tenant not paying rent can landlord move back?

estee11

I would like to ask specific question whether landlord who rents out his property and the tenants stops paying the rent is refusing to move out, can this landlord claim the access to property (it is his only property) and then return to live in this property to minimize his losses and not being homeless and until situation is resolved stay in his house?

davo2001

No

windmilllane

I would have said yes providing you give the correct notice. If not there is something seriously wrong with law

L1011

windmilllane wrote: »

I would have said yes providing you give the correct notice. If not there is something seriously wrong with law

The tenant is refusing to leave currently; so they're likely to refuse to leave even with valid notice.

senordingdong

You can evict if you need the property for yourself/family member.

But thread carefully.

jimmycrackcorm

L1011 wrote:

The tenant is refusing to leave currently; so they're likely to refuse to leave even with valid notice.

That's not to say they won't though so it it's the best course of action to give notice ASAP

antoinolachtnai

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's not to say they won't though so it it's the best course of action to give notice ASAP

No.

You cannot interfere with the tenant's possession without a court order.

Have you rented them the full house or just rented the rooms separately?

If its the full house then you need to follow the correct procedure for eviction if its just a room there is nothing in theory stopping you from moving into one of the other spare rooms immediately.

Michael D Not Higgins

Santana Embarrassed Cracker wrote: »

Have you rented them the full house or just rented the rooms separately?

If its the full house then you need to follow the correct procedure for eviction if its just a room there is nothing in theory stopping you from moving into one of the other spare rooms immediately.

OP this is extremely dodgy legally and I wouldn't advise it.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

OP this is extremely dodgy legally and I wouldn't advise it.

How so?

If he rents rooms separately it would mean that he can move any other person on the planet that he chooses into the free room except from himself? That does not hold any water as far as I'm concerned nor is there anything to contradict what I'm saying.

Just to clarify I'm not saying he could move into a spare room in a house which he has rented in full to the tenant, but if he has just rented him a room and the tenant pays rent for one room then what is going to prevent the LL doing as he wants with the others?

jimmycrackcorm

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You cannot interfere with the tenant's possession without a court order.

What are you on about? I just said the landlord is fully entitled to serve the proper notice that he needs to end the tenancy for his own use.

And he should serve that notice.

dubrov

You can also serve an eviction notice for non-payment of rent.
That doesn't mean they would move out though.

If the question is based on a real story, I am afraid it is very bad news for the landlord if the tenants have a lease.

Michael D Not Higgins

Santana Embarrassed Cracker wrote: »

How so?

Moving in would automatically terminate their tenancy and start a licence arrangement (since they'd be living with the landlord). This is not one of the allowed ways to terminate a tenancy in the Act, as per Section 33.

Mrs OBumble

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What are you on about? I just said the landlord is fully entitled to serve the proper notice that he needs to end the tenancy for his own use.

And he should serve that notice.

You can serve as many notices as you want. But that doesn't mean the tenants will take any notice of them.

3DataModem

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Santana Embarrassed Cracker wrote: »

How so?

Moving in would automatically terminate their tenancy and start a licence arrangement (since they'd be living with the landlord). This is not one of the allowed ways to terminate a tenancy in the Act, as per Section 33.

Unless the tenant accepts it

antoinolachtnai

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What are you on about? I just said the landlord is fully entitled to serve the proper notice that he needs to end the tenancy for his own use.

And he should serve that notice.

A notice is just notice. The tenant is refusing to move out. The OP can serve notices until he is blue in the face.

That was not the OP's question which was very specific. Without a court order the OP cannot legally take the proposed steps and he will be in big trouble if he does.

Serving notice isn't interfering with possession.

DubCount

OP. If you have not been living in the property, and the tenant has been in the property for over 6 months, then they have tenant rights - even if they are not paying rent, and even if the landlord wants the property for their own use.

You can, and should serve notice to end the tenancy (based on either non-payment of rent or wanting the property for your own use). You should use the template documents on the RTB website. It is almost certain that the tenant will stay in the property past the date on the notice - this is called "overholding".

After the notice period expires, you need to take a case for overholding and non-payment of rent to the RTB. Assuming everything was done perfectly, they will find in your favour. The tenant will then almost certainly appeal the decision, and after another RTB hearing, you will need to go to court to enforce the RTB determination. Finally, after getting a court order, you can get the baliffs to regain possession of the property.

