Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi


Anyone have any experience of getting rid of a tenant who insists on paying their rent on time and refuses to leave?


The property in question was up for sale when the tenant moved in and was a standard 6 month then rolling contract. I have accepted an offer but fear I will lose the buyer if I don't resolve this shortly.


By the sounds of it I have to go through the courts but does anyone know of the most direct and fruitful process? Any solicitors that specialise in this that anyone may have used? (yes i can google this but looking for personal experience).

You should serve a section 21 notice to gain possession any time after the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy, giving the correct contractual notice. If this is served and the correct notice given you can then use the courts should the tenant not leave by the requisite date.


Most will not ignore the notice, should they do so you would be able to claim your legal costs from them provided of course you have acted correctly.

Have you thought of just offering them money? No one likes moving when they've found somewhere nice to live but if they know you'll go to court if necessary - after following the statutory procedure - then the value of a free holiday may make them more amenable.

I once went to the property during the day put all their possessions in a Luton van, drove it to edge of the M25, changed the locks and covered front door in steel.

Then called (ex-)tenant at work and said please give me an address to deliver the possessions to, I am waiting with a van on M25. No point trying to access the property without serious powertools and you have nowehere to plug them in.


They owed me a few weeks rent. They were extremely glad to get their possessions back. So much so that they offered 1/2 of the owed money immediately in advance (which I told them to deliver to someone near their work).


I would NOT recommend you do this. Worked for me though.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I once went to the property during the day put all

> their possessions in a Luton van, drove it to edge

> of the M25, changed the locks and covered front

> door in steel.

> Then called (ex-)tenant at work and said please

> give me an address to deliver the possessions to,

> I am waiting with a van on M25. No point trying

> to access the property without serious powertools

> and you have nowehere to plug them in.

>

> They owed me a few weeks rent. They were

> extremely glad to get their possessions back. So

> much so that they offered 1/2 of the owed money

> immediately in advance (which I told them to

> deliver to someone near their work).

>

> I would NOT recommend you do this. Worked for me

> though.


As you say, not a good idea if you want to stay on the right side of the law. I think that counts as an illegal eviction.


Perhaps everyone should view Pacific Heights again to see how badly wrong it can go?

My tenants stopped paying rent altogether so, in the absence of them paying up after two months I went down the section 18 and 21 notice route. Irritatingly they had just signed up to a new AST so the S21 only applied at the end of the 6mths. The non payment allowed the S18 to be served too which brought about quicker results.


They ignored the notices so I issued against them, they moved out within a month of notice of hearing and paid up all they owed plus interest and legal costs a week before the hearing.


Ridiculous they let it it get that far as they significantly increased what they owed. I suspect it was the guarantor that settled up, I issued against him too.


Good luck, it's a crap situation but be grateful they at least pay the rent!! I was on maternity leave when it happened to me, received no maternity pay so had no income, crap timing!

Firstly, I would like to say there are many more rogue landlords than there are rogue tenants so let's not paint tenants with a bad brush please!


I don't really understand though. Have you given them their two months written notice that they're entitled to if they have a contract with you? have you done everything properly, legally and above board?

Zeban, on what basis can you make that claim?


As with every situation there are good and bad on both sides. This is not an anti tenant thread, having re read it I don't see how you have come to that conclusion. It just happens to be a landlord asking advice in a certain situation.


Ironically, currently the law heavily favours tenants over landlords!


Edited to say, if you are unable to offer any advice, why post on a thread asking for advice? Doing so simply detracts from the purpose of the original thread. If you wish to discuss the ratio of rogue landlords in direct comparison to rogue tenants, start a thread doing so!

If I had been your tenant KK and you'd done that to me I would have had you before the court so fast you'd have regretted your actions and been very out of pocket as well. There are laws in place to protect both tenants and landlords and for good reason. Having said that it never ceases to amaze me just how little regard some landlords have for the rights of tenants and the law.


What the OP doesn't say is if the six month contract is due to or has expired. If stll within the shorthold tenancy then there's not a lot you can do but an offer of compensation to the tenant if they mutually agree to end the tenancy might be worth a try and is not illegal.


Beyond the initial tenancy Clare's advice is right.


I wonder what the thinking was in renting out a property that was for sale to a new tenant?

Like I say DJQK, I advise against that sort of action.

The tenant could have taken me to court but you know what ?

When you're having the p!ss taken by a high earning city worker and they're relying on your doubt and apprehension to get away with it, things have to stop.

Obviously it could go to court, not rocket science. But one thing that was SURE was that the idiots wouldn't be back in my property, which was all I was interested in.

I'd rather have had the place re-let, with money coming in to pay my debts, than be going to court to get them out and no cash coming in. Everyone has pressures and problems, so don't add to them by thieving off people.

I'd rather be battling someone on the outside of my front door. It just creates a different, more manageable problem.

Sure. You'd have got me in court sharpish, great, I'm sure that would feel most empowering.

But it wasn't you was it ? So no need for posturing !


Once again, do NOT try this at home.


Zeban - your comment surprised me, if most landlords were dodgy wouldn't that mean by definition that most tenants have dodgy landlords ? That can't be the case, surely ? You may have had a bad deal sometime.. I can assure you that I am actually a very kind landlord, the benevolence sometimes of which would make Mother Theresa seem like Idi Amin.

Right now, I'm chasing a landlord for a deposit on a flat I rented 2 years ago, so I know both sides of the experience.


Herroeeeey - good luck with your endeavours, I'm sure court is the right way to go.

ClaireC, the law actually heavily favours the landlord, absolutely not the other way around so I don't know where you got that from. Just because there are laws to say you can't physically remove a tenant from a property etc, that's more a question of human rights than the law favouring the tenant.


And I know that because my entire generation are renters- everyone I know rents- and they all have horror stories when it comes to landlords, myself included. And I wanted to make that point as I didn't want the thread to become some rant about tenants. Although I appreciate there are some nightmare tenants too- it's just funny that you tend to hear more these stories in the media than the rogue landlords.


I also did offer helpful advice. The OP actually doesn't state whether they have given them written notice of the amount of time they are legally entitled to to leave. Or whether they've actually legally done anything correctly. For all we know they are trying to evict the tenant before the tenant's contract has finished which means why on earth Should the tenant leave?!!!

The tenant took up the tenancy on the basis that she was waiting to complete on a property and she knew we were selling. Now she wants to stay because it turns out that as she is a nurse she can do a subsidised purchase with the Gov/Council. The original purchase fell through and council have advised her not to leave as she won't be considered for a new house on this scheme if she relinquishes her tenancu out of choice.


So now I have to go through the courts so that the council will take her situation seriously.


She is over the initial 6 months and we served noticed on section 21 on 23rd August.


I wouldn't relish being in her situation but equally... I'm not enjoying mine much either.

Bad tenants vs bad landlords... I'm sure there are plenty of both. But while a bad landlord can try to fleece a tenant for hundreds/thousands of pounds, a bad tenant can refuse to pay rent, squat, or cause damage, which can easily add up to tens of thousands of pounds. It is surprisingly common, and a genuine risk if you rent out a property.

My last tenant turned my basement into a pole dancing club and full bar with optics, lazers etc. She failed to pay after 6 months and then half way through the check out drove off with all my furniture AND all the keys... did however leave her goldfish


I can't wait not to be a landlord any more.

Basically you have a 'key worker' as the tenant and she can't make herself intentionally homeless if she's to remain eligible for the key worker subsidy on a property purchse. She is absolutely right to stay but not great for you. You'll just have to go through the legal process (which will help her too) and it'll take as long as it takes I'm afraid.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...