Here is a question to the blog clinic from Andrew (not his real name) who is a tenant
I have signed 12-month tenancy agreement. The day before we were due to move in the landlord informs us that the current tenants have changed the locks and refusing to leave. The wife is pregnant so there is no chance of being evicted soon.
We have already committed to move out of our current accommodation and are now homeless.
Can I sue the landlord for breach of contract?
Answer
Short answer: Yes.
In most cases the landlord will have no defence to a breach of contract claim. You have made a binding legal agreement with the landlord for accommodation in exchange for the payment of rent. The landlord has failed to deliver and so is liable under the contract.
The landlord’s liability to you
If the landlord can’t honour his side of the bargain then you are entitled to sue him for
- Any extra costs incurred by you for accommodation and
- General damages for stress and inconvenience
So that means that if you are able to find somewhere else to live but it is £200 pm more expensive than the property you had signed for – the landlord is liable to pay that £200 per month to you (for the fixed term) as it is a loss you have suffered as a result of his breach of contract.
The landlord will also be liable for the additional (reasonable) cost of any hotel accommodation if it takes you a while to find accommodation. Plus the cost of storage of your possessions in the meantime.
But check the tenancy agreement you have signed first. It may have a clause in it making your tenancy conditional upon vacant possession being given up by the outgoing tenants.
Even if it does, though, that may not be effective against someone who has actually rendered themselves homeless by relying on the landlord’s assurance that the accommodation will be available to them.
The outgoing tenants rights
Note by the way that the outgoing tenants are perfectly entitled, legally, to stay in the property. All tenants can stay in the property until evicted by the court bailiffs (or High Court Sheriffs) under a Court Order for possession.
This is why it is unwise for landlords to sign a tenancy agreement with a new tenant until they have vacant possession of the property.
Existing tenants are not entitled to change the locks though Tessa, are they? Why did they do that I wonder did someone threaten them?
Why not? Are locks magical? Do the tenants not rent the locks, like they do any other part of the property? Are the locks destroyed by their removal?
I suspect you mean ‘ I wish the existing tenants are not entitled to change the locks…’
They are entitled to change the locks if the tenancy agreement does not forbid it.
Even if the tenancy agreement does forbid it there is not a lot the landlord can do about it (other than make a claim for new locks from the deposit).
Ineed but the lock change seemed to be taken as said. In 25 years I have never seen an agreement, even the worst ever, that did not forbid changing locks.
The style and layout of the Blog has now adopted the Painsmith style is there any reason for that (by all means delete this from post but could you email me separately on it if so)
Regards
Mike Edwards
At Christmas I changed the WordPress Theme from Headway themes to a StudioPress theme (running on the Genesis platform). As you can see in the footer (unless you are reading this several years down the line after I have changed the theme again) you will see a reference to this and the name of the theme – Metro Pro theme.
I have a feeling that the Pain Smith blog is on WordPress.com.
I changed it as I think it is a good idea to refresh the appearance of the site from time to time. Like redecorating a house or changing the style of a magazine.
You may be referring to several new features we now have, such as the follow-up notifications – this is due to the Jetpack plugin which I am now using and which I think is also used on WordPress.com.
Being interested in techy things I do tend to tweak the blog from time to time. A harmless occupation that hurts no-one …
Whether the existing tenants are entitled to remain at the property depends on whether they are still in fact tenants.
E.g. if they gave a valid notice to quit which has now expired then they have no right to remain.
You still need to get a court order to get them out though. On the other hand, the landlord can claim the double rent. http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/12/01/ancient-law-may-help-landlords/
I haven’t found any law that mandates a court order in that case although clearly that would be the safest route.
It would be the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
As Industry Observer points out we dont know why the tenants changed the locks, leaving an open question mark over the back story. They may have done it because the landlord lets themselves in without permission, a common complaint, or they may have simply done it when they moved in to prevent access by former tenants with a set of keys, a perfectly wise precaution.
If the wife is pregnant then they could be liable for homelessness assistance as long as they are eligible for it.
It may be the case that the homelessness unit have advised that they would be intentionally homeless if they gave up accommodation that was available to them. The reason I mention these possibilities is to underpin a question of my own. If the incoming tenants can sue the landlord can the landlord then sue the existing tenants for screwing up his planes to re-let?
I think the landlord would have an uphill job making the outgoing tenants liable. They are after all acting perfectly legally in remaining at the property.
However if they knew that the incoming tenants were due to arrive and had failed to notify the landlord in sufficient time that they were not moving out it is possible that there could be an estoppel argument.
