point is this forum may offer useful guidance to those who suffer from other people's deeds or misdeeds.

 

In the absence of any authority, or comprehensive discourse on the subject, it seems to me that one short sentence constitutes an offer of an opinion, which some may choose to consider, others may choose to ignore.

[45002]

No, because the meter does not belong to the landlord.

 

 

Pel

 

A follow up question.

The following is a standard clause in many AsT's :

'Not to make any alterations to the property, without the prior written consent of the landlord.'

 

Does permitting the change of a standard meter to a pre payment meter, in the absence of landlord's consent, constitute such an alteration?

 

The meters are property of the utility companies and a LL has to allow them to be fitted or changed as there is a duty to supply gas or electric to the tenant.

 

So it would not constitute a alteration.

[marksmiles]

45 - thanks, yes that sounds about right.

 

Thanks for the post.