Done a runner?

[jmuggali]

How long should a land lord wait before he can re-enter a house if he suspects the tenant to have left? I have rent owing, she was constantly late so I think she has done me a favor, I had my section 21 allready, tried all forms of contact but she’s ignoring me, have “heard” she has moved away and isn’t coming back. Obviously I want to get in and re let it as it’s costing me money while it’s empty.

[Monty2007]

How long should a land lord wait before he can re-enter a house if he suspects the tenant to have left? I have rent owing, she was constantly late so I think she has done me a favor, I had my section 21 allready, tried all forms of contact but she’s ignoring me, have “heard” she has moved away and isn’t coming back. Obviously I want to get in and re let it as it’s costing me money while it’s empty.

 

I would suggest that you refer to the contract which should contain provisions for re-entry for breach of contract (non-payment of rent etc). You may also have a provision that allows an inspection (24/48 hrs usually). You can then establish if the Tennant has left.

[MrShed]

No no no no no Monty - sorry but no. You CANNOT override the tenants LEGAL rights by terms in a contract.

 

IF you want to stick strictly within the law(which needless to say is all I can advise), you must serve the S21, go to court for a possession order, and then enforce the possession order with baliffs. No other legal way without having it in writing that he has returned possession of the property to you, or the tenant has implied it(basically by returning the keys).

[jmuggali]

thanks thought it might be drawn out, I'm getting a bit worried as the windows are open upstairs. But if I ask her to send the keys back this would be enough?

[MrShed]

Yes IMO.If the windows are open, you MAY have basis to re-enter the property without a court order on the basis of securing the property. However, I put two BIG caveats on here:

 

- This is not a basis to repossessing the property, just to enter to resecure. Of course, if it then becomes apparent that the tenant has indeed vacated, you MAY want to take possession. However, and I cannot emphasis this enough, you are on very shaky legal ground by doing so.

- In order to perhaps offset this, you could "take possession" and change the locks etc, but leave a notice in the windows of what you have done, stating it was to secure the property, and telling the tenant that you are not preventing access, just to contact you for new keys. If you do this, chances are they never will - although if they do contact you, you MUST provide keys.

 

This should, just about, cover your back legally. However, it is still shaky, and I neither advise doing it(just advising it is a possibility), nor do I state it is "legal" - it is unproven.

[jmuggali]

Thanks Mr Shed will take it as advice not legal opinion. Our family business is upvc glazing etc. so we are going to gain access to secure the property only for now as the windows have been open for 2 weeks so far, we have left messages informing her of our intention, and that a key can be given to her. Also were going to leave a note inside the window for her to contact us for a key. Last thing I wanted was to re-plaster and more new carpets after the rain gets in. I supose if it's empty when we get in I'll have a good idea of her intention. Thanks James.

[Monty2007]

No no no no no Monty - sorry but no. You CANNOT override the tenants LEGAL rights by terms in a contract.

 

IF you want to stick strictly within the law(which needless to say is all I can advise), you must serve the S21, go to court for a possession order, and then enforce the possession order with baliffs. No other legal way without having it in writing that he has returned possession of the property to you, or the tenant has implied it(basically by returning the keys).

 

? I never suggested overriding any tenants legal rights? The contract should have appropriate provisions for both inspection of the property and likewise provision for breach of contract. If you care to read my comments I specifically stated referring to the contract.

 

Not sure what problem you have?

[MrShed]

Because such provisions override the tenants legal rights. Regardless of the what tenancy agreement says, about breach of contract or not, you CANNOT legally enter or repossess the property without a court order. Not meaning to have a go, just need to make it clear to the OP that your advice was misleading at best.

[Monty2007]

Because such provisions override the tenants legal rights. Regardless of the what tenancy agreement says, about breach of contract or not, you CANNOT legally enter or repossess the property without a court order. Not meaning to have a go, just need to make it clear to the OP that your advice was misleading at best.

 

You are WRONG! The assured shorthold tenancy agreement can and does contain provisions with respect to (i) right of entry to inspect the property and (ii) provisions for entry and re-possession for material breach (e.g. non-payment of rent). The second point can have remedy.

 

It was stated that the tenant had possibly vaced the house and NOT paid the rent. To establish if they have left the Landlord has every right to inspect providing notice has been given. If there are no goods there then the Landlord can give notice from breach of contract and then re-posses the property. I have had several such contracts and consulted with a barrister on such issues.