If that sounds like a lot of time and money - it is. Probably 18 months. If you take possession any other way, its an illegal eviction and the RTB can fine you up to 20k.

It sucks, but that is the system we have until some politicians change it....sorry

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Moving in would automatically terminate their tenancy and start a licence arrangement (since they'd be living with the landlord). This is not one of the allowed ways to terminate a tenancy in the Act, as per Section 33.

If there are other rooms available for rent in the house you are saying the owner can move any other person of the 7.5 billion people on the planet into the spare room but not himself or presumably his son/daughter (which would be even crazier if he couldn't). Sorry but that doesn't wash with me, we have had this discussed on threads before and no one could come up with a concrete rule or example that's says a property owner cannot avail of a spare room that's available for rent in a house where he rents out rooms seperately. As I said it's obviously totally different if the tenant rents the full house but if the tenant only rents a room he has no exclusive use of the house anyway so cannot claim any such reason for the property owner not moving in.

Michael D Not Higgins

Section 33 of the RTA 2004.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Section 33 of the RTA 2004.

Where does it say the LL cannot "rent" a room that has become vacant to himself? He can pull any randomer off daft, give them a key and let them move in, remember the other people have no say whatsoever if they are renting rooms only. If he can do this there is no logical reason he cannot move himself in. The people renting the other rooms have no exclusive use of the house nor have they any say in who else moves in or out.

This is why its argued by many that they are not tenants at all but licensees but that's still a grey area.

__Alex__

If housemates have a lease, they are not licensees. Even if there is a spare room in the house.

Michael D Not Higgins

Santana Embarrassed Cracker wrote: »

Where does it say the LL cannot "rent" a room that has become vacant to himself? He can pull any randomer off daft, give them a key and let them move in, remember the other people have no say whatsoever if they are renting rooms only. If he can do this there is no logical reason he cannot move himself in. The people renting the other rooms have no exclusive use of the house nor have they any say in who else moves in or out.

This is why its argued by many that they are not tenants at all but licensees but that's still a grey area.

The RTB do not support your interpretation of them as licensees, as has been demonstrated in tribunal and court decisions repeatedly to you.

The accepted definition from those outcomes is renting the room exclusively with non-exclusive use of shared facilities like bathroom and kitchen constitutes the self-contained residential unit. A dwelling is defined in the RTA as this same self-contained residential unit (Section 4). The RTA doesn't apply to dwellings shared with the landlord (Section 3). Therefore, moving into a room in the dwelling removes the tenant from the remit of the RTA and thus would terminate the tenancy in a manner not allowed by the RTA (Section 33).

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The RTB do not support your interpretation of them as licensees, as has been demonstrated in tribunal and court decisions repeatedly to you.

The accepted definition from those outcomes is renting the room exclusively with non-exclusive use of shared facilities like bathroom and kitchen constitutes the self-contained residential unit. A dwelling is defined in the RTA as this same self-contained residential unit (Section 4). The RTA doesn't apply to dwellings shared with the landlord (Section 3). Therefore, moving into a room in the dwelling removes the tenant from the remit of the RTA and thus would terminate the tenancy in a manner not allowed by the RTA (Section 33).

It's still inconclusive as far as I'm concerned particularly as the RTB have ruled that it was the case in one of their rulings in the past.

That was only an aside though the point was that if a property owner rents out rooms on an individual basis to people where they only pay for a room and non-exclusive use of common areas then there is absolutely no evidence to say that when a person moves out leaving a vacant room that the owner cannot move himself or a family member in rather than find a random person from daft, notice board, work, through a friend, down the pub etc etc.

It is a bit of a paradox I'll give you that but I cannot see how anyone on the planet bar the owner can be moved into a room it would be bordering on the bizarre.

If a LL keeps a room from himself and uses it occasionally he has right to access the house and right to sleep in the room yet plenty will argue that the people are still tenants in this scenario (I would think they are not but that's beside the point). This is really no different to what we are discussing but its something that's more common.

Michael D Not Higgins

The RTB and the courts look at the facts of the individual cases. If the landlord is not using the room and then wants to move in, two things can happen: the tenant can agree or disagree. If they disagree, then they can take an RTB dispute where they are likely to find the tenancy cannot be terminated in that way. If they agree, then the landlord would have to issue a notice of termination for their own use with the required notice period (shortened by agreement with the tenant perhaps) then the tenancy can end and the landlord can move in. They can then set up a licence agreement with the former tenant for them to rent a room in the landlord's home. These are the two legal methods of the situation happening.

