Renting a room...Ripped off?

theteal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I was very clear on this issue. I asked you for some specifics. If you are going to make a claim, back it up.

I asked you what he could claim and under what.

I'll ask very very clearly here. How can the OP complain about the locks being changed and being illegally evicted? How can he prove such a case when his only witnesses that he even lived there is AWOL? When he has zero legal rights to the property?

Under what law when it's accepted that LICENSEES have no legal protection? All illegal eviction is illegal because an actual law says it's illegal. Because it's clearly written.

The TENANT can make plenty of complaints because there's laws protecting him. The tenant can even make a complaint about how the landlord treats the licensee. The licensee can make criminal complaints if he's manhandled, his property damaged and so on and so forth.

What I'm saying is that without the tenant, the licensee can do **** all because he can't point to any law that shows his rights are being breached and more importantly, can't prove anything. He couldn't even prove the locks have been changed in the first place. All he could prove is that his key doesn't work.

Unlike the method adopted by davindub, a judge will actually require you to point to a law, show the law exists, that it applies to the case and then produce proof that the landlord is in breach of that law.

In this thread as an example, you will see where I have given direct links.

Taking a recent one, adverse possession. Davindub claims that if a random person goes into your house tonight while you are asleep, that's adverse possession and that person can't be removed until you get a court order against them. Not logical, papers are full of people doing that and being arrested and he hasn't provided any proof of his claim.

I'm saying that person is at best, simple trespassing and you have a common law right to remove that trespasser or at worst, they intent to commit a crime and that they are in fact, a burglar and can be both removed and arrested. To back my position, I have given direct links to the exact laws involved and also to numerous qualified and experienced legal professionals who speak on the subject.

Your entitled to your opinion of course, as he is but we can't discuss the subject any further without a little more meat on your arguments bones

I did not make a claim, I very clearly put forward a question.

While this tenancy remains "officially" in place, maybe the invited licensees of the tenant could have a claim?

The OP is just collateral damage here and most likely there is no avenue to make any claim. All I'm saying is that I've seen an example of this happen on TV, which didn't make sense at the time tbh (i.e. how can these people be permitted to stay for a few more weeks?), and some of what davindub has put forward has added some clarity to that.

My actual opinion is that it's done this way for the LLs own protection. If he blasts in, changing locks and taking illegal possession that leaves him very open to a claim if the silent tenant were to reappear two days later. So this is what could buy the poster a bit more time to get themselves sorted.

JimmyVik

It seems a bit unfair on the landlord though. And very complicated.



I have to say though that if I were a landlord, just to reduce the complication in my life, I would refuse to acknowledge the existence of licensees. And if a leaseholder came to me asking that a licensee of their be added to a lease I would say "No, tell them to move out, I never agreed to them being in the house in the first place. I rented it to you, not them"

zeebre12

This is not straight forward. For arguments sake couldn't tenant be self isolating/gone on holiday and his phone is broken?

Dav010

zeebre12 wrote: »

This is not straight forward. For arguments sake couldn't tenant be self isolating/gone on holiday and his phone is broken?

Any idea who has the head tenants keys?

Graces7

zeebre12 wrote: »

This is not straight forward. For arguments sake couldn't tenant be self isolating/gone on holiday and his phone is broken?

Good thinking; he could also be ill.

Are not evictions of any kind illegal just now anyways?

theteal

theteal wrote: »

I did not make a claim, I very clearly put forward a question.

Indeed and Im only fleshing the subject out with you. Im not looking to 'win' anything.

One thing that we are all in agreement is that the OP is pretty much screwed in regards getting his money back and would be best off going elsewhere so the OP I think has been more or less answered. The thread has gone down theoretical avenues now.

theteal wrote: »

The OP is just collateral damage here and most likely there is no avenue to make any claim. All I'm saying is that I've seen an example of this happen on TV, which didn't make sense at the time tbh (i.e. how can these people be permitted to stay for a few more weeks?), and some of what davindub has put forward has added some clarity to that.

Indeed and this is where I respond to you. UK TV doesnt really mean jack. their legal system is similar but legally different. Ireland actually has a tenant leaning system. UK traditionally a landlord leaning one. (Hmmm, wonder why we differ on that historically?) but each nation has sought to update / balance their systems. I cant speak about the episode you saw, have only seen a few of em. I can speak about Spain. Their system would be very much on the licensees side in this argument. A crazy system if you ask me but there ya go.

theteal wrote: »

My actual opinion is that it's done this way for the LLs own protection. If he blasts in, changing locks and taking illegal possession that leaves him very open to a claim if the silent tenant were to reappear two days later. So this is what could buy the poster a bit more time to get themselves sorted.

