UK Landlord Forum / Life

I have been renting out my 3 bed house with a small garden to a couple with a small child for 13 months. The year fixed contract ended in in July and I decided to change it to a periodic tenancy as they had been difficult in the year. When they moved in they asked if they could change the carpet which they would pay for this they did but also without asking placed CCTV back and front of the property. i alerted them that no changes to the property without the ok from the landlord was allowed , they apologised but said they felt they needed it for security. As it was day 1  I asked using the agent I use to ensure it was removed at the end of the tenancy and that the walls made good. ( no breakins had occurred and the close is gated so I couldnt quite understand the reason for the security worry)
The cul de sac is new since 1990s and has garage and space for one car in drive and there are visitor bays so anyone viewing I think would be obvious that only 2 cars max is ok for this neighbourhood yet they decided to move 4 cars much to the upset of my neighbours as they then took up 3 spaces out of 6 visitor bays permanently.
I had complaints which were directed to me and the agent and politely asked them to park with consideration. I asked the agent to check there was no subletting.It transpires they have 4 high performancy cars ( all together worth more than my property!)  and wont fit into the garage. They got angry with the agent,me and neighbours that there had been complaints and asked if I would agree to tarmac over my front lawn. I said I did not want to do that and that they should find alternative arrangements. They since then cut down my beautiful blossom tree, removed my plants,shrubs and flowers and parked the car on my from lawn ruining the grass without telling me. My old neighbour sent a picture to me.
I asked the agent to tell them they are not allowed to remove trees, plants or park on the grass and that they will have to make good the lawn on leaving. they have ignored this and continue to park there.

Within weeks they wanted their own furniture , mine was getting old anyway so I agreed to them to dispose of this.

I felt they would move after the year contract but didnt and when it went to periodic I should have in retrospect ended then but was hoping they would realise the property didnt suit them. They then asked me if I wanted to sell to them which I emailed via the agent that I was not planning a sale.

Since the female is now pregnant and they have in the past few weeks said that their brother wants them to look after a family dog for 2 weeks which then changed to the dog is permanently staying as the brother has lost his home. They have moved in a kennel in the back garden and state they will keep the dog outside- a German Shepherd! The dog has moved in despite me saying I did not want pets.
The neighbors haven't complained up till now,

They have been particularly nasty during the year writing a letter to the agent saying we were bullying them, the complaints were unjustified and that neighbours had sent drones over their house? I felt that the female may have mental health issues by the tone.
Then a week later they apologise.

I am having another inspection tomorrow and then decide. My gut feeling is get rid of them now with a section 21. But i have found out I am now pregnant after a long time desperately trying and dont want any stress and feel they will be difficult . I feel frightened yet I own this property ! but they treat it as if they own it!
They have looked after the property nicely and always paid in full apart from the issues above and since the periodic tenancy have been in rental arrears twice paying 5 days late I am not sure if this is administrative at present and looking into this.
My ideal scenario is they surrender the tenancy and go.
My nightmare is  that I issue section 21 and they refuse and cause damages. Also if I do it now they wont be vacating until October which isnt the best time of year.
The agent also said waiting till later if she is more heavily pregnant  may not be a good idea either.

Any advise to go forward is hugely welcome I haven't been in this scenario and had been lucky up till now. These guys seem to know what to do and what they can get away with. I feel a bit stupid that I have been so tolerant but actually feel scared of their capabilities.
Thanks in advance

If you serve a Section 21 now you will be very - very - lucky if they prolong things and you reckon they'll vacate in October. More like early 2019... if you're lucky.

I think I would issue the Section 21. It can have a positive impact in encouraging behavioural change. If it does then maybe the tenancy can continue, if not - prepare for the worst. At the moment four things come to my mind - the first is that the tail is wagging the dog and you need to address that and regain control, the second is that you appear emotionally invested in this house - it is no longer your home, it's an income-creating asset only, the third is that you should never allow yourself to get involved in what are neighbour disputes once a property is let out, the fourth is that you say you own the property but they're treating it like they own it - well, they're renting it from you; they can live how they like - all that they signed up for is to return it to you in the same state - less reasonable wear-and-tear - at the end of the tenancy - you can't tell them how to live (sad as it may be).

