Getting Rid of Tenant? Advice please?

[red devil]

There you go, good advice once the full facts are known...

[maxxi]

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote:

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

> Why is she right to stay if her contract/tenency

> has come to an end? Am I missing something here?

I was involved in a similar situation some years ago and it went like this...

Many tenants are living under expired tenancy agreements. The tenancy agreement is assumed to be still in force unless and until the landlord serves notice as the OP has done through section 21. Many landlords have tenants sign 6 or 12 month tenancy agreements and then do not issue a new one when it runs out (even though they are willing to have the tenant stay on seemingly indefinitely).

This means that - should there be any disputes - the clauses agreed to in the original agreement are assumed by law to be still in effect but that the advantage for the landlord is that he/she can get rid of the tenant at short notice (shorter than if it were at the start of a renewal of a 6 month contract for example) by serving notice.

[Herroeeeey]

Thanks Ratty

The agents are warning me this could still take up to 6 months. I'm wondering how I can (if possible) speed this up? Or am I purely at the mercy of how quickly the courts act?

ratty Wrote:

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

> She can leave after S21 expires without there

> being any case of intentionality. So you only have

> to wait another couple of weeks. If she does

> refuse though it's courts, posession orders and

> bailiffs but you can apply for and will get costs

> against her.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Thanks Maxxi, think I get it.

So the tennant in this situation has been served a S21, giving 2 months notice that they need to find somewhere new to live. Once that 2 months is up, they give the keys back and leave the place in good order. Seems reasonable to me, and I have in the past been in a situation where I have been given noitce so I looked for a new gaff.

Seems the 2 month notice period will be on 23rd Oct (OP says served on 23rd Aug) so I dont see what the problem is yet as we are 2 weeks away from the end of the notice period. Unless the tennant is saying they are not leaving after the 23rd Oct, then I dont see how that is the right thing to do.

[ClareC]

Hiya,

Sounds as though she should leave on or before the 23rd, given she is legally required to she is not making herself intentionally homeless.

If she doesnt, issue ASAP to get a repossession hearing set - I issued in April and the date I got for a hearing was early June, so around 6 weeks. Will depend on how busy the Court is though.

If you do need to issue proceedings I can give you the details of the people I used, issuing was @ ?600 I think which included the barrister fee on the day. She will be liable for your costs, I just hope you don't lose your sale in the meantime.

[red devil]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Help-Ma-Boab Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why is she right to stay if her

> contract/tenency

> > has come to an end? Am I missing something

> here?

>

> I was involved in a similar situation some years

> ago and it went like this...

>

> Many tenants are living under expired tenancy

> agreements. The tenancy agreement is assumed to be

> still in force unless and until the landlord

> serves notice as the OP has done through section

> 21. Many landlords have tenants sign 6 or 12 month

> tenancy agreements and then do not issue a new one

> when it runs out (even though they are willing to

> have the tenant stay on seemingly indefinitely).

>

> This means that - should there be any disputes -

> the clauses agreed to in the original agreement

> are assumed by law to be still in effect but that

> the advantage for the landlord is that he/she can

> get rid of the tenant at short notice (shorter

> than if it were at the start of a renewal of a 6

> month contract for example) by serving notice.

Cuts both ways maxxi...as you say, under a standard 6/12 month AST agreement when the lease expires it kicks into a rolling month by month agreement, whereby the tenant has to be given 2 months notice by the landlord if he wants the property vacated, whereas the tenant only has to give the landlord 1 months notice that they are leaving, not much time for a landlord to find a new tenant.

It's worth stating that all contracts are negotiable, and terms and conditions can be amended if agreed by both parties up front, very seldom this happens though.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

I just didnt get why DJKQ said she is absolutley right to stay if she has been given notice, and to stay on beyond that time. Surely 2 months is enough time to find a new place to live. I've always managed, would never dream of staying beyond a given date that was issued to me.

Mibees Im just one of the good guys.

[maxxi]

ETA: - in response to red devil

True but tenants who intend to stiff their landlords that way can always leave whenever they like - with no notice at all if they don't care about getting their deposit back or getting references.

Plus I think getting a tenant is easier (especially in current climate) than getting a landlord and whether either they/he/she/it is/are good or not is in the lap of the gods.

What I want to know is where this cellar pole-dancing club was, if the pole was left behind and did the goldfish survive?

*waits on tenterhooks*

[DJKillaQueen]

What I meant HBoab was she was right to make sure she didn't make herself intentionally homeless, if she wants to keep her elegibility for key worker property status. Obviously the morality of it is a different issue.

[zeban]

How strange this post is. Why didn't the original poster put in all the facts at the start? how do they even know if there's going to be a problem if the tenant has until the 23rd Oct to leave meaning if she/he does then surely this whole post was a waste of time?

Also, if the tenant has to leave by then then they themselves shouldn't have any problems because they're not making themselves intentionally homeless, their contract is merely up and their landlord has decided not to renew it so they have to leave. It's unfortuante but then he/she should have taken that into consideration when looking for somewhere because there's always going to be a set time on renting a property that is in the process of being sold- I wouldn't do it personally because I wouldn't want the hassle of trying to find another place to live.

Just as an aside. It's very easy to find tenants, a month is plenty of time if you have a decent place in a decent area. It's not however so easy finding a decent place in a decent area for a decent rent! Especially for studios and ones beds so you need two months otherewise you could be homeless. Timing is often difficult for both parties but the amount landlords get for their properties is more than their paying for their mortgage so they'll have enough to cover themselves if their property is vacant for a couple of weeks.

