You've very little chance of getting him out, it sounds like it's going to be a money drain i'm afraid, only a cash buyer will buy it and by the sounds of the condition I think you are likely to get sub 50% of market value.
You need to decide whether you are in effect prepared to invest in it over potentially the next 25 years on a net basis, if not just sell it now.
Having thought about it more I don't think I'll be going down the trying to evict him route, as you say it'll more than likely be a losing battle.
Fortunately I have someone that I trust and that is more clued up about property than me who is going to go down there with me and evaluate things.
i have an acquaintance whom owns a ton of these, so much so he forgot about one of them and didn't collect rent for 10 years or so until the old lady tenant phoned up and complained her boiler was not working and as landlord he had a responsibility to fix it! He did at the cost of a few hundred and she has paid rent ever since.
You've very little chance of getting him out, it sounds like it's going to be a money drain i'm afraid, only a cash buyer will buy it and by the sounds of the condition I think you are likely to get sub 50% of market value.
You need to decide whether you are in effect prepared to invest in it over potentially the next 25 years on a net basis, if not just sell it now.
Having thought about it more I don't think I'll be going down the trying to evict him route, as you say it'll more than likely be a losing battle.
Fortunately I have someone that I trust and that is more clued up about property than me who is going to go down there with me and evaluate things.
Sounds wise, just be prepared that you'll likely make a loss on the property until you get it back, i've offered on a few and you do get some who really treat the property as their own. As long as he keeps paying the rent you'll likey need to throw some money at it, or you throw some money at him but it'd likely need to be a considerable sum. Out of interest what would be the market rent if done up and non protected tenant?
Out of interest @Talal who lived in the property prior to the current tenant's mother?
A Court must evict a protected tenant if you or your family lived on the property previously and want to return to the property to stay there again.
You could also become a vicar - as again if you wanted to live on the property the Court must evict the secure tenant.
Wasn't a family member unfortunately. I believe my grandmother's second husband bought it as a buy to let. I think I'd rather give it away than become a vicar 😉
You've very little chance of getting him out, it sounds like it's going to be a money drain i'm afraid, only a cash buyer will buy it and by the sounds of the condition I think you are likely to get sub 50% of market value.
You need to decide whether you are in effect prepared to invest in it over potentially the next 25 years on a net basis, if not just sell it now.
Having thought about it more I don't think I'll be going down the trying to evict him route, as you say it'll more than likely be a losing battle.
Fortunately I have someone that I trust and that is more clued up about property than me who is going to go down there with me and evaluate things.
Sounds wise, just be prepared that you'll likely make a loss on the property until you get it back, i've offered on a few and you do get some who really treat the property as their own. As long as he keeps paying the rent you'll likey need to throw some money at it, or you throw some money at him but it'd likely need to be a considerable sum. Out of interest what would be the market rent if done up and non protected tenant?
Probably around 800 a month. Not a great deal compared with London prices but still 3 times what he paying.
What is a protected tenancy? Seems a little unfair that he is paying such a low rent that you cant change to market value and nor can you decide not to rent your property out anymore?
The issue is that the tenancy (or at least the tenancy that it was inherited from) extends back so far that it is covered by housing law that predates the reforms of the late 1980s. Back then you had much more security as a tenant, so you weren't having to hop from short term tenancy to short term tenancy every year or two, and landlords couldn't just raise the rent as much as they liked but had to stay within certain limits unless they'd done something to improve the property somehow (there's a description of how the calculation is meant to work here).
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
The present tenant may have lived there and paid rent for a long enough period already, which would protect him in his own right.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
Thank you johnny, was sure I read that it passed on to a child if living with them for a certain period of time but I could be mistaken.
Looking at the rent act 1977 it states - Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant’s family was residing with him [F4in the dwelling-house] at the time of and for the [F5period of 2 years] immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be [F6entitled to an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession].
This wording was present in the 1991 version, need to find out for certain when he took over the property but I'm sure it wasn't before then. If so it does suggest he should only be on an assured tenancy, but in that case why would the rent officer even be involved? Annoyingly the managing agent I speak with is off next week but definitely need to look into this further.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
The present tenant may have lived there and paid rent for a long enough period already, which would protect him in his own right.
Oggy do you know how long this period would have to be?
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
Thank you johnny, was sure I read that it passed on to a child if living with them for a certain period of time but I could be mistaken.
