Landlord-Tenant Law - Case Study Example

Housing Law Landlord-Tenant Law is a portion of the common law which details the rights and duties of tenants and landlords. The law includes elements of contract law and superficially conveyances (real property law)[And12]. The set of laws that define and control the relationship between tenants and their landlords is defined by existence of lease-hold properties. The law regarding this intricate relationship has been in action for ages in the United Kingdom. Unlike other states and countries that had the only obligation of the landlord as granting the estate to the tenant, the law has been different and more comprehensive in Wales and England where the landlord places the property rented into the possession of the tenant since 1829[And12]. The contemporary landlord-tenant laws include several other duties and rights held by both tenants and landlords. Many of these duties and rights have been codified in Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. These laws and regulations provide exceptional procedures that landlords should follow in evicting their tenants. The laws also define the responsibilities that the tenants have towards their landlords and the properties leased out to them. Case Synopsis James is a tenant is a residential house whose ownership is in the hands of a private landlord called South Bank Properties plc. The tenant has some mental problems. James has lived in the house for the past two years. In the past three weeks, James has incessantly complained about the dilapidated state of the house. He has complained of faulty central heating system as well as condensation in the kitchen. In addition, the tenant has complained of broken and cracked windows. On his launching of the complaints, the landlord promised to work on the faulty and broken parts of the facility. However, South Bank Properties plc has not heeded its promise. As a result of the property owners not keeping their promise, James has decided to withhold rent for the past two weeks. Yesterday as James returned home to discover that the locks to his house had been changed. The landlord left him a message informing him to collect his possessions from the head office and that his tenancy had been terminated. This work explores the intricate and delicate legal processes and irregularities that the landlord may have disregarded in terminating James’ tenancy. It explores the possibilities that South Bank Properties plc acted irregularly in terminating James’ tenancy. The work outlines the manner in which James can be readmitted to the house owned by South Bank Properties plc. It investigates the legality of the eviction of James by South Bank Properties plc. It reiterates the meaning of security of tenure in relation to the case study. Further, the work explores the remedies James has in relation to the disrepair that was evident in V’s house. Furthermore, the work reiterates the duties owned under the homeless legislation. Readmitting James into the House For the South Bank Properties plc to readmit James into the house again, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that South Bank Properties plc contravened constitutional and legal provisions in evicting him from his premises. Regaining possession by a landlord from a tenant is a process that is governed by a set of comprehensive laws, and cannot be done arbitrarily at will. The scenarios under which the landlord can regain possession from the tenant are numerous. For most occasions, regaining ownership of property occurs at the end of tenancy period. For the case of James and South Bank Properties plc, the tenancy had not ended and, therefore, there had to be other special grounds for changing the locks and reclaiming the house. The other reason that could justify South Bank Properties plc’s repossession of the house is failure by James to adhere to tenancy agreements. In addition, having rent arrears could be the other reason for withholding the possession of the house. Assuming that South Bank Properties plc had formidable reason to claim that James owed it rent for the past two weeks, there were legal procedures that it did not follow. Considering the type of tenancy of James (Assured Shorthold Tenancy)[And12], the landlord had to give notice to James on his intentions to evict him. Advance warning to James would be notification that had he refused to vacate the building for failure to pay rent for the two weeks, South Bank Properties plc would use court procedures for repossession. The only way to evict a tenant who does not show the willingness to vacate premises is to apply to the court for a Possession Order and to ask for the Court Bailiffs to evict the tenant[And12]. Failure to follow these legal guidelines is illegal and the landlord can be sued and pay for heavy fines for contravening the law. In addition, the note that the landlord serves the tenant must be valid. If not, the court nullifies the application and stops the eviction process until the landlord serves a valid notice. The possibility of readmitting James into South Bank Properties plc’s property depends on the extent to which the court can prove the landlord broke the tenancy law. According to Housing Act of 1988, Illegal Eviction is a serious offense. The 1988 legislation was a means of making the Protection from Eviction Act of 1977 stronger in order to protect tenants like James from irregular eviction and victimization[And12]. The law prohibits harassment. Harassment happens when the landlord acts irrationally and illegally to want the tenant want to terminate their tenancy. It is a criminal offense according to Protection from Eviction Act of 1977 for the landlord to illegally evict or harass a private tenant. The action that South Bank Properties plc took of changing the locks amounted to harassment. In addition, there was further harassment when the landlord interfered with James’ privacy by entering his residence and interfering with his private property and privacy. His private belongings were confiscated by South Bank Properties plc and kept at the landlord’s head offices, meaning James’ privacy was infringed. In addition, all evidence shows that the landlord evicted him without notice. For James to be readmitted into the residential building, he needs to apply to the court and prove that South Bank Properties plc did not give him a two month’s notice of an impending eviction. James’ tenancy was an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and had not come to an end[And12]. In addition, James has to provide proof that there was no ground of eviction communicated to him whatsoever