No notice, because “it’s my house”!

Reply to the comment left by Art at 12/06/2018 - 22:17
Hi Art

You've said that you had a tenancy, but no written tenancy agreement, just a letter confirming that you rent the property and have permission to sub-let. - As I have not seen these documents, I cannot comment upon them.

You say that the house was in good condition when you started renting it, apart from some flaking paint, but you quickly became aware that the house had damp issues, and in your words was uninhabitable. Certainly by the time the owner regained possession, there were quite a few repairs needed, but I cannot comment as to which repairs you could be held liable for (i.e. that you should pay compensation to your landlord for), or that the landlord could be held liable for. - If you only stayed there occasionally then perhaps some of the damage was caused by your lodgers when you were not there?

You say that you only stayed there occasionally, and stored some possessions there, so presumably you had a home somewhere else, and never really lived at this "uninhabitable" property (i.e. resided their as your "home").

You say that you "sub-let" the property to other people (though you have not said how many), or when you started doing this. You say that you issued these residents with a "lodger agreement". Again we have not seen the agreements so cannot comment on these, other than saying that as you were not living there yourself, i.e. "you only stayed there occasionally", then a lodger agreement was probably not the correct document as you had really sub-let the property and created individual room tenancies (by default, these would have been Assured Shorthold Tenancies, even if the documents purported to be "Lodger Agreements").

By sub-letting the property, you became the landlord to your tenants (what you refer to as "lodgers"), and as such you became liable to them, e.g. for repairs etc, in the same way as your landlord would have been liable to you, if you had actually been residing there.

I accept that your landlord should have followed correct procedures, e.g. protected your deposit, served you with Notice, etc, however, it is my opinion that if you were not actually residing there (as you had a home elsewhere) then there can be no unlawful eviction. Also, if your landlord let the property to you knowing that you were not going to be actually living there yourself, and that you intended to sub-let the property, then this could get into the realms of a commercial/business lease arrangement, in which case the legalities of what the landlord should or should not have done may be entirely different.

If your landlord has taken your possessions and not given you the opportunity to collect them, then there could perhaps be a claim for compensation, however, the video makes it clear that the landlord did ask you to remove your possessions and you refused to do so. You have also stated that some of the possessions left in the house were not yours, they belonged to your "lodgers". Likewise, you are under a legal duty to protect your "lodgers" possessions and give them a reasonable opportunity to collect them from you.

Reply to the comment left by Art at 12/06/2018 - 22:21
You have mentioned somewhere about only owing the landlord 8 days rent arrears, but elsewhere you've mentioned that you stopped paying rent in April, because of the repairs that needed doing. Which is correct? (or how can they both be correct?)

The fact that your tenants/lodgers owed you money is irrelevant to the situation between you and your landlord. What sort of Notice did you serve on your tenants/lodgers?

The house appeared to be in good condition when I first rented it. However it had major damp and a leaking kitchen ceiling. None of which was evident at the time but came to light later. It was masked by newly plaster and painted walls. The council were waiting for the landlord to supply them with a damp proof certificate which of course he could not do as he had not damp proofed it.
He called a damp specialist while I was there who told him the outside of the house ground level was above the inside so would need tanking from outside then damp injections and hacking off 1m all around and re render with waterproof additive. He told him to just do the damp injections.

I cannot be held liable for any of the repairs as I got him to have a good look around in April and sign the letter which stated I would get my full deposit back with no deductions.

There is no damage that is caused by a person. Just damp issues and leaking kitchen roof.

I was resident there just not all the time as I was away on other work 20 miles away.

Just because it was not my full time residence does not mean it was not my residence.

It would not be a commercial lease. It was signed up as a six month short hold which is what it was

Reply to the comment left by Robert Mellors at 13/06/2018 - 11:47
I did not stop paying in April. I refused to pay unless he signed the paper confirming in writing our agreement. He signed and I paid.

I served the notice on the lodgers as stated in the lodger agreement.
They paid weekly. The agreement said two unpaid periods terminates the agreement.
They signed a paper confirming they agreed to leave after 7 days.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 10/06/2018 - 22:11
If rent payments have stopped and furniture and possessions removed, this is NOT conducive with wishing to continue with a tenancy but IS conducive with surrender by operation of law.

Reply to the comment left by Mandy Thomson at 19/06/2018 - 12:13
Try that on with a Judge...especially when the tenant is saying he very much did still use/want to use the property. County Court Judge's want simplicity.

Reply to the comment left by Mandy Thomson at 19/06/2018 - 12:13
He had told me back in April, when he signed the letter that he wanted me to move out ASAP. I told him I would move out once I have another place to move to.
I paid the April rent on 11th April (date of signing the agreement). I paidi him once he signed it.
I paid the 1st May rent and got a signed receipt for it. All rent payments were up to date.
I did not pay the 1st June rent as I was in the process of moving out. I told him on 2nd June that I would be moving out shortly and he needed to pay my deposit back.
I told him that everyone was moving out shortly and I would then clean up and give him the house back in a good clean condition. I still had some of my belongings there, when he changed the locks.
I certainly had not abandoned or surrender the property, as I had told him I was leaving soon. This could be considered to be verbal notice to leave, however, that makes it EVEN MORE unreasonable to change the locks.
He said I did not have permission to change the locks. However I had a good reason to: He had just entered my property without my permission and turned on the central heating many times. When I confronted him about this at the time - he flatly denied it. Hence I changed the locks, which is reasonable to do so for me to do so.
None of this makes it reasonable for him to drill the locks and take possession without notice.
The rent was up to date as he still had my deposit and could just deduct the 10 days rent from the deposit. I did not require to give him notice as he simply wanted possession as soon as possible. The only reason I had not paid it was because I intended to move out.
If he had not changed the locks I was going to give him possession within a fews days anyway.

Reply to the comment left by Teddy at 11/06/2018 - 23:37“The Protection from Eviction Act only applies to residential occupiers and not to those who have cease to live at a dwelling.”
I believe you'll find the Protection From Eviction Act extends to common law tenancies. Licences (e.g. typical lodger room agreement) are excluded. I can't see anything within the Act that excludes a landlord who doesn't live in the property or only lives there part time.
Part 1, section 1 of the Act states, "(1) In this section 'residential occupier', in relation to any premises, means a person occupying the premises as a residence, whether under a contract or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of any other person to recover possession of the premises [my italics] In other words, provided the tenant is entitled to live in the property, he has protection from eviction.
However, a tenant who isn't living in the property or has a main residence elsewhere, is unlikely to have any form of assured tenancy - only a common law tenancy.

Reply to the comment left by Mandy Thomson at 19/06/2018 - 12:13
Also, he had my phone number and had just spoken to me the day before. All he had to do was ASK me what my plans were. I had already told him and he was well aware of the fact that I would give him possession within a few days.
surrender by operation of law: one of the general principles are:
"The giving and taking of possession must be unequivocal;"

This was not the case - as i had not yet given possession.

No matter which way you slice it - nothing gives the landlord the right to change the locks and take over possession.

I could easily reclaim possession, however, I don't want possession.
Its so complex that I am not going to go to the expense of claiming for illegal eviction, I am just going to pursue the non registration of deposit, which is relatively simple and inexpensive