Looking at the rent act 1977 it states - Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant’s family was residing with him [F4in the dwelling-house] at the time of and for the [F5period of 2 years] immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be [F6entitled to an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession].
This wording was present in the 1991 version, need to find out for certain when he took over the property but I'm sure it wasn't before then. If so it does suggest he should only be on an assured tenancy, but in that case why would the rent officer even be involved? Annoyingly the managing agent I speak with is off next week but definitely need to look into this further.
If that's the case, then the succession changes the tenancy from 'protected' to 'assured', which means you are in a much better position to a) increase to market rent and b) be stricter with the tenants liability over the property.
I assume they succeeded the tenancy after the introduction of the 1988 Housing Act?
Forget the managing agent and go directly to an experienced property lawyer.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
Thank you johnny, was sure I read that it passed on to a child if living with them for a certain period of time but I could be mistaken.
Looking at the rent act 1977 it states - Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant’s family was residing with him [F4in the dwelling-house] at the time of and for the [F5period of 2 years] immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be [F6entitled to an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession].
This wording was present in the 1991 version, need to find out for certain when he took over the property but I'm sure it wasn't before then. If so it does suggest he should only be on an assured tenancy, but in that case why would the rent officer even be involved? Annoyingly the managing agent I speak with is off next week but definitely need to look into this further.
If that's the case, then the succession changes the tenancy from 'protected' to 'assured', which means you are in a much better position to a) increase to market rent and b) be stricter with the tenants liability over the property.
I assume they succeeded the tenancy after the introduction of the 1988 Housing Act?
Forget the managing agent and go directly to an experienced property lawyer.
Right but I'm hoping the agent will have documentation relating to when he took it over. I'm going to sift through bundles of paperwork my gran left me, see if anything helpful pops up.
Re the Housing Act, I think so but need confirmation.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
The present tenant may have lived there and paid rent for a long enough period already, which would protect him in his own right.
Oggy do you know how long this period would have to be?
No, not really these days ..... I haven't rented since the mid-70s to early 80s, so quite likely there have been several changes in tenancy legislation since then.
You really need to be sure of your ground, otherwise any action you take against the tenant could prove a costly legal process with no certainty of your success.
If I were in your shoes, Talal, I'd go to a professional who can give the specialist advice needed.
I'm sure you've looked into the legal side of this but a quick Google suggests that a protected tenancy only applies to the husband / wife / partner of the original tenant. I guess this might have been reset if the original tenant is defined as the person in residence when you inherited the property but worth seeking legal advise over.
The present tenant may have lived there and paid rent for a long enough period already, which would protect him in his own right.
Oggy do you know how long this period would have to be?
No, not really these days ..... I haven't rented since the mid-70s to early 80s, so quite likely there have been several changes in tenancy legislation since then.
You really need to be sure of your ground, otherwise any action you take against the tenant could prove a costly legal process with no certainty of your success.
If I were in your shoes, Talal, I'd go to a professional who can give the specialist advice needed.
Cheers, I most probably will. Going to wait until my acquaintance has had a look and given his opinion and then go from there.
@LenGlover thanks for the link, very similar situation.
If you are a landlord you will know that leasing a property, whether residential or commercial, comes with a certain amount of responsibility and risk. Whilst all lease agreements should specify the length of the tenancy most of us have heard stories where tenants refuse to leave or are granted new leases by the Court.
A lot of the time this is because the original tenancies have not been contracted outside of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘LTA 1954’). Provisions in this Act entitles the tenant to a certain amount of protection against sudden or early termination of the lease and gives right to renew the contract at the end of the term.
However, there are ways to terminate such agreements and if you are looking for a step-by-step guide on how to do it, keep reading.
The safest way to terminate a protected tenancy under LTA 1954 is to serve a Section 25 Notice (‘The Notice’). Whilst there is no standard template of this Notice, it should be drafted carefully, using clear language. It should also include the following:
Grounds on which you wish to terminate the tenancy:
Premises are in disrepair;
Arrears of rent;
Other breaches of covenants;
Offer of suitable alternative accommodation;
Tenancy was created by sub-letting;
Landlord’s intention to redevelop;
Landlord’s intention to occupy.
