PDA

View Full Version : Question relating to breach by Tenants



cheshirelandlord
23-09-2011, 11:31 AM
Hi,

I've a domestic (family) property rented out to Tenants on an assured 2 yr tenancy. I have found out that they are running an online business from the house and are storing stock all stock at the property with numerous delivery vans visiting on a daily basis (in a country area, neighboured by retirement homes). The Tenancy Agreement does not permit running a property from the house.

They also have two dogs living on the property which is not permitted in the TA either.

My solicitor has issued a section 8 notice on grounds 12,14 & 17. However my solicitor has advised that these grounds are discretionary and if the judge permitted them to stay that I may be liable for their legal costs! Does anyone have any experience or views on this??

Also, I was wondering whether the Tenants would need a licence to conduct a business from a rented domestic property??

Snorkerz
23-09-2011, 11:55 AM
Your solicitor is correct, however imho the judge would see that you had due cause to apply to the court, so even if he refused your application, I suspect he would not award costs. He could, but I suspect he won't.

No license is required to run a business, but it may contravene planning permission and necessitate business rates. If you can prove it breaches planning requirements then it would severely strengthen your claim under ground 12. Have there been complaints from the neighbours regarding the activity? From the info you provide, I can not see why your solicitor has used grounds 17.

jjlandlord
23-09-2011, 13:27 PM
Agree with Snorkerz.
From description of the situation I'm guessing that some parts of the properties are liable for business rate instead of council tax.


From the info you provide, I can not see why your solicitor has used grounds 17.

Idem.
Perhaps T said he had no pet when he obviously has.

cheshirelandlord
23-09-2011, 16:24 PM
The reason for Ground 17 was due to the tenant informing the agent that they wanted an office in the property, however when the property was inspected it was packed to the rafters with stock (which has void my LL's insurance!) and the tenant said that they didn't need a storage facility any more as they now had a rented house large enough.

The tenant did not make anyone aware of the animals and even signed the TA stating no animals.

Snorkerz
23-09-2011, 17:36 PM
Have there been complaints from the neighbours regarding the activity? IMHO the ground 17 claim is weak, but if the others are strong enough then it can but help your success. You didn't answer this one though.

cheshirelandlord
23-09-2011, 19:10 PM
IMHO the ground 17 claim is weak, but if the others are strong enough then it can but help your success. You didn't answer this one though.

There haven't been formal complaints from the neighbours, however I think they will as one of them has mentioned the number of delivery vans coming and going to a friend of mine a couple of times recently...knowing what they're like they probably will. I won't mind either, as it will reinforce the argument if it goes to court.

Think I already mentioned that they have invalidated my Landlord Insurance.

Snorkerz
23-09-2011, 19:41 PM
If you claimed g14 when it was just a perceived problem, then I think that is quite weak too - in fact the judge may see it as merely an attempt to avoid the notice requirements of the other 2 grounds.

Putting your business head on for a moment. If you were to raise the problems with your tenant, and agree to lift the ban on business/pets in exchange for - say increased rent to cover increased insurance & wear/tear, could this solve the problem? You have already spent unnecessary money on a solicitor, and will no douby have much more expense together with re-letting fees and lack of rent if there is a void. Solving the problem without eviction would seem to me to make better financial sense.

islandgirl
24-09-2011, 10:16 AM
just a personal opinion but I think that you are very unlikely to gain possession on these grounds. Judges generally side with tenants. You should have been warned about this by your Solicitor. The suggestion above is excellent - good luck whatever you decide to do

cheshirelandlord
25-09-2011, 13:14 PM
I realise that the law seems one sided towards the tenant, however to think that a tenant can clearly breach what's contained in a TA and potentially get away with it is ludicrous in my opinion. If it does go to court and the judge sides in their favour then I don't think I will let it stop there...

bhaal
25-09-2011, 13:32 PM
I realise that the law seems one sided towards the tenant, however to think that a tenant can clearly breach what's contained in a TA and potentially get away with it is ludicrous in my opinion. If it does go to court and the judge sides in their favour then I don't think I will let it stop there...