[MrShed]

Incorrect, I can assure you. The tenancy can only be ended by either mutual agreement, or a court order. Without these, no breach of contract ends the tenancy. During the tenancy(which is not ended until the court says or the mutual agreement) the tenant has EXCLUSIVE possession of the property, and the landlord would be trespassing and infringing the tenants "quiet enjoyment" of the property. Should he then take possession without a court order, then he is guilty of the CRIMINAL act of unlawful eviction.

 

Please, disagree if you want - you run the risk of infringing these laws, which I can cast iron guarantee I am correct on - I recently discussed a similar case with a very high up property law solicitor, who coincidentally participates in the exam board for the NAEA qualification, and it is certainly the case. I would also strongly suggest you get a new barrister.

[Monty2007]

Incorrect, I can assure you. The tenancy can only be ended by either mutual agreement, or a court order. Without these, no breach of contract ends the tenancy. During the tenancy(which is not ended until the court says or the mutual agreement) the tenant has EXCLUSIVE possession of the property, and the landlord would be trespassing and infringing the tenants "quiet enjoyment" of the property. Should he then take possession without a court order, then he is guilty of the CRIMINAL act of unlawful eviction.

 

Please, disagree if you want - you run the risk of infringing these laws, which I can cast iron guarantee I am correct on - I recently discussed a similar case with a very high up property law solicitor, who coincidentally participates in the exam board for the NAEA qualification, and it is certainly the case. I would also strongly suggest you get a new barrister.

 

For a start, a tenancy agreement will have a defined TERM - i.e. when the agreement starts and when it finishes. This is usually a"fixed term" that states commencement and termination:

 

The Term

The Tenancy will be for a Term from and including the third day of xxxxxxxxx 2007 (“the Commencement Date”) to and including Second day of xxxxxxxxx 2008 (“the Expiration Date”).

 

The "Type" of Tenancy needs to be defined, usually this is:

 

Type of Tenancy and Termination

4.1 This Agreement creates an Assured Shorthold Tenancy as defined by Section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 as amended by the Housing Act 1996. The Landlord will therefore be entitled to recovery of possession of the Premises in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

 

Within the Agreement there will be provisions relating to the payment of rent (when, how much etc), there are then provisions for breach (what actions can be taken by the Landlord and possible remedy for such breach by the Tenant). In the six Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements that I have in front of me there are also provisions for the Landlord to inspect the premises provided either 24 or 48 hours notice is provided (varies with agreed terms).

 

I suggest you re-read the thread and what questions was asked at the start. Of course any enforcement of the Agreement, if contested HAS to go through a court.

 

You seem to be ignoring that this case involves the Tenant is in Breach of the Agreement and therefore if unable to remedy then the Landlord has every right to enforce and re-claim the premises. Here the Tenant has NOT paid the rent so is in material breach, if they have "Done a Runner" then the Landlord should (1) give notice to enter the premises and determine if the Tenant is still living there then (2) reclaim the property in the prescribed terms as the Agreement allows.

 

I am happy to disagree since you are wrong!

[MrShed]

Lol...please, continue to act in an illegal fashion on your tenancy agreements, doesnt bother me in the slightest. I have already argued all the points you have made, successfully. I suggest you read Sections 21 and 8 of the Housing Act 1996, and consult with a better solicitor. I do not need to prove myself to know I am right on this, frankly. This is such a basic question that I am amazed anyone who suggests they have letting knowledge is arguing the point.

 

Anyway, last reply, said all I have to say. People can believe who they wish.

[Monty2007]

Lol...please, continue to act in an illegal fashion on your tenancy agreements, doesnt bother me in the slightest. quote]

 

I am actually a Tenant? You sure make some crazy assumtions.........

[MrShed]

Not really bothered what you are....although if you are not a landlord it gives you less basis to make the assumptions you are so wrongly jumping to. Anyway, that really is my last word!!!

[demon_x_slash]

Monty, the Landlord can give all the notice that s/he wants - if the tenant does not grant permission for access, the Landlord will be breaking the law by entering the property, even if it is for 'inspection'. The Landlord is required by law to give 24hrs notice asking for permission to inspect/enter the property, and again, the tenant can always refuse. The only exception to this is if the Landlord needs to carry out emergency work such as getting a gas leak repaired.