by South Bank Properties plc. Even though there is evidence that James failed to pay rent for two weeks, it does not act as incriminating evidence unless South Bank Properties plc provided it in a Notice Seeking Possession[And12]. Even if the property damages that James complained of were as a result of his actions and failure to adhere to the agreements of the tenancy, it did not also act as grounds for eviction as South Bank Properties plc did not communicate this to the courts. According to Manual Housing by Andrew Dymond and Andrew Adren, both tenants and landlords have rights to enjoy during their period of tenancy relationship. For James to be readmitted to the property of South Bank Properties plc, he has to prove that he has provided an environment that allowed the landlord to enjoy all his tenancy rights. James will have to prove to the courts that he did not in any way interfere with South Bank Properties plc in charging rents as controlled by the forces of demand and supply in the market. He will prove to the courts that he did not interfere with the landlord’s rights to agree to the terms of the tenancy[And12]. In addition, he will provide proof to the court that he enabled the landlord to enjoy his right of receiving rent when it was due for the full time of tenancy until the moment the landlord refused to honor his promise of repairing the house. Furthermore, South Bank Properties plc had the right to be informed and advised of necessary repairs of his facility in case of damages and breakdowns, a right that James served him with. Finally, James will serve the court with evidence that he did not breech the rights of his landlord of proper provision of notice to vacate[And12]. Additionally, James will have to prove that he adhered to the rules and regulations spelt out in the tenancy agreement. From the case synopsis, it is not mentioned anywhere that the tenant breached his terms of agreement with the landlord despite his mental condition. He paid the rent as agreed until the moment he boycotted to show his discontent with the status of the residential house. He has to produce proof that he paid bills for electricity, telephone and gas as may have been agreed between him with the landlord[And12]. Otherwise, South Bank Properties plc would have to produce evidence that James had failed in his responsibilities as a tenant to bar him from readmission into his residence. It is also the responsibility of James as the tenant to keep the property leased out to him by South Bank Properties plc in a reasonably good state, clean and decorated. If the destructions and breakages in James’ house were as a result of his irresponsibility, he would have to convince the court otherwise before he gets the possession of the residence from South Bank Properties plc. Furthermore, the case before the court must provide good evidence that James was not nuisance to his neighbors. James will need proof before the court that he and his visiting kin did not cause disturbance and harass peace of the neighbors[And12]. It would call for the intervention of neighbors and adjourning premise occupiers to testify on the truth about James’ peaceful coexistence with his neighbors. Legality of James’ Eviction by South Bank Properties plc Irrespective of whether James kept his responsibilities as a tenant in the relationship with his landlord, the mere absence of following the right procedure in evicting James made the whole process unlawful. The leasing contract that James signed with South Bank Properties plc was lawfully binding and evicting James had to take the right procedure. South Bank Properties plc ought to have followed strict eviction rules as outlined in the Housing Act of 1988 if they wanted James to vacate the premises. South Bank Properties plc did not adhere to the legal provisions of evicting a tenant in Periodic Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs)[And12]. James had a tenancy that expired weekly. The Housing Act of 1988 guards against unlawful eviction and harassment and provides the clear criteria that landlords need to follow in evicting their tenants. According to section 1, subsection 3B of the Housing Act of 1988, the landlord becomes guilty of harassment if he acts in a manner likely to interfere with the comfort or the peace of residential occupiers and members of his household[And12]. In relation to the case study, South Bank Properties plc acted in a manner that depicted harassment of James. The agency’s act of changing the locks of James’ residence without notice was indeed cruel and led to discomfort and a close to end of life of the tenant. In addition, subsection 3B of the Housing Act of 1988 states that if a landlord persistently withholds or withdraws services needed by occupants of his premises as residence. Actions of James’ landlord contravened the spirit of the act. It was harassment at its best, and was illegal. Landlord-Tenant Law includes elements of contract law and superficially conveyances[And12]. The set of laws that describe and control the relationship between tenants and their landlords is defined by subsistence of lease-hold properties. The law regarding this complex relationship has been in action for ages in the United Kingdom[And12]. The contemporary landlord-tenant laws include several other duties and rights held by both tenants and landlords. Many of these duties and rights have been codified in Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. These laws and regulations provide exceptional procedures that landlords should follow in evicting their tenants. The laws also define the responsibilities that the tenants have towards their landlords and the properties leased out to them[And12]. Whereas there are possibilities of t landlord supporting its actions with grounds, it might not be possible to have the grounds as admissible evidence as it did not go through the court to have James evicted. Advance warning to James would be notification that had he refused to vacate the building for failure to pay rent for the two weeks, South Bank Properties plc would use court procedures for repossession. The only way to evict a tenant who does not show the willingness to vacate premises is to apply to the court for a Possession Order and to ask for the Court Bailiffs to evict the tenant. Failure to follow these legal guidelines is illegal and the landlord can be sued and pay heavy fines for contravening the law. In addition, the note that the landlord serves the tenant must be valid. If not, the court nullifies the application and stops the eviction process until the landlord serves a valid notice. The eviction