Unwanted guest.

[melissa2929291936]

My work sent me abroad for six months.I arranged to rent our home out to a "friend".She only paid two months rent but I let it slide until we returned.When we did come home,she refused to leave the house.The police said there was nothing they could do so myself,husband and two small children had to camp out at my mothers thirty miles away.After six weeks of this,and having tried every legal avenue,I went to our home after "friend"had left for work.I still had my keys so I entered and turned the water off at the stopcock.The stopcock is in a weird place,not where you'd expect,so I was pretty sure she didn't know its location.I then cancelled the broadband for the address.That night she had the nerve to phone me complaining.She said she had an infant,a toddler and no water.I informed her she could go to her own mother (who lived in the same street.)but the rental time in our written contract had passed and she hadn't even paid me for most of it.Cue tears,threats etc but,because I knew she had somewhere to go,I held my ground.Went round next day and she'd gone,although the place was trashed.I had the locks changed,cleared up and moved back in.Now she's bad mouthing me all over,saying I threw out a mother with young children.Her main gripe though seems to be the lack of broadband rather than water! I genuinely don't think i was in the wrong "throwing her out"_I knew she wouldn't be on the street.

Turning off services is considered to be a very bad act by the courts as people can't live without essential services.

Which is entirely the point. CF tenant had no moral right to live there, so if the cant remain without water, great. Objective achieved.

While I agree the Tenant has behaved very badly and I don’t blame OP for what she did I also think we can’t pick and choose which laws to obey just because it suits us

You'd probably be there delighted and cheering if the landlord was told they weren't entitled to help re homelessness wouldn't you!

Have you missed the bit about successful prosecutions for illegal eviction?

Who needs facts when you have moral outrage?

Yes the landlord may well meet the criteria for being homeless, but that doesn't mean a homelessness duty is owed them by the local authority. It depends upon whether they are a priority need, which in itself will depend upon whether there are dependents and/or a medical need such as depression or physical vulnerability.

I'm guessing that the LL would probably be told that she isn't legally entitled to be rehoused by the LA because she already owns a house - the same house that the same law under which the LA works has effectively assured to another freeloading person who may be otherwise homeless.

Worse, actually, because the now-homeless LL is still being forced to pay for another otherwise-homeless person's housing costs.

So I take it that, if the LL had not deliberately switched off any utilities - gas, electricity, broadband - but had had them cut off for non-payment (granted, couldn't legally happen with the water) - because the LL could no longer afford to pay for them owing to being forced to pay for another home for herself (after all, how many of us can easily afford to run two homes?) - she could be prosecuted for not being able to afford to run somebody else's home?

If there's a mortgage on the LL's property, which she can no longer afford to pay because she has now been forced by the (non-paying) tenant to pay a second time for housing for her own family, and thus defaults on, could the tenant sue her for this too? It's amazing how much in the way of facilities and guarantees you can buy with £0, isn't it?

Having been a landlord for over 25 years and knowing tenancy law, the op absolutely has illegally evicted the woman. Of course I desperately wanted to do the same when I evicted a non rent paying tenant through a court order. Whether or not this is op’s home and PPR is immaterial, the law remains the same for one house or 20 houses. Is it morally right that the woman could stay there? Absolutely not. But we aren’t talking about morals. Rather the law.

You'd probably be there delighted and cheering if the landlord was told they weren't entitled to help re homelessness wouldn't you!

It's certainly sounding that way.

Some people on this thread really do seem to think that, because there are very bad LLs out there, that must mean that everybody who ever rents out their house/home for however limited a period - even if they receive no rent for it - is a nasty evil person who deserves everything they get and more.

It would be hard to miss given the clear glee several posters are repeatedly telling the op that...
'You could go to JAIL for this'!!
'You will end up paying THOUSANDS in compensation to her for this'
While true, the grubby excitement from some posters with regards to this is telling.

OK, landlords approaches l/a as homeless. Says needs to access property and take up residence as returned from abroad. Homeless application completed, decision made on whether eligible, homeless and in priority need. If landlord starts process to gain possession of the property I would, quite probably, waive the requirements to obtain a possession order, take a homeless application from the tenant and process that application. I would consider the tenant to be threatened with homelessness immediately the notice is served. I would process that application as I would any other. If required I would offer the tenant temporary accommodation ( if I couldn't source another private rent). If the landlord was in priority need I would offer t/a until I could move the tenant on. I would, providing the notice had been served, use my best endeavours to ensure that neither party was unduly put out by the situation. Yes, I have done this in the past! But it would hinge on the landlord serving notice, a pro forma downloaded from the internet and completed correctly would suffice, and I would need an assurance that the landlord would cooperate and not harass the tenant. It does work if all parties are sensible.

BTW, I keep saying about the penalties because people need to understand them. There is no glee from my point of view, but my job for over 25 years was being a homeless officer and explaining legislation,if you don't like it, fine. But for some of us, we try to do just that. Explain.

Agreed.

"It would be hard to miss given the clear glee several posters are repeatedly telling the op that...
'You could go to JAIL for this'!!
'You will end up paying THOUSANDS in compensation to her for this'
While true, the grubby excitement from some posters with regards to this is telling."

And just bear in mind that a lot of people were advising the landlord to go after the tenants for some costs. That is why others were warning her of all of those things - to encourage her not to open the can of worms.

no glee here - I am a landlord who has had a tenant get into 3k arrears - it is the downside of being a landlord.

I just don't want the op to further compound her problems by getting a criminal record and a fine. If she does what some are suggesting and tries to sue her then that may happen

It's not glee, its abject horror that anyone could be such a cunt.

It is not a moral and right thing to break the law, to intimidate tenants, to break into their home and turn off their essential services. Who are you, Peter Fucking Rachman?

When they don't pay, not to mention overstay their terms, they're squatters not tenants.

Legally that's not true.

When you went in to turn off the water, you should have just changed the locks and been done with it then.

I know but I don't care. Morally it's true. The CF 'friend' had no moral claim to the house. But since unfortunately she has a legal claim, hopefully the OP didn't leave any evidence.

Whoever makes these stupid laws, where someone can just come in and take over your house so that the police ‘can’t do anything”, vote them out. Although they are probably installed not voted in, because who would vote for that?, and the voters ‘can’t do anything’ either.

The world is insane. I’m glad you’ve got your house back, how ridiculous the whole situation is.

Their home? Their essential services? You mean the home they don't pay for? The services they also don't pay for? In case you're forgetting (or are you one of the cheeky fuckers who thinks its acceptable to steal from others whilst living in their property rent-free) it's not morally right to not pay rent and utilities, either.

Legally-OP is in a very dubious spot. No doubt about that. This would likely classify as an illegal eviction. OP, don't chase for damages or rent arrears. Keep your head down, ignore the bad-mouthing and just be glad to have your property back.

However, on a human level, what OP did was understandable. Most would want to do the same given the circumstances. Unfortunately, the law is so unfairly weighted in the tenant's favour that it can end up costing LL's thousands to evict thieves and CFs.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws to protect tenants from rogue landlords either. There should, but as it stands, the pendulum seems to entirely in the tenant's court.

You're talking about the home trashing, free loader aren't you?....