 

Even if the official term of the AST has expired, the Landlord still has to obtain a court order to enter and/or repossess the property.

 

AST contract terms do not supercede the law, and the above, and MrShed's points, are the law.

[Monty2007]

I am not disagreeing with you?

The post related to a question relating to a Tenant that was in breach of their TA through non-payment of rent. My advice was that the Landlord should give the required notice to enter (24 or 48 h or whatever their agreed period is) and then enter to establish if the Tenant has indeed "done a runner". If they are restricted in doing so then they have to enforce through due legal process.

I have had to negotiate four TA'S in the last three years and took legal advice in one case since the provisions were very one-sided. The TA is like any other contract but subject to the overriding SI contained within Section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 as amended by the Housing Act 1996. The Landlord will therefore be entitled to recovery of possession of the Premises in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

My understanding is that the above act protects both parties.

Mr Shed seems to have missed the question, irrespective of it being posted by the Landlord?!

[demon_x_slash]

I am not disagreeing with you?

 

The post related to a question relating to a Tenant that was in breach of their TA through non-payment of rent. My advice was that the Landlord should give the required notice to enter (24 or 48 h or whatever their agreed period is) and then enter to establish if the Tenant has indeed "done a runner". If they are restricted in doing so then they have to enforce through due legal process.

 

The landlord would still not be able to enter the property full stop even if they gave notice and even if the tenancy had apparently been breached by the tenant - the landlord has to get a court order to enter the property without permission. 'Notice' does not equate to 'permission'. If the tenant has indeed 'done a runner', there would be no one at the property to give the required permission to enter; the landlord would in this case have to file for possession in the usual manner in order to enter. This is the point that MrShed and I are trying to explain to you.

[Monty2007]

The landlord would still not be able to enter the property full stop even if they gave notice and even if the tenancy had apparently been breached by the tenant - the landlord has to get a court order to enter the property without permission. 'Notice' does not equate to 'permission'. If the tenant has indeed 'done a runner', there would be no one at the property to give the required permission to enter; the landlord would in this case have to file for possession in the usual manner in order to enter. This is the point that MrShed and I are trying to explain to you.

 

The Court would have no problem granting the Landlord such a request!

 

My Landlord has previously requested to inspect the property I rent from him, provided 48 h, came round, thanked me for keeping the house in good order and did not bother me again.

 

Not sure what the problem is here?

[demon_x_slash]

*patient* Yes, I know - but before the court order, the landlord has no right of entry.

[Monty2007]

*patient* Yes, I know - but before the court order, the landlord has no right of entry.

 

Why go to court when the Landlord has requested something that is both reasonable and which the Tenant agreed to in the TA?

 

Seems you just want to argue, frankly I don't have the time or energy.

 

Have a fun life...............

[demon_x_slash]

We're talking about factual legalities here - and private contracts (in this case, the AST) do not override the law. I'm not arguing, dear, I'm correcting incorrect advice. If you have trouble with that, then I suggest that you refrain from posting in areas in which you are unsure.

[MrShed]

Demon, I wouldnt bother - like talking to a brick wall haha!

[demon_x_slash]

I just wanted to make sure that the OP followed the correct advice

[MrShed]

Indeed, and thanks for posting demon - hopefully should clarify for non-regular members which is correct

 

Anyway all this is detracting from the original thread. OP good luck, and let us know what you do and how you get on.

[jmuggali]

Thanks, not wanting to stir it up again but what if I give notice to visit but get no reply? Do I wait until I do, or enter, I have left a letter and sent a txt and left a message on her mobile.

We gained entry today, changed the backdoor lock only so she can re enter through the front door (although we want to fit a new one fairly soon, can’t have an aluminum door when we own a upvc co! J) we secured the windows only. It was very odd as almost all of her stuff has gone no food etc; however her two children’s rooms were untouched, just as if they had left for school or similar. We are pretty sure she has gone as it has been confirmed by her mother and friends, also the bailiff that turned up to shut the gas off confirmed he had been there quite a few times! There were 4 final demands on the kitchen table gas, water electricity and council tax and a letter from the DWP asking for £600 odd pounds back. Now I’m not that bothered about my money, but I am concerned about the kids, the house is immaculate, she has obviously tried very hard. But she has left leaving a lot of the kid’s clothes and toys. It wasn’t the most pleasurable experience this afternoon.

What do you think I should do next?