Here is a question to the blog clinic from Mary (not her real name):
I have a tenant who has never paid any rent (apart from a small intial payment). I have tried to evict her for non-payment of rent, however, she has launched a counterclaim against up making up all sorts of allegations against both ourselves and other tenants at the property (it is a HMO property).
We have evidence that she has done this several times before and she has been sectioned a few months ago, however, she has been allowed to continue with her claim and we have to pay huge court costs because we have to have such a long hearing because of her ridiculous counterclaim (she has failed to supply any evidence at all to the courts).
She has made the lives of the other tenants at the property a living nightmare with threats and verbal abuse. She obviously knows how to play the system and she flouts every rule in the book – she refuses to pay rent or for any bills at the property. She lies constantly and we are being forced to pay all these court costs (even though the original possession order should have been straightforward) and she, as she is on benefits, pays nothing!
We are at our wits end – if I approach her to discuss anything she is irrational and verbally abuses me and refuses us entry into the house. She will not leave the property even though we have offered to waive all arrears (over £2,000). We are distressed due to all the stress caused by her – the law seems to protect the tenant very well but the landlord has very few rights.
Is there no defence for honest, hard working landlords like us against tenants like this?
It is difficult to give any proper advice as you don’t say at what stage you are in the proceedings or what documents have been served.
For example if she has made allegations she should produce some evidence to support them and if she does not, then you may be able to apply for an order that her claim be dismissed. There is usually something that can be done.
For example, in a similar situation once where a tenant claimed that he had paid rent where he had not, I got his claim struck out when he failed to provide the paperwork requested by the court.
This case does go to show however that if at all possible, landlords should use the section 21 / accelerated possession procedure route as then the tenant does not have the option to defend in this way.
An awful story! As she is in an HMO and she is on benefits, what is the view of the local authority on the issue?
Sharon
And I think the tenant is desperate and has some psychological or mental problem. Why would a person act like that if he or she is in his/her right mind anyway?
A nice read. Thanks!
-Will
Sharon what should the local authority say on the issue?
Issues between a landlord and their tenant are exactly that. (I’m not having a go at you Sharon I know your views and respect them) Where is the council in this? It isnt a council’s role to jump in and rescue a business relationship gone wrong.
If the council had placed this tenant with that landlord I would totally agree it would be their responsibility.
Last year the case of Minter v. Mole Valley District Council went through the lower courts where the landlord of a nightmare tenant succesfully sued the council for passing them over knowing they had a history of bad behaviour, and quite right too in my book but there doesnt seem to be a hint of that here.
I really feel for the landlord in this case, as one human being to another but I dont see why the failed business relationship, which is what it is at root, is any concern of the council
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your comment re my views. Likewise :)
I couldn’t however tell from the article if the tenant was a private or social tenant and I confess to HMO’s not being my area of expertise.
You however raise a very important point in that you say that the council should not get involved in what is basically a business transaction between a landlord and a tenant but the waters have become seriously muddied by the crossover of social housing and private sector housing.
Taking my private block as an example, if private landlords fail to deal with problematic tenants, the freeholder (whatever form it takes) has the ultimate sanction of wresting away the lease of that landlord. In my block it is the RMC (Resident Management Company) of which my partner is one of the two Directors. However, as we have no contract with the tenant, we are powerless to intervene in that we do not have a contract with the subtenant.
However we have two particularly nasty situations with bad landlords and their tenants, but I have been able to involve both the council (under the Housing Act 2004, primarily that of HHSRS) and the police, whilst seeking to use the ultimate sanction of forfeiture of the lease.
How does the relationship between landlords of HMO’s work and the local authorities who licence them? How does it work in terms of the property itself (freehold or leasehold)?
Incidentally Ben, thanks for the reference to the court case. A useful reference for my own armory!
Good question.
HMO Licensing and all that HHSRS stuff is solely the province of Environmental Health and only relates to property standards, structural issues. Any breaches are enforced by EHO’s
Landlord tenant law issues are TRO country, my stuff. We often work on joint cases but the legal elements are in 2 entirely different camps. Building control issues for instance, where a single use property has been converted into multiple dwellings without permission brings in the planning department.
You ask about freeholder or leasehold responsibilities. From a TRO perspective if a person harasses or illegally evicts a tenant, that is who we go after, regardless of whether they are freeholder or leaseholder. The main difference being that if a leaseholder landlord harasses their tenant, under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 their actions only have to be considered as being ‘Likely’ to cause the residential occupier to give up their accommodation, whereas the actions of a freeholder, otherwise legally unconnected with the tenant, would have to be proven, under the same legislation, as being carried out with the ‘Intent’ of causing the residential occupier to give up the premises. A subtle but hugely important point.
Councils do have powers to take over management of a poorly run property but you would be hard pressed to find a council who would invoke those powers. We don’t have the resources and who would manage it internally? What idiot would put their hand up haha