You must specify all grounds you wish to rely on as you may not be allowed to amend these at a later stage. It is worth noting that if you rely on grounds that purport termination through no fault of the tenant (i.e. if your main grounds are intention to redevelop or occupy) the tenant will be entitled to a compensation of a rateable value upon termination. Both parties can rely on a surveyor to value the premises. In addition, if the tenant or its predecessor has enjoyed the use of premises for 14 years of more, the compensation doubles.
The Notice must be served not more than 12 months not less than 6 months before the termination date. So if you are looking to terminate a lease as soon as possible, you will have to wait for a minimum six months (from the date of service) before it could be terminated;
The Notice must be validly served. Your lease will have a clause specifying how and in what way serve could take place. Pay attention to any exclusions of service by email etc.;
If there are multiple tenants, the Notice must be served on all of them;
It is always a good idea to specify, in the cover letter to the tenant, that your Section 25 Notice doubles as a notice to quit. You would have complied with those requirements if you provide the tenant a notice period and a termination date (which should be included in your Notice).
Once the Notice is served it cannot be withdrawn or amended. The tenant then has an option to simply accept your Notice or to serve a counter-notice. If an amicable solution cannot be reached, try to resolve the matter through a form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. However, if you have exhausted all options and the matter proceeds to Court it would be up to the judge’s discretion to grant the tenant a new lease based on the same terms as the previous agreement.
Finally, it is worth noting that the tenant does not have to run their business from the leased address. It is sufficient for the tenant to store items relating to the business at the premises to attract protection under the LTA 1954.
If you are a landlord you will know that leasing a property, whether residential or commercial, comes with a certain amount of responsibility and risk. Whilst all lease agreements should specify the length of the tenancy most of us have heard stories where tenants refuse to leave or are granted new leases by the Court.
A lot of the time this is because the original tenancies have not been contracted outside of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘LTA 1954’). Provisions in this Act entitles the tenant to a certain amount of protection against sudden or early termination of the lease and gives right to renew the contract at the end of the term.
However, there are ways to terminate such agreements and if you are looking for a step-by-step guide on how to do it, keep reading.
The safest way to terminate a protected tenancy under LTA 1954 is to serve a Section 25 Notice (‘The Notice’). Whilst there is no standard template of this Notice, it should be drafted carefully, using clear language. It should also include the following:
Grounds on which you wish to terminate the tenancy:
Premises are in disrepair;
Arrears of rent;
Other breaches of covenants;
Offer of suitable alternative accommodation;
Tenancy was created by sub-letting;
Landlord’s intention to redevelop;
Landlord’s intention to occupy.
You must specify all grounds you wish to rely on as you may not be allowed to amend these at a later stage. It is worth noting that if you rely on grounds that purport termination through no fault of the tenant (i.e. if your main grounds are intention to redevelop or occupy) the tenant will be entitled to a compensation of a rateable value upon termination. Both parties can rely on a surveyor to value the premises. In addition, if the tenant or its predecessor has enjoyed the use of premises for 14 years of more, the compensation doubles.
The Notice must be served not more than 12 months not less than 6 months before the termination date. So if you are looking to terminate a lease as soon as possible, you will have to wait for a minimum six months (from the date of service) before it could be terminated;
The Notice must be validly served. Your lease will have a clause specifying how and in what way serve could take place. Pay attention to any exclusions of service by email etc.;
If there are multiple tenants, the Notice must be served on all of them;
It is always a good idea to specify, in the cover letter to the tenant, that your Section 25 Notice doubles as a notice to quit. You would have complied with those requirements if you provide the tenant a notice period and a termination date (which should be included in your Notice).
Once the Notice is served it cannot be withdrawn or amended. The tenant then has an option to simply accept your Notice or to serve a counter-notice. If an amicable solution cannot be reached, try to resolve the matter through a form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. However, if you have exhausted all options and the matter proceeds to Court it would be up to the judge’s discretion to grant the tenant a new lease based on the same terms as the previous agreement.
Finally, it is worth noting that the tenant does not have to run their business from the leased address. It is sufficient for the tenant to store items relating to the business at the premises to attract protection under the LTA 1954.
Surely the tenant has a responsibility to respect the property. If it can be shown that damage is due to his neglect, can't you demand he pays it?
The main cost will be for the structural problem and the windows which wouldn't be the tenants responsibility. Currently it probably is his job to make good the inside, however as aliwibble pointed out, the new government act would seemingly make it my responsibility from March next year.