Well, we don’t know if the existing tenant is acting lawfully by remaining at the property.
So what are student landlord meant to do? Given that students sign up in the middle of the year for the neat years housing.
I have a special tenancy agreement available to Landlord Law members which deals with this issue (insofar as it can be dealt with).
Essentially the student tenants are notified of the problem and told that if they do not notify the landlord that they wish to remain by a specified time (and the landlord signs up with new tenants after warning them first) they will be responsible for any claim made by the incoming tenants and their rent will go up if they don’t leave on time.
Given that the existing student tenants rights under Statute outweigh anything a Landlords puts in their contract how can existing tenants be made liable for problems caused by them acting within their legal rights?
I’d like to know the answer to IO’s question aswell.
And I always change the locks. Tenants – you’re best off doing as soon as you move in, and while you’re in a fixed term. If the landlord queries this, first ask them how they know the lock has been changed? Then ask them what they were they were even doing trying to let themselves in? Then mention that word “trespass” and suggest that your peace of mind extends to not giving out copies. After all, any emergencies in the flat and you – the tenant – will be the first to know about them. If the landlord insists on having a copy you might like to post them a spare that doesn’t work just to get them off your case.
If you’re out of fixed term, be careful. Retaliatory eviction can be the ‘payback’ for standing up to landlords.
You may get into trouble if something happens in the property (your dishwasher springs a leak) while you are out and the landlord (alerted by your downstairs neighbour) is unable to access the property to prevent further damage (turn off the water). It happens.
If the landlord uses a normal tenancy agreement then yes, there will be nothing the landlord can do about it.
However if the tenants are given an opportunity to sign up for a further year but decline to do so, and are aware that the landlord is signing up with new students to come into the property for the next academic year (as is normal in student lets) – but then, knowing that the landlord will suffer loss and the incoming students will have nowhere to live – decide to exercise their legal right to remain – then the landlord has a good chance of making them liable for any losses they incur.
Its all a question of reasonableness and fairness.
If the matter went to court, the Judge would have to decide, of course, (and could still find against the landlord) – but with this agreement, the landlord has a greater chance of success.
Beelbeebub is right and this is the real key. Rent Rebel I assume you don’t mind paying for a new door if entry has to be forced to cure leak problems etc? To be honest I am amazed you manage to rent anywhere if you are a persistent lock changer. i wouldn’t rent to anyone whose reference said they did this – or that they breached any other covenants.
The position is clear – unless allowed to by th landlord, if it is a decent quality agreement, the tenant cannot change the locks. What else can he do that the agreement says he can’t but does just because he feels like it – keep animals, grow cannabis, play music at 0300 every night.
Tessa the answer is simple – only ever rent initially for 6 months and serve s21 after 4 months on any tenant who persists in actions the Landlord warns thm they shouldn’t. It is the tenants home – but the Landlord’s property.
If there’s a leak I will know about it first. I live there, see. And I always replace the original lock when I’m leaving the tenancy. On the rest I’m afraid you’re wrong – as has been discussed here on this blog at great length before. Your last line was worthy of a klaxon. I won’t be bullied by people like you.
Rent Rebel you name yourself well. Only person wrong in this thread is you.
Let’s assume you risk leaving the property – for fear of the Landlord breaking in – for two weeks for a foreign holiday.
And as stated there is a leak and water is affecting the neighbouring prperty.
It’s OK then for access to be gained with any associated costs for damage, lock replacement etc being willingly paid by you is it? What nonesense you spout from a purely personal perspective. Everyone else here is trying to discuss the Law and rights, not tenants taking it into their own hands- which you appear to be a serial offender in doing.
By the way have a look at s11(6) Landlord and tenant Act 1985 and the similar provisions in 1988 Act giving Landlords right of access under certain conditions.
I have published this post and Rent Rebels post in full rather against my better judgement as they contained legal points.
However please note that any further personal comments about other people posting on the blog will be deleted, that’s assuming I decide to post the comment at all. Rent Rebel this means you. This blog is for discussing the law not personalities.
It’s a risk that I take IO. But it’s never happened. I want peace of mind and changing the locks gives me that.
Landlords will, when it suits them, talk of the urgency of repairs. And they will insist on holding keys. Tenants must ‘know their place’. When they defend themselves landlords regularly get personal. Slurs are common. That happened here in this thread. But if tenants do the same.. it’s a very predictable pattern.
Quite risk though Rent Rebel as if you start off on a 6 month fixed term start of month 5 you are likely to get a s21 notice and all for a personal preference you actually have no legal or contractual right to enforce.