Karl11, you are right, the tenant probably did not breach the tenancy agreement at all. Even if she did, the landlord should not change the lock as there are procedures to follow. We don’t know the full story, as tenant has not stated about any breaches.
Its worth saying that section 8 grounds 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are not based on tenant fault, although they are not commonly used.
1 Like
OK there are a few perspectives on this…
1)This is generally a civil matter - so it is unlikely your Landlord can take criminal action against you or vice versa.
-
The Landlord has acted outside the normal procedures. This will count against him and woud normally result in a section 21 notice being dismissed . However it will not automatically result in a section 8 notice being dismissed as in this case. The section 8 notice will be considered on its own merits.
-
If you are confident that the grounds of the section 8 are wrong and can prove it it is worth waiting for the landlord to take you to court for eviction and staying in the property. The court will rule the landlord can’t recover the legal costs of his failed action.
-
BUT If you think the grounds of the section 8 are you can stay in the house until the bailiffs come - but if you lose in court the court will order you to pay the landlords court and legal and bailiff costs plus costs of debt recovery. He can keep pursuing you for this debt even after you move out. You will also have a county court judgment against you . If the evictio is for rent arrears or anti social behaviour most local authorities will deem you to have made yourself homeless and thereore not qualifying for council property.
It also makes it almost impossible to get your next property in the private rental sector! -
It is sometimes hard to know which way a section 8 will go but it has to rule the application before it. So if the ground for the section 8 is solid you be eveicted and have to pay costs.
-
That is not to say you can’t instigate a separate legal action to claim damages against your landlord for being locked out - or upset due to him entering your property. But remember this also has costs if you don’t win !
-
Also it is worth checking if you are in a selective licensing area which might mean the landlord has to have a license from the local authority to rent. In that case you can appeal to the council and he may be fined. NO guarantees as it all comes down to what courts tribunals and council commitees decide
4 Likes
I dont really care about you but if you have a shred of decency het something sorted out for the dogs, they deserve better
4 Likes
Then it’s fair to advise that as it’s likely a breach of contract contributed to the situation you find yourself in, you should expect no sympathy unless there are contributing factors. In their absence, this is simply a case of a tenant being behaving badly who is now complaining about their LL behaving badly in response.
3 Likes
Is there any chance of a straight explanation from you regarding exactly why this landlord thought it was a good idea to try and cut off his own income stream, or are we all obliged to waste time guessing?
1 Like
This is criminal and it’s called breaking and entering. The landlord needs a court order served by a duly registered bailiff to remove you. If you had a Sect 8 hearing, normally the minimum is 14 days before a bailiff can remove you. You are given about 2 hours to remove yourself and property. In court, there are many reasons why a Sect 8 may be reconsidered such as if you’ve paid arrears but if the landlord wants you out he would need to serve a Sect 21 to reclaim the property provided that the Sect 8 has been resolved in your favour. I am appalled by some of the inhumane responses here. While I understand that rental property may be your investment that you rely on for a pension and you may have a mortgage payment on the property, I know banks don’t care, but there are issues like vulnerability which all regulated firms such as banks must adhere to. Landlords can use this is a tenant has a vulnerability issue such as health or even financial difficulties and should let the bank or mortgage provider know the tenant is vulnerable. This stops the mortgage issuer from acting to default on on the landlord.
Landlords will not want a tenant who stops paying rent . If a person makes themselves vulnerable why should someone else carry the can ?
4 Likes
Sometimes life happens and a person needs that kindness. I get that the banks who hold your mortgage, many are interest only, want money and also from a risk prospective need to put the caveats in place on buy to let, but the risk is essentially the same. You can lose your job or get ill as an owner on your main residence and would want the mortgage company to show you kindness and treat you as vulnerable. I will say though that some people will never pay their rent vulnerable or not but they are in another category.
1 Like
Reading the opening post I think she’s in the latter category .
Landlords are the one species that are over a £1b short because of rent arrears. Most are not claimed because the tenants will never have the money to pay .
If you don’t pay your mortgage the banks foreclose .
A s8 is the same thing
No one can carry people indefinitely.
There’s good will and then there’s taking the proverbial
Most landlords are not making a profit. I have made a loss in the last three years and used savings , because of prospective legislation , to make homes energy efficient and provide en-suites in line with market demands.
Tenants want but they don’t want to pay.
Students arrive for a viewing , the other day ,in an Audi Q2 and Ugg boots but don’t want to pay market rent for the facilities provided.
The question asked was, ‘what is my car insurance in this area?’……
I’ve just posted twice that thermostat set to 23, room temperature 16.7and windows open . External temperature. -4!!!
COP29 will tell us to reduce the carbon footprint but I don’t think that is reducing carbon footprint it’s just plain old pernicious behaviour
This is what we are up against
Everyone hears the woes of shelter
Legislation is being pushed through because of the few not because of the many .
Any conclusion formulated needs a balanced approach. Listening to one side of the story is not balanced.
I asked a lawyer on a course a couple of weeks ago what the statistics were for bad housing . He gave me a number with no reference. It’s based on what they see not what they don’t see.
There is no p value ( <o…5) attached
I, and I guess a plethora of others , and my tenants we’re not audited to determine what the kind of housing was provided and if they were happy
Legislation should be balanced . Right now it’s not. It’s being determined by a bunch of idiots with no moral compass and vested interest for themselves.
Yesterday there was an article to say lawyers ,architects , investment companies etc are still not going to be hit by NI because she didn’t close the loophole , so it was the working class ( ‘people with no savings’ ……)that got hit
The one loophole Rachel Reeves could have closed would generate over a billion but instead she hit pensioners and regular people which will hit the food courts and ultimately us again……
3 Likes
They put your dogs out pig imagine had it been in this weather
1 Like
anything you want to say ,say it here Krystal2
Understanding the reason for your eviction notice is clearly relevant and allows for a full picture to be built. Informed opinions are more accurate.
2 Likes
That statement and your previous ones tell us a lot about you
1 Like
Paul 103 A straight answer , no chance. Two sides to every tale .I have never evicted or tried to evict a good paying tenant
1 Like
Colin, please refrain from further comments. I find you extremely offensive, hope that is more acceptable than my previous reply
From what i gather regardless of the reason for a section 8 being issued the landlord has every right to access the property without prior notice or gaining consent and change the locks without following the correct legal procedures or applying to the court , yes ?
Why are you still in situ when notice has been served?
This is a s8 not a no fault eviction
Julie7, your last post is dangerously innaccurate. I hope no-one is tempted to follow it.
Edit: Ok, i see its intended as a question. The answer is no.
I have been advised by housing at local council that until a possession order has been received by court and a hearing then to remain in situ.