Absolutely and Im in complete agreement. I think everyone is. No question about it.

Genuine question, but have I not come across as being in agreement there? I felt my comments were very clear that the OP is screwed because the tenant isnt around and highly unlikely to be. Again, no one is arguing to tenants protections here. My point is that the LICENSEE on his own cant complain about anything that the landlord does.

zeebre12 wrote: »

This is not straight forward. For arguments sake couldn't tenant be self isolating/gone on holiday and his phone is broken?

Graces7 wrote: »

Good thinking; he could also be ill.

He could but would be at home and answering messages normally.

We are really stretching limits to suggest hes ill at home, cant access a phone or his bank account and is in total isolation to the extent of an 18th century lighthouse keeper.

Graces7 wrote: »

Are not evictions of any kind illegal just now anyways?

No. The blanket ban which didnt apply to the OP anyway, ended in August the RTA 2020 bill only covers certain people and again not the OP

theteal

@Niner, apologies I cant quote on my phone but in relation to the middle-ish paragraph there, I dont think the OP is completely screwed. Yes he/she wont be getting any deposit back but at the same time they could take a little more time in moving out (and certainly not paying another penny) on the basis that it would be very ill advised for LL to take posession/change locks without following due process - LL cant physically remove anybody in the meantime, they have keys and their possessions are in the house so they can prove they've been living there. I mean who is to say this silent tenant wont resurface and this isn't part of a scam? Far fetched maybe but I wouldn't be surprised if that eventuality was proffered among others as part of any legal advice.

Graces7

OP; cut to the chase and call Threshold in the morning? Please.. and good luck . They will have seen this so many times..

endacl

Graces7 wrote: »

OP; cut to the chase and call Threshold in the morning? Please.. and good luck . They will have seen this so many times..

Are you still labouring under the misapprehension that Threshold can do anything? About anything?

Graces7

theteal wrote: »

Has anybody ever seen that Cant Pay, We Take It Away program (that my wife seems to love). Yes it's based on UK law but I cant believe ours is too much different, most likely based on it I would guess. Anyway from the brief bits I've seen of some house repos, it would confirm what davindub is saying. One episode really rings a bell when compared to the OPs situation i.e. landlord has to follow process to get unknown subletters out when his known tenant has done a runner - there are possibly more examples but its not really my thing.

Anyway, I can see there would be a legal grey area about whether the tenancy is officially ended. With no notice given, who is to say when the LL can take back possession without something official from a court? Normally this wouldn't be an issue with an obviously vacated property with no rent paid etc but I can envision why it would be an issue in this case.

I was riveted to that on youtube. Is it still going? Some heartrending stories too and the humanity of the High Court Bailiffs with their strictness

They are far better organised over there. I love looking at rentals on rightmove. one landlord wants seven months rent up front. Lovely old stone house..

zeebre12

Landlord has text me that he has changed the locks with all my stuff inside and said I can get them next Monday

Graces7

endacl wrote: »

Are you still labouring under the misapprehension that Threshold can do anything? About anything?

The misapprehension is yours as they certainly have acted on my behalf and in my interests on a few occasions! And very successfully. Of course it depends on the nature of your requests.

zeebre12

zeebre12 wrote: »

Landlord has text me that he has changed the locks with all my stuff inside and said I can get them next Monday

Now thats a dodgy road he has gone down. Cant hold your property

Claw Hammer

theteal wrote: »

@Niner, apologies I cant quote on my phone but in relation to the middle-ish paragraph there, I dont think the OP is completely screwed. Yes he/she wont be getting any deposit back but at the same time they could take a little more time in moving out (and certainly not paying another penny) on the basis that it would be very ill advised for LL to take posession/change locks without following due process - LL cant physically remove anybody in the meantime, they have keys and their possessions are in the house so they can prove they've been living there. I mean who is to say this silent tenant wont resurface and this isn't part of a scam? Far fetched maybe but I wouldn't be surprised if that eventuality was proffered among others as part of any legal advice.

This is not the UK. We left in the UK 1922. The law here is very different.

cruizer101

zeebre12 wrote: »

Landlord has text me that he has changed the locks with all my stuff inside and said I can get them next Monday

Was there anymore communication before now indicating he was going to be doing that.

While he can kick you out I'm not so sure about not giving your access to your belongings.

Graces7

cruizer101 wrote: »

Was there anymore communication before now indicating he was going to be doing that.

While he can kick you out I'm not so sure about not giving your access to your belongings.

Have you ( the OP) got somewhere to stay tonight? Dreadful man.

Claw Hammer

The OP is lucky to be getting his stuff back. A lot of landlords would just dump it!