Amendment to Possession Grounds – Anti-social Behaviour

Posted: June 16, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Covenants, Housing Act, Landlords, Letting Agents, Managing Agents, Possession, Property Law, Tenants | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

As part of a number of recent measures to tackle anti-social behaviour, there has been amendments to the grounds upon which a landlord can obtain possession of their property that let under an assured tenancy.

The grounds upon which the landlord can rely are set out in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1998. These are the grounds that are cited in a Section 8 Notice which is served upon a tenant by a landlord seeking possession.

The recent amendments include a new ground relating to social housing and a ground applicable where tenants have been involved in riots. However, the amendment that is of most interest is to Ground 14. This is introduced by Section 98(2) of The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which is now in force.

This adds to Ground 14 the following:-

“The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house
(aa) ………… has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by the Landlord) in connection with the exercise of the landlord’s housing management functions, and that is directly or in directly related to or affects those functions,”.

This new ground applies where anti-social behaviour occurs even outside the locality of the property and a landlord can rely on this ground even in absence of a specific term within the tenancy agreement which relates to any anti-social behaviour.

As set out within the Ground, it covers anyone involved with the landlord’s management functions and, therefore, could include situations where a tenant refuses the landlord (or their contractors) access to undertake required maintenance or gas safety inspections.

It should be remembered that Ground 14 remains a discretionary ground and, thus, there is no guarantee of obtaining possession pursuant to that Ground but I can see that it would certainly be of assistance where there is an obstructive tenant and access to the property is required irrespective of whether or not possession is to be sought.

Lockout for Landlords

Posted: August 15, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Bury & Walkers, Covenants, Landlords, Possession, Property Law, Tenancy Agreements | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taking a step back from the wonder and excitement of the Olympics, a landlord  asked me “Is a tenant allowed to change the locks in a property so that the landlord cannot gain access?  The landlord added that they had a clause in their tenancy agreement which stated that the tenant cannot change the locks. 

My response was that I needed more information.  This may sound like a lawyer’s answer but the question raised a number of issues and the answer depended on the individual circumstances of the case.  There is no simple answer, therefore, and within the confines of this article at least, I cannot adequately address all the issues and scenarios.  By way of general guidance, however, it is worth reminding landlords of some of the issues to be aware of. 

There is no general right which provides that a tenant can change the locks.  Whilst a tenancy agreement may provide that the tenant cannot change the locks, there are issues here with regard to whether such a term is fair.  On the assumption that a clause is fair, and the tenant is not justified in breaching that clause, what then can the landlord do? 

There are two main issues which arise from that question.  The first relates to the lock itself and the second relates to the access to the property.  The two may be linked but, of the first issue, the landlord must assess the type of lock that the tenant has installed. 

If the new lock is adequate then the landlord is entitled to make arrangements to change it and charge the tenant for doing so if they wish.  The landlord may wish to wait until the end of the tenancy to change the lock and claim the cost of the new lock and keys from the tenant deposit or the tenant as appropriate. 

Clearly if the lock is inadequate, the landlord may wish to take immediate action.  Security is an obvious concern, for all, but a lock may be inadequate if it does not comply with the insurance requirements.  Insurance premiums are based on the type of locks at the property and thus where a lock is changed, there is a risk that the insurance requirements are not met and the policy potentially void.  That may include the tenants own policy for personal possessions, a useful point that a landlord could raise with a tenant. 

As to access, it depends on the reason why and how urgently the landlord requires access.  Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act provides a right to enter the property to inspect.  The tenancy agreement may also provide for this.  Even where the landlord has a key, the landlord should always have a good reason to enter the property and must act reasonably in seeking entry.  The tenant enjoys a right of quiet enjoyment of the property and if the landlord does not apply their right to inspect or attend the property reasonably, the landlord risks a claim or complaint for breach of that covenant or harassment.

A landlord may come across a tenant that unreasonably denies access.  This raises further issues to consider.  If the tenant is unreasonable then the landlord could consider evicting them and/or obtaining an injunction seeking entry to the property.  Whether the landlord can justify such action depends, again, on the reason that they require entry. 

As an example of the steps that a landlord could take in this situation, the Health & Safety Executive has provided guidance as to what a landlord would need to do if the tenant prevented access for the purpose of a gas safety check.  Briefly, they outlined that a landlord has to show that they took all reasonable steps to comply with the law. They recommend that a notice should be left with the tenant stating that an attempt was made to complete the gas safety check.  They suggest that the landlord should then write to the tenant explaining that a safety check is a legal requirement and for the tenant’s own safety.  The HSE Inspectors would expect at least three attempts to complete the gas safety check although it does add that it would ultimately be for a Court to decide if the action taken was reasonable, depending on the individual circumstances. 

This returns us to the start of the article in that it is fair to say that the position depends on the landlord, the tenant and a number of surrounding circumstances. Ultimately, a reasonable landlord should be able to obtain access to their property.  With an unco-operative tenant, however, they may require help in order to do so.