Tenants rights following a warrant of possession?

Reply to the comment left by John Mac at 02/12/2023 - 10:18
Trespass and Squatting are Not two of the same. Each has its own definitive meaning in law.

Hope this helps.

Reply to the comment left by Jeff L at 02/12/2023 - 10:11Jeff L -
My agreement IS enforceable in law and it does NOT override a tenant's statutory protections.
As mentioned earlier in the thread the relevant legislation is the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. An evicted tenant who has left goods in a property is a bailor and the landlord is the bailee of those goods. If the tenancy agreement provides a reasonable mechanism for dealing with such goods then it will prevail.
I have been dealing with cases which fall under the 1977 Act for 34 years since the first time I became an involuntary bailee in 1989. I was a chartered surveyor managing very large estates of tenanted properties for many years and the property director of the largest privately owned chain of CTN shops + flats in the UK. I actually do know what I am talking about.

An addendum - if a tenancy agreement does not provide that the landlord automatically becomes the tenant's agent when goods are left in a property at the termination of a tenancy then it is necessary to follow the notice procedures in Part 1 of schedule 1 to the 1977 Act, subject to the provisions in section 12 in cases where the bailor (the tenant) cannot be contacted.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 02/12/2023 - 12:52
I didn't say you don't know what you're talking about mate; your skill or lack of it is not of any importance to me.

What I said was that you are trying to use an AST term/condition as an absolute authority, but it isn't - as I said, just because it's written into an AST does not in itself make it authoritative.

Reply to the comment left by Jeff L at 02/12/2023 - 13:12
Your original reply to my comment was 'You can insert whatever you want in an AST but it neither means it is enforceable in law nor that it overrides a persons statutory protections.' That reply is not incorrect but I thought it implied that the wording I quoted from my standard ASTs might not be enforceable and I therefore replied that it IS enforceable.

You have now replied again to say that I am 'trying to use an AST term/condition as an absolute authority, but it isn't'.

I think that reply is misleading because if it were to be interpreted literally it might lead people to think that no term in an AST can be enforceable ("an absolute authority") and that the only thing that matters is what the law is. This is not correct. Any term in an AST can be enforceable provided (1) it complies with any relevant law (statute or common) and (2) it does not attempt to negate any provisions which the law imposes (for example the repairing obligations imposed by s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).

An important thing to understand about ASTs is that they are actually leases (albeit not estates in land unless they qualify as such) and under English law leases are fundamentally contracts. Therefore they can contain any terms which the landlord and the tenant agree subject to the qualification of lawfulness. If a term is lawful it does have, in your words, "absolute authority".

Reply to the comment left by Carchester at 02/12/2023 - 12:23
I didn't say they were, suggest you read what I posted again.

Hope that helps!

Nothing further to add.

Hope that helps.

Carchester.