[red devil]

zeban Wrote:

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

> Just as an aside. It's very easy to find tenants,

> a month is plenty of time if you have a decent

> place in a decent area.

In the current market maybe, but it's not always been that way, and more than likely won't be at sometime in the future

> ...the amount landlords get for their

> properties is more than their paying for their

> mortgage so they'll have enough to cover

> themselves if their property is vacant for a

> couple of weeks.

You're getting good at these generalisations...

[zeban]

red devil, I believe it will continue to be that way in the future as it gets harder and harder to buy a property. I don't really see this situation turning around in my lifetime- and that's not me being cynical!

People are in the buy to let game to make money. Renting is a business to most landlords.

[KidKruger]

Zeban - how can you say the landlords rent their properties for more than they pay on the mortgage ?

Where did you learn this ?

This is a gross generalisation and there will be very many exceptions, myself being just one !!

It's too easy to say landlords are all wealthy - it's a bit like saying city workers/banking pros are all rich. Not true !

[ClareC]

The generalisations and opinions spouted as fact are so inaccurate they are now entertaining!

[Herroeeeey]

Zeban I'm actually rolling in it. All landlords are as you well know.

Wait...... is that right?

[Mick Mac]

If you are buying any property at the moment then the.chances of the rental income being greater than the mortgage are very slim unless the.deposit is significant. Many buy to let landlords make an income loss initially but hope.for capital growth or rents increasing over time.

[maxxi]

I know averages don't always tell the whole story and that comparisons are odious but in the interests of stirring it up even more showing the current discrepancies and providing some figures

The average monthly mortgage in London is ?1240/month

The average monthly rent paid in London is ?1979/month

[red devil]

Is the rent figure based on per property or per renter?

[maxxi]

property and of course there are huge differences - much easier to get cheap rental in Barking & Dagenham for example but harder to get reasonable mortgage in Kensington & Chelsea but that's a given (and a pointless point).

Until very recently the main reason for buy-to-let was to have someone else pay your mortgage and if rents never matched mortgages no one would ever buy-to-rent. The fact is they still do.

Let's put it to the test -

what's the average mortgage payment for people in ED (based on a 2 bed flat)? ?1000? ?1200? ?1500? and then compare with the average rent asked for same by local estate agents.

[Moos]

And to make it comparable, you'd need to incorporate costs for service charge, insurances and repairs.

[Herroeeeey]

the problem with averages is that it only takes a few crazily excessive numbers to skew that average.

median better

[ClareC]

Indeed, statistics can be massaged to prove anything!

[red devil]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> property and of course there are huge differences

> - much easier to get cheap rental in Barking &

> Dagenham for example but harder to get reasonable

> mortgage in Kensington & Chelsea but that's a

> given (and a pointless point).

>

> Until very recently the main reason for buy-to-let

> was to have someone else pay your mortgage and if

> rents never matched mortgages no one would ever

> buy-to-rent. The fact is they still do.

>

> Let's put it to the test -

>

> what's the average mortgage payment for people in

> ED (based on a 2 bed flat)? ?1000? ?1200? ?1500?

> and then compare with the average rent asked for

> same by local estate agents.

Hang on maxxi, you need to factor in how many persons might be contributing to the rent/mortgage figures.

Generalising (;-)) most mortgages are paid by one or two persons, whereas the rents per property can often be shared by more. Taking your earlier figures as an example, say a couple share paying the mortgage, that equates to ?620/person.

And if two couples or a group of 4 friends are sharing a rented property, that equates to ?494.75/person.

If you compare a single person paying the mortgage against a couple sharing the rent, it also works out cheaper for the renters. I'm obviously taking examples that skew my point of view, but that's the joy of statistics ;-)

[zeban]

Thank you Maxxi! I'm glad you're entertained ClaireC but I standby what I say. Mortgages are quite often lower than rental amount. KK, I know this because I have first hand experience of it. If you ask for the tenant just to cover the mortgage you're one of the good guys and believe me, there aren't many of you around. Maybe you just aren't aware of that. Maybe you think most people in your position are like you.

A guy I used to know paid less than ?500 a month mortgage on his one bed property in Brixton Hill. He rented it out for ?1000 and got it because that's the amount he can command for rent in that area. I guy I used to date paid less for his mortgage on a one bed property in Balham/ Clapham South than I pay rent for a studio flat in ED. My friends landlord was commanding a ridiculous amount of money from her and the other tenants in her house- squashed in as many as she could so must have been getting about ?1600-2000 a month and it was ex council so she sure as hell was making some serious bucks from that one.

I'm not saying ALL landlords are rolling in it. Those that have just one property and aren't really in it for the moeny, more to cover themselves until they sell and make their money that way, but most will take advantage if they can.

How about you compare a single person paying a mortgage to a single person paying rent? The renter will be the one losing out. Not all renters are in couples- a pretty bad reason to get with someone I think ie. to save money on your rent!).

[Huguenot]

I love it when Zeban gets on her high horse about rent - it's like she's had an entitlement stolen from her.

You claimed that 'everyone you know rents', but you've just trotted out 2 ex boyfriends who are milking the system. What's it to be? Little bit inconsistent? ;-) Sounds like you have a bit of a mix actually?

If I remember correctly, 'everyone you know rents' because you're about 28. Everyone I knew rented when they were 28.

If I also recall correctly, you're a sometime charity shop worker and current hair stylist. This would sit in a box called 'subsistence worker' - or 'hand to mouth' if you wish. You do this out of choice, and you look down your nose at people who have to do proper jobs to pay proper salaries that you just don't fancy.

So really that boils down to a 28 year old who tells porkies, and gets mad because she can't have her cake and eat it.