of James by South Bank Properties plc was illegal. James’ Security of Tenure Security of tenure provides a tenant with the rights he has as an occupier of a home. It is largely determined by the type of agreement a landlord and a tenant have. Irrespective of the tenancy type one has, the landlord does not have the right to evict the tenant without notice. For James’ case, his tenancy was of the type Assured Shorthold Tenancy. This is the most commonly used tenancy in privately rented premises. He tenancy of James gives him the right to ask for a written statement of the date the tenancy began, any arrangements of reviewing the rent and by how much it can be increased, the amount of rent payable and when he is expected to pay the rent. In addition, James has the right to ask and know the length of time of agreed fixed terms with South Bank Properties plc and have a detailed knowledge of when the tenancy should last, and under what circumstances the tenancy needs to be terminated. Security of tenure gives him the right to place a written statement requesting for this information and wait for a maximum of 28 days to get the feedback on his queries[And12]. Further, the security of tenure places the landlord at a position of attracting fines and charges for failing to provide the required information to James without any valid reasons or excuses. Security of tenure offers James the relief to know the amount of rent he has to pay for the period of tenancy and cushions him from arbitrary rental increases by the landlord. He is only obligated to pay the amount of money stipulated in the tenancy agreement to South Bank Properties plc. His rent cannot be increased before the lapse of the agreed period unless there is a special rent review clause incorporated in the tenancy agreement. Alternatively, James can agree with South Bank Properties plc to increase the rent on a gentleman-agreement. Further, the security of tenure provides James with the opportunity to argue his case at Rent Assessment Committee at the beginning of his tenancy in the event that he feels the proposed rent is high compared to similar properties in the neighborhood. As an Assured Shorthold Tenant, James has relatively lower security of tenure compared to other tenant types. In the event that Rent Assessment Committee sets the maximum amount of rent payable for any particular year, the landlord may decide to evict him lawfully upon the expiry of the tenure. For that matter, although James may enjoy maximum security during the time his tenancy lasts in terms of improved services and better bargains for rents and repairs, he becomes vulnerable to lawful eviction at the end of the tenure. He, therefore, has to be extremely cautious how he conducts himself and handles the property for as far as his tenancy lasts. As a tenant, security of tenure provides James with the right to demand for repairs and maintenance of the property during his time of tenancy. His right to demand for these repairs and maintenance services remain whether he has signed agreement with South Bank Properties plc or not. According to the law, South Bank Properties plc has the responsibility of carrying out repairs of broken and faulty water boilers and heaters[And12]. South Bank Properties plc has the responsibility of fixing faulty electric systems in James’ residence as the landlord. In addition, broken toilets, baths and sinks should be repaired by South Bank Properties plc. Further, the landlord has the responsibility of ensuring the structure is in good shape and that the exterior of the property is presentable. Further, the landlord has the role of ensuring that all gas appliances are fixed and in working conditions in accordance with annual safety check standards. However, security of tenure does not oblige the landlord to fix and maintain the gas appliances that the tenant has installed and hopes to take away with him by the end of the tenancy. Additionally, any furniture that the landlord provides for the tenant needs to adhere to the Furniture Regulations of 1988. They should be fire resistant. From this discussion, it is evident that James has security of tenure. It is the landlord, South Bank Properties plc, who does not respect this and refuses to honor both the tenancy agreement and United Kingdom Housing Laws. Remedies to the Disrepair As seen in the discussion above, James has security of tenure which provides him with the legal backing to demand for repairs of all faulty appliances in the home. It is, therefore, his duty to take the matter to court or alternative resolution organizations to have his case be heard. The courts will go through the evidence James has to prove he had asked for the repairs. It is fundamental that the tenant had placed a written request as evidence for the requests. South Bank Properties plc will be obliged to do the repairs and have James repossess the residential house as long as there is evidence he had asked for the repairs[And12]. Homelessness Legislation To the general public, homelessness is a synonymous phenomenon with people sleeping rough. People lack permanent and settled accommodation. Homelessness had been so prevalent in England that the Housing Act of 1996 and Homelessness Act of 2002 were legislated to provide a way forward towards reducing the number of homeless people[And12]. The situation is described as statutory homelessness. On the other hand, non-statutory homeless individuals do not fall into the category considered eligible for assistance. They are seen to be intentionally homeless, and are not in the priority list for assistance by local authorities. According to statistics in the England, 37% of the homeless people are those whose families and friends no longer wish to accommodate or are unable to cater for their needs[And12]. 20% are the people who have lost their private dwellings through events such as tied accommodations[And12]. 19% account for the people who become homeless after breaking up with their partners. Mortgage and rent arrears contribute to a majority of the remaining percentage of the homeless in England. In addition to Homelessness Act of 2002 and the 1996 Housing Act, there is Priority Need for Accommodation Order of 2002 and a Code of Guidance that provide interpretation for the acts and legislations dealing with homelessness[And12]. The homelessness legislations enable the authorities to help people without homes in order of vulnerability. The legislation has gives local authorities the duty to provide foster homes to the old and those with mental illnesses and learning disabilities. Works Cited And12: , (Andrew & Dymond, 2012), Read More