Just thought I'd post an update on here if anyone remembers this thread! Decided it wasn't worth the stress and sold it at auction earlier this month. Very nearly didn't make the reserve but got a last second bid - the relief I felt confirmed I'd made the right decision. Thanks to all who advised.
Comments
Fortunately I have someone that I trust and that is more clued up about property than me who is going to go down there with me and evaluate things.
I think I'd rather give it away than become a vicar 😉
Looking at the rent act 1977 it states -
Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant’s family was residing with him [F4in the dwelling-house] at the time of and for the [F5period of 2 years] immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be [F6entitled to an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession].
This wording was present in the 1991 version, need to find out for certain when he took over the property but I'm sure it wasn't before then. If so it does suggest he should only be on an assured tenancy, but in that case why would the rent officer even be involved? Annoyingly the managing agent I speak with is off next week but definitely need to look into this further.
I assume they succeeded the tenancy after the introduction of the 1988 Housing Act?
Forget the managing agent and go directly to an experienced property lawyer.
Re the Housing Act, I think so but need confirmation.
You really need to be sure of your ground, otherwise any action you take against the tenant could prove a costly legal process with no certainty of your success.
If I were in your shoes, Talal, I'd go to a professional who can give the specialist advice needed.
https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1010708-protected-tenancy-access-and-repairs
@LenGlover thanks for the link, very similar situation.
If you are a landlord you will know that leasing a property, whether residential or commercial, comes with a certain amount of responsibility and risk. Whilst all lease agreements should specify the length of the tenancy most of us have heard stories where tenants refuse to leave or are granted new leases by the Court.
A lot of the time this is because the original tenancies have not been contracted outside of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘LTA 1954’). Provisions in this Act entitles the tenant to a certain amount of protection against sudden or early termination of the lease and gives right to renew the contract at the end of the term.
However, there are ways to terminate such agreements and if you are looking for a step-by-step guide on how to do it, keep reading.
The safest way to terminate a protected tenancy under LTA 1954 is to serve a Section 25 Notice (‘The Notice’). Whilst there is no standard template of this Notice, it should be drafted carefully, using clear language. It should also include the following:
You must specify all grounds you wish to rely on as you may not be allowed to amend these at a later stage. It is worth noting that if you rely on grounds that purport termination through no fault of the tenant (i.e. if your main grounds are intention to redevelop or occupy) the tenant will be entitled to a compensation of a rateable value upon termination. Both parties can rely on a surveyor to value the premises. In addition, if the tenant or its predecessor has enjoyed the use of premises for 14 years of more, the compensation doubles.
The Notice must be served not more than 12 months not less than 6 months before the termination date. So if you are looking to terminate a lease as soon as possible, you will have to wait for a minimum six months (from the date of service) before it could be terminated;
The Notice must be validly served. Your lease will have a clause specifying how and in what way serve could take place. Pay attention to any exclusions of service by email etc.;
If there are multiple tenants, the Notice must be served on all of them;
It is always a good idea to specify, in the cover letter to the tenant, that your Section 25 Notice doubles as a notice to quit. You would have complied with those requirements if you provide the tenant a notice period and a termination date (which should be included in your Notice).
Once the Notice is served it cannot be withdrawn or amended. The tenant then has an option to simply accept your Notice or to serve a counter-notice. If an amicable solution cannot be reached, try to resolve the matter through a form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. However, if you have exhausted all options and the matter proceeds to Court it would be up to the judge’s discretion to grant the tenant a new lease based on the same terms as the previous agreement.
Finally, it is worth noting that the tenant does not have to run their business from the leased address. It is sufficient for the tenant to store items relating to the business at the premises to attract protection under the LTA 1954.
Currently it probably is his job to make good the inside, however as aliwibble pointed out, the new government act would seemingly make it my responsibility from March next year.
Decided it wasn't worth the stress and sold it at auction earlier this month. Very nearly didn't make the reserve but got a last second bid - the relief I felt confirmed I'd made the right decision. Thanks to all who advised.
I thought he'd be sleeping with the fishes or some such by now
Seriously though, well done the beers are on you, where will you be tomorrow and how will we identify you ?
To be fair to the previously grumpy tenant he was accomodating when it came to viewings. Maybe he just wanted shot of me!