PDA

View Full Version : Landlord enters property.



TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 10:41 AM
Need a bit of advice.

We have yet to give the landlord back the keys for our old property (as we havn't yet moved all of our stuff and cleaned the place up).

He served a section 21 on us a month ago. and our rent is paid to the 25th of this month.

My partner went to the property this morning to find the landlord getting out of his car and looking through the windows of the house.

He obviously saw that the house was almost empty and assumed we had vacated early. (We have but not officially).

And proceeded to enter the property via the front door. #

We collected yesterdays mail (No letter from him informing us of his intention to enter).

Is this against the law? If so what do we do about it?

Ericthelobster
09-04-2008, 10:54 AM
Is this against the law? If so what do we do about it?Yes it is... but what do you want to achieve? Evidently you aren't living at the property now I can't believe that trespassing (if that's all this is) can be all that appalling to you; but do you want all the aggravation of instigating legal proceedings against the landlord in order to see him get his come-uppance?

If not perhaps a straightforward letter reminding him of his responsibilities and asking him not to do it again might be the most appropriate way forward?

TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 11:12 AM
I was actually hoping to use it as leverage to get x3 my unprotected deposit back without instigating legal proceedings.

Colincbayley
09-04-2008, 11:35 AM
I was actually hoping to use it as leverage to get x3 my unprotected deposit back without instigating legal proceedings.

Wouldn't hold out for that too much, pursue him via the courts.

Paul_f
09-04-2008, 14:39 PM
Ha! if the deposit is unprotected and it should be, then the S.21 Notice is invalid. You would have to be a tenant to take your landlord to court so you will have to stay in the premises to instigate proceedings. By the way I disagree about not taking the landlord to court for trespass, as these people need to be "re-educated". (They manage to do it in China quite successfully I gather).

TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 15:22 PM
Ha! if the deposit is unprotected and it should be, then the S.21 Notice is invalid. You would have to be a tenant to take your landlord to court so you will have to stay in the premises to instigate proceedings. By the way I disagree about not taking the landlord to court for trespass, as these people need to be "re-educated". (They manage to do it in China quite successfully I gather).


He's actually repaid our deposit, when we told him we were going to take him to court.

He brought a section 21 notice round the day he paid it back and got me and my partner to sign it.

Then took it away with him. Not sure if this is standard practice or whether he should have left the notice with us?

On seeing that the property is empty I would assume he will now change the locks (at least thats what I am hoping, that way the police will actually become helpful for once.

jeffrey
09-04-2008, 15:28 PM
He's actually repaid our deposit, when we told him we were going to take him to court.

He brought a section 21 notice round the day he paid it back and got me and my partner to sign it.

Then took it away with him. Not sure if this is standard practice or whether he should have left the notice with us?

On seeing that the property is empty I would assume he will now change the locks (at least thats what I am hoping, that way the police will actually become helpful for once.

L clearly wanted your counter-signature (proving that the s.21 Notice was duly served on you)- but how do you know what it requires you to do if you have no copy of it?

Planner
09-04-2008, 15:49 PM
You would have to be a tenant to take your landlord to court

Where have you got that from?! They could equally be taken to court after the tenancy?!

TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 15:55 PM
Further Update.

My partners parents have just been to the property to pick up the rest of our stuff (in fear of L changuing locks) to be confronted by police who had been told there was a burglary in progress by the landlord.

Not sure what he's playing at?

jeffrey
09-04-2008, 16:07 PM
Further Update.

My partners parents have just been to the property to pick up the rest of our stuff (in fear of L changuing locks) to be confronted by police who had been told there was a burglary in progress by the landlord.

Not sure what he's playing at?

Do you mean that:
a. police told them (the parents) that there was a burglary by L; or
b. L told police that there was a burglary by them (the parents)?

TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 16:09 PM
B. landlord called the police and told them there was a burglary in progress.

jeffrey
09-04-2008, 16:16 PM
B. landlord called the police and told them there was a burglary in progress.

Tell police to prosecute L for wasting police time and/or conspiracy to pervert course of justice. If it's possible to prosecute the woman in West Yorkshire re Shannon Matthews, that's possible for your L too.

TerryCarter
09-04-2008, 16:20 PM
I think he was probably lodging his call with the police in an attempt to cover his back for unlwaful entry earlier today.

But still a keyholder can hardly be a burglar. He must have been watching the property (or have someone watching the property) as he lives nowhere near it and it is in a cul-de-sac not visible from the main road.

jeffrey
09-04-2008, 16:36 PM
Keyholder can be thief/burglar, if intending to appropriate property belonging to another, dishonestly and to deprive owner permanently.
See s.1 of Theft Act 1968.

Paul_f
10-04-2008, 07:56 AM
Where have you got that from?! They could equally be taken to court after the tenancy?!Read my post matey before showing your knowledge! You can't take a landlord to court after you have been the tenant in order to have it award the 3x the deposit for not placing it within the TDS

Colincbayley
10-04-2008, 08:01 AM
You can't take a landlord to court after you have been the tenant in order to have it award the 3x the deposit for not placing it within the TDS

Paul, Have I missed something?? Where in the 2004 housing act does it say that???????

kayak
10-04-2008, 08:12 AM
Regarding taking a LL to court after a tenancy has expired.

I know of someone who took a LL to court a few months after he had moved out of the property for 3x the deposit, plus the original deposit and through the online system and that was approved, no defence filed and a judgement approved for full payment direct to tenant.

It was settled out of court in the end so no warrant was ever filed.

All of this was done after the tenant had moved out of the property.

Kind regards,

John

Planner
10-04-2008, 08:15 AM
Paul, Have I missed something?? Where in the 2004 housing act does it say that???????

Thats what I was getting at.... It doesnt!!!

Colincbayley
10-04-2008, 08:20 AM
Thats what I was getting at.... It doesnt!!!

That's what I thought, But Paul_f knows his stuff, perhaps he is aware of something that we are not?

Planner
10-04-2008, 08:26 AM
That's what I thought, But Paul_f knows his stuff, perhaps he is aware of something that we are not?

Ohhhhh I love guessing games!!

Colincbayley
10-04-2008, 08:29 AM
Well i'm not going to guess, I have just had another look and I can not find any reference in the act stating that the tenancy must still be in place!

Planner
10-04-2008, 08:32 AM
Well i'm not going to guess, I have just had another look and I can not find any reference in the act stating that the tenancy must still be in place!

I think its this;

214 (1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—

To that I would say - I think its quite odd that if I paid my own deposit then I couldn’t take the LL to court after the end of the AST but if my friend "Mr Ben Dover" had paid the deposit for me then he has a "relevant person" could.

Could one person not be both the tenant and a relevant person?

For example I Planner am going to rent a property. I pay my deposit and then during the tenancy I find out that there’s been non-compliance with TDS. I would therefore make a claim as the "tenant" for compliance. I would still be the "tenant" as I would still be living at, paying rent for and holding an AST for said property.

At the end of my tenancy, if I noticed non-compliance, would I then not be treated as a "relevant person"? Planner, who paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant who incidentally happened to be me (Planner)? What would preclude this?

Colincbayley
10-04-2008, 08:35 AM
It just could be!
Mr Ben Dover.