Comments on: Ancient law may help landlords

By: Five harassment and unlawful eviction cases « FreeLegalWeb

Five harassment and unlawful eviction cases « FreeLegalWeb — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:59:28 +0000

[...] Mr Keddey then decided not to move out after all. The landlord should of course have read >> this blog post here. However instead he assaulted Mr Keddey on a number of occasions, and then physically ejected him [...]

By: Tessa Shepperson

Tessa Shepperson — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:37:46 +0000

As discussed above, the landlords right to double rent appears to arise only when the tenant has served a valid notice. So if you did not serve any notice to quit, then it is arguable that you are not liable for the double rent. If the landlord has not issued proceedings, you could just refuse to pay. However if a county court claim is made, a good firm to consult would be PainSmith, the firm mentioned in the blog post, who originally wrote about this. They have a web-site at www.painsmith.co.uk. Otherwise you may be able to find a suitable firm via our referral service.

By: Fred belak

Fred belak — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:34:11 +0000

I am a former tenant at a property which I occupied for 7.5 years with my family, paying rent on time for the entire period. We held over for 2 weeks, as landlord was changing renewal terms up to 5 days before lease expiry. I have paid rent for period i held over, but landlord is still claiming double rent for period held over, under section 1 of Landlord and Tenant Act of 1730. Is there any basis in that? and where does one find a solicitor to defend against such claims ?

By: Tessa Shepperson

Tessa Shepperson — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:15:51 +0000

I have kindly been given access to an article provided on the Guild of Residential Landlords web-site http://www.all4landlords.com, part of which cites Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd. v. Ballard (Kent) Ltd. [1999] 3 W.L.R. 57. I quote from the article:

Laws L.J. states:  ”…the right to double rent conferred by section 18 of the Act of 1737 only arises where (a) the tenant holding over after his own notice to quit is in fact a trespasser (thus, the notice must be valid), and (b) the landlord treats him as such. Any other case departs from what I regard as the plain purpose of the section…”

Though s.18 and Laws L.J. both specifically state that the notice must be “valid” a landlord is entitled to accept an invalid notice to quit. It is suggested by the Guild that acceptance of an invalid notice may provide an argument that the notice was “valid”).

One of the intentions of s.18 was to compensate the landlord should he have contracted a new tenant to take the property after the date specified in the notice, however there is no requirement to have a tenant in waiting to charge double rent.

Laws L.J. states  ”…it is to my mind entirely clear that the legislature was concerned only to compensate landlords for the potential loss of rent arising where a tenant holds over against the landlord’s insistence that he should comply with his own notice to quit. I do not say that the section applies only where the landlord has a new tenant ready and waiting; the recital gives the thrust, but not necessarily the focus, of the section’s reach.”

Presumably, as the requirement is that the landlord treats the tenant as a trespasser, any request for double rent should be made using the words “mesne profits” so as to ensure the landlords intention is that the occupier is a trespasser. In addition, a landlord would be well advised to immediately commence possession.

By: J

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:48:14 +0000

Save that no distress for rent can be levied at all where the tenancy is a Rent Act tenancy (Rent Act 1977, s.147) and, in the case of an assured tenancy, the permission of the court is required (Housing Act 1988, s.19(1)). Given the criticism of the remedy in Abingdon RDC v O’Gorman [1968] 3 All ER 69, it’d be a brave DJ that allowed the use of such a remedy!