You mean that you'd appeal (because anything else would be illegal and probably a criminal offence)?

theartfullodger
25-09-2011, 13:57 PM
IMHO law is not biased in favour of Tenant, if anything in favour of Landlord - note S21.

Appreciate your problems, no consolations but I've arguably had worse
.

Good luck and careful not to give Tenant harassment grounds - you last post a little concerning.

Snorkerz
25-09-2011, 14:18 PM
I can not understand why you are hell-bent on 'fixing' the tenant (who is paying you good money) and not fixing the problem. What do you see as the major problems (other than the insurance - I've made a suggestion on that)?

cheshirelandlord
25-09-2011, 15:12 PM
You mean that you'd appeal (because anything else would be illegal and probably a criminal offence)?

Ofcourse that's what I meant bhaal, I would always play by the rules.

Snorkerz; on the contrary, the Tenant took the property on as a residential home, and then proceeded to move their business from a secure rented 'business' facility and put it in my house saving them considerable money.

My quiet residential home is now a home, office, warehouse facilty and distribution centre rolled into one. I think I have a right to feel peeved about it.

theartfullodger
25-09-2011, 15:40 PM
Is there an argument that this is now no longer an AST but a commercial tenancy and this may give you other rights??

Not an area I know owt about, might be worth talking to a (very...) specialized solicitor.

It would be reprehensible of me to suggest letting customers & suppliers know of the dubious & dodgy nature of doing business with a bare-faced liar so I won't mention it.

Snorkerz
25-09-2011, 18:13 PM
Snorkerz; on the contrary, the Tenant took the property on as a residential home, and then proceeded to move their business from a secure rented 'business' facility and put it in my house saving them considerable money. This is not unusual, it is a sign of recession, businesses need to save money if they are to have any hope of survival.


My quiet residential home is now a home, office, warehouse facilty and distribution centre rolled into one. I think I have a right to feel peeved about it.It is not your quiet residential home. It is your business asset. 'Feelings' are one thing, but from your business point of view, has this affected you financially? Indeed, does my above comment about keeping the business going mean that because of their 'savings' they can afford to ensure you get your rent?


It would be reprehensible of me to suggest letting customers & suppliers know of the dubious & dodgy nature of doing business with a bare-faced liar so I won't mention it.Damaging the business is only going to damage the tenants ability to pay rent.

jjlandlord
25-09-2011, 18:57 PM
The reason for Ground 17 was due to the tenant informing the agent that they wanted an office in the property, however when the property was inspected it was packed to the rafters with stock (which has void my LL's insurance!

If T asked to use part of the property as office and you agreed, surely you will have trouble claiming that using the property for business is in breach of agreement, or that they deceived you when negotiating the tenancy.

I agree with Snorkerz that unless there are more serious issues it seems that business-wise the best route is to get T to cover all extra costs (plus some extra profit, why not) that you could face instead of going straight to eviction.

45002
25-09-2011, 19:15 PM
If you claimed g14 when it was just a perceived problem, then I think that is quite weak too - in fact the judge may see it as merely an attempt to avoid the notice requirements of the other 2 grounds.

Putting your business head on for a moment. If you were to raise the problems with your tenant, and agree to lift the ban on business/pets in exchange for - say increased rent to cover increased insurance & wear/tear, could this solve the problem? You have already spent unnecessary money on a solicitor, and will no douby have much more expense together with re-letting fees and lack of rent if there is a void. Solving the problem without eviction would seem to me to make better financial sense.

What a Brilliant idea :(clap):

islandgirl
25-09-2011, 19:24 PM
anyone can register a business at your property - they do not need permission, If you object companies house will do absolutely nothing - it has happened to me! I don't see that there is that much to be peeved about. Do you want business rates to be charged? If not keeping quiet may be the best option!