Sure, there's probably situations where the proper process doesn't happen and everyone's happy anyway, but the OP is asking about a tenant who won't move out and won't pay rent. The tenant cannot be evicted by forceful means without exhausting the legal avenues and forcing the tenant into a licensee situation is something the RTB are likely to look very poorly on, despite the bad behaviour of the tenant in the lead up.

Graces7

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The RTB and the courts look at the facts of the individual cases. If the landlord is not using the room and then wants to move in, two things can happen: the tenant can agree or disagree. If they disagree, then they can take an RTB dispute where they are likely to find the tenancy cannot be terminated in that way. If they agree, then the landlord would have to issue a notice of termination for their own use with the required notice period (shortened by agreement with the tenant perhaps) then the tenancy can end and the landlord can move in. They can then set up a licence agreement with the former tenant for them to rent a room in the landlord's home. These are the two legal methods of the situation happening.

Sure, there's probably situations where the proper process doesn't happen and everyone's happy anyway, but the OP is asking about a tenant who won't move out and won't pay rent. The tenant cannot be evicted by forceful means without exhausting the legal avenues and forcing the tenant into a licensee situation is something the RTB are likely to look very poorly on, despite the bad behaviour of the tenant in the lead up.

I am confused. Is nox actually saying that a landlord "should" actually just walk in to a house he has leased to a person or family then claim they are simply licencees?

So if my landlord chose he could just walk in here and go to bed in the spare room?

Mrs OBumble

Graces7 wrote: »

I am confused. Is nox actually saying that a landlord "should" actually just walk in to a house he has leased to a person or family then claim they are simply licencees?

So if my landlord chose he could just walk in here and go to bed in the spare room?

Different scenario.

You have rented the house.

Nox is talking about when the lease is just for a bedroom and use if shared facilities.

Graces7

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Different scenario.

You have rented the house.

Nox is talking about when the lease is just for a bedroom and use if shared facilities.

OK so what connection has that to do with the OP?

liquoriceall

Op the most likely easiest and cheapest solution for you here is to pay them to get out. It may gall you and it is wrong but the PRTB have made it nigh on impossible for landlords to get rid of tenants without going to the wall themselves in the 18 months the procedure will take that it is prudent to try paying them to leave

The_Conductor

liquoriceall wrote: »

Op the most likely easiest and cheapest solution for you here is to pay them to get out. It may gall you and it is wrong but the PRTB have made it nigh on impossible for landlords to get rid of tenants without going to the wall themselves in the 18 months the procedure will take that it is prudent to try paying them to leave

The RTB are now prioritising these cases (given how many of them are arising).
Typically it now takes 4-6 weeks to have such cases heard- and a determination issued. However- the tenant can just ignore the determination- which then forces the landlord to go to the District court for an order of possession- which the court won't even entertain- unless the landlord has first followed the RTB processes and procedures. Once there is an order of possession- the tenant can continue to ignore it- until the Sheriff is appointed to enforce possession of the property- all told- the process is now a 6-7 month exercise- where up until recently it took anything between 12-18 months. Its an improvement- its still not good enough- but its going in the right direction.

The course of least resistence- is to offer the tenant a payday to vacate the property- depends on the area- however, I've personally handed one tenant 3k in cash to leave the property, hand the keys to me on their way out the door- and never darken my horizons ever again. Obviously- I immediately called a locksmith and had all the locks changed- costing another 272 quid.

It is galling that the quickest- and cheapest- option is probably to give the tenant a cash inducement- however, the entire system is setup to protect the tenant- at all costs- and not the landlord. At all costs- includes whether or not they pay their rent.........

The salt in the wound- is you can't claim the 'inducement' as a 'cost' in your rental return- aka- its from your net income- a 3k cash inducement costs you 6k in rental income............

estee11

My question has been answered. Thanks.

allibastor

Similar problem myself!!

Still no sign of moving out, 28 day notice issued and ignored.


Question, can a landlord enter the house once they have a key? I often think of just turning up as a repair issue was said before Christmas that has not been fixed. Could I just call in??