Thanks for the reply that is really useful.  I agree I do need to take control and havent at all and also I have distanced myself from the parking issues which have continued . I have learnt from this .
I did live in the property once and its my only rental so I know a few people in the close but never regard the house as my home anymore that finished long ago after the first tenant I had.
I guess I want what most people do that the tenant and myself both adhere to the tenancy agreement and part our ways amicably in the end without any lost revenue on my side .
Thanks

Landlords, and Agents, are often tempted to include various clauses in tenancy agreements that are, frankly, unenforceable. Even my own agreements have clauses about material changes and redecoration etc. - but the basic premise out there seems to be that the Tenant must hand the property back to you in much the same state they took it on - minus any reasonable wear and tear, or any agreed changes - and what they do with it in the meantime is nothing to do with the Landlord. So whether you can enforce painting, gardening (or lack of it), parking or even subletting (assignment etc. too) is dubious in my mind. I've said before - it's more an optimistic agreement that you hope both parties will adhere to and, if they do, it should be plain-sailing. If you reach that point where your Tenant isn't living up to the spirit of what you've both agreed - it's time to get rid and start again. Your Tenant appears to be looking back at that time in their rear-view mirror (possibly from one of their performance cars).

Serving a precautionary Section 21 might set the cat amongst the pigeons. I would still advise this, I think. Yes. I would.

Restrictions or prohibition on subletting or assignment is a bit different to painting the wall a certain colour or no hanging pictures etc.

Doesn't matter.

It does matter. If the tenancy prohibit assignment without agreement or absolutely, then no assignment would be valid unless the tenant can somehow convince a court that the clause is unenforceable. If there's no clause prohibiting assignment, and the tenancy is assured periodic, then legislation actually provide that a landlord can refuse consent even unreasonably. On the other hand, if there is a clause that allow assignment with consent of landlord, such consent may not be withheld unreasonably.

You mentioned enforcing the terms. In practical terms for tenancy, we are talking about seeking possession for a tenant's breach. A landlord is not going to get possession for a picture on the wall or an uncut garden, but subletting without permission? Possibly.

Doesn't matter. I clearly said this. Your example of prohibiting assignment has already been considered an unfair term and condition. Anyway, my point was that both parties live in hope with ASTs.

Quote from: Hippogriff on August 24, 2018, 06:36:28 PM
Your example of prohibiting assignment has already been considered an unfair term and condition.

Where and when?

If you're thinking of the OFT's guide. That was just the OFT's view, before the Consumer Rights Act, and not necessarily what a court would decide. Even within that, there was "in such case it's okay, but in that case, we don't think so". It wasn't a simple you can't do it.

And my example "If there's no clause prohibiting assignment, and the tenancy is assured periodic, then legislation actually provide that a landlord can refuse consent even unreasonably. On the other hand, if there is a clause that allow assignment with consent of landlord, such consent may not be withheld unreasonably." is strictly a description of what the law says.

QuoteAnyway, my point was that both parties live in hope with ASTs.

And my point was that tenancy clauses like no hanging things on hook on the wall are different to subletting or assignment because you can actually do something about the latter by seeking possession for breach of tenancy or refuse consent in the case of assignment, whereas a landlord wouldn't get anywhere trying the same with the former.

Your point is misguided... refusing consent in the case of assignment won't stop it happening. You can also refuse painting... doesn't stop it happening. Since when does someone saying "you can't do this" - verbally, or in an agreement signed by two parties - stop it happening? It doesn't if the Tenant is going to do it anyway. Hence hope. No-one's interested in picking up the pieces by proceeding all the way to seeking possession. When you're at that point you've already lost more than you can count in £s and stress. It really doesn't matter. In some ways I often think the AST is quite a useless thing - it's created hopefully, with hopeful clauses contained therein and exists hopefully. A good Tenant won't do bad things anyway, but definitely not just because they're prohibited in the AST... a bad Tenant will anyway. The AST is just a nice document to have - but it won't help you much if things start to go badly wrong... depending on Section 8 Grounds is also pretty fruitless and uncertain - so go Section 21 all the way and be sure.

If a lease is assigned without consent where such consent is required, then the excluded assignment does not release the assignor from the tenant covenants of the tenancy, including the payment of rent.

I don't disagree with the recommendation of s21 over s8.