Updating post from Reddit.
Hi, hoping for a bit of advice regarding a property I have on rent.
I’ve had tenants in a property I own for around 5 years and It’s been a miserable time and a very bad experience in general. They’ve run the property into the ground and haven’t even done the basics such as cleaning it regularly. I’m reluctant to spend any more on it until they have left as they have no respect for it and have caused countless damage to the property.
It’s in right a state and I’ve been in the process of repossessing the property through a section 21 since last year. They retaliated by going to the council to claim that the house is in disrepair and requires improvement. The council then sent me a list of things to improve on the 17/1/25 that I had to do by 17/3/25 otherwise I’d receive a formal notice from them.
A week after this notice my wife gave birth to our first child and we got in touch the council to get an extension to the deadline which they extended by 2 weeks. I’ve managed to do a few of the improvements but with the baby it’s taken up most of our time so haven’t been able to do the rest.
I’ve since thankfully managed to obtain a possession order from the court which applies on the 8/4/24 but the agreement meant that I can’t apply for bailiffs to evict them until 8/9/24. Crazy, but I’m happy to just be getting the property back and not have to spend more money on legal fees and fixing things they’re constantly breaking. I emailed the council to notify them of this and to ask them if I’m still obligated to complete the improvements but haven’t heard anything back from them for 2 weeks.
We’re now a few days away from repossession order date and I yesterday received further messages from the tenants notifying me of further issues and improvements they demand to be made.
Am I legally obliged to complete any of these works after the 8/4/25? Can the council issue me with a formal notice after this date? I have no reason to believe the tenants will leave by then and will draw it out until I can apply for bailiffs in September.
Thanks for any help in advance.
Surely a section 8 would have been the correct notice seeing as the condition is due to the tenants.
Probably, the solicitor that came recommended to us gave us the advice of going down the route of a section 21.
It’s not been great as we had many issues from the tenants and their solicitor. It looked like it was going to be a long and protracted process costing us more than the £3000~ or so it had already cost us. Their solicitor offered the condition of not applying for bailiffs for another 5 months to allow them the tenants to find alternative accommodation. Not great, but we decided it was better than spending more with the risk of it not going our way in the end.
And what if they haven't found anywhere in 5 months. Listen to your solicitor not theirs it sounds like they are playing you for a right fool.
This was based on the advice of my solicitor. The agreement was drafted between the both of ours and their solicitor. Mine suggested it’s a good option to cut my losses.
Sounds like your solicitor just wanted an easy way out. section 8 grounds 13 is damage to the property. It isn't mandatory ground though so would need to be proved which is possibly why your solicitor didn't want to go that route. But looks like you are stuck with whatever was agreed on the contract so works to fix property etc. not sure if you can just avoid the work as this could potentially see further problems future down the line.
In hindsight, I do regret going for the solicitor I did. And I think he did say at the time how a section 8 would be more difficult to prove. Either way a little stuck right now but just wanted to know if I’m legally obligated to do further works after the date of the repossession order. It just makes no sense why I would as technically the tenants should no longer be there but a little unwise in these matters.
>Possession order granted, effective 8/4/25; bailiffs can evict after 8/9/25.
Why is there a five-month wait?
You are obligated to perform repairs, as it is rented until it is no longer rented. Therefore, reducing that timeframe could be important.
Furthermore, all this "ask the council" nonsense is ridiculous; they are not there to advise or assist you. You should take your own advice as a business from relevant parties. The council exists to protect the tenant and will readily undermine you if given the chance.
Understood. I’ve posted a reply above giving more context regarding the 5 month bailiff delay.
Not what we wanted at all and extremely naive with the first property I put on rent. But harsh lessons being learnt.
Why can you only apply for baillifs 5 months after possession date?
It looked like it was going to be a long and protracted process costing us more than the £3000~ or so it has already cost us up to this point. They were disputing a technicality on the initial contract and throwing the kitchen sink at us. Their solicitor offered the condition of not applying for bailiffs for another 5 months to allow them the tenants to find alternative accommodation. Not great, but we decided it was better than spending more with the risk of it not going our way in the end.
The solicitor is going to keep dragging this. After 5 months they'll come up with another excuse.
Do you have landlord insurance with legal cover? Or perhaps join nrla and use their advice line.
Oh dear, I hope not. Doesn’t a possession order that’s already been granted by the court mean that they have no recourse for this though?
A possession order can be contested or challenged (Form N244), and if you're not planning on applying for bailiffs for another 5 months (+ the time it takes to get them), then that is plenty of time for them to make your life difficult.
You need to stop taking advice from the council and use your solicitor. The council will protect the tenant.
Why was there an agreement for 5 extra months?
>Mine suggested it’s a good option to cut my losses.
How is it cutting your losses? S21 -> Court -> Bailiffs is a known and well established process. I've not seen you post a reason as to why you've agreed to this. This should be a flat out "no" and a standard S21 eviction.
The letting agents I first used when renting the property (the same agents who let out the property to the current tenants) made a mistake on the tenancy agreement.
They had said that a deposit was taken when In actual fact it was an advance rent payment. The tenants then began to claim that it was a deposit after the S21 was applied for.
The solicitor I used initially said that he would be able to challenge this and that it wouldn’t pose too much of a problem. After a few court hearings it was becoming clear to us that it was going to be a problem and eventually our solicitor said that we could potentially lose the case and that we may have to serve notice under a different section. He was able to negotiate the 5 month delay for bailiff application with the tenant’s solicitors, this would cut our losses in terms of having to go through the whole thing from the beginning again.
Ah, that makes more sense.
Fingers crossed for you - sounds like a mess. I hope the agents are paying for this mistake - if not, you should explore this, as it's why they have insurance.