Tenant trying to force me to cancel tenancy

[C Em]

My tenant is trying to force me to terminate his tenancy. (4 months early from a year’s tenancy)
He said he would stay if I would reduce the rent by 30% and I refused. He is now unwilling to let my electrician gain entry during working hours to carry out remedial work on the electrics (fit new consumer unit) for the EICR unless I cancel the tenancy. He says he will sue me for having unsafe electrics. 
After much talk he is now only allowing entry to do this work through the night or weekends knowing that my electrician does not work these hours. 
Ive kept all text messages regarding this as evidence. Can anybody give advice on where I stand in this situation?

[Carryon Regardless]

1st point is that a new consumer is code 3, at worst. That equates to a recommendation for improvement, not a requirement for a 'Satisfactory' on the cert. Challenge your electrician as to why.

Next point is if you are able to demonstrate you have tried to do all reasonably possible to carry out the electrical inspection, and that must include improvements, you are no longer liable for the £30k fine. Record you communications with your tenant and set up the evidence of your attempts to do as you desire.

If you tenant feels the electrics are unsafe there is clearly a contradiction if he doesn't allow for you to improve them. I would suggest to the little sh*t takes up alternative accommodation on the street.

The greater question here is what you can do to take pro active action for any unpaid rent. These days we are pretty well stuffed, and our best hope is that the tenant isn't aware of their covid protections on this. Do you have a guarantor?

[sunnydays]

I would be inclined to just let them end the tenancy if they want to do that, better to have them out than have them staying and potentially not paying rent or not paying full rent and being difficult. Perhaps agree some conditions upon allowing the early termination like allowing viewings and allowing the electrical work to be done during the week.

[Grampa]

You need to come up with some sort of compromise to defuse the situation otherwise it will become very messy. Yes you could dig your heels in and flatly refuse but potentially that could cause you a lot of grief and time and effort which could be rent chasing and/or arguing over damages/wear and tear at the end of the tenancy. 

Explain you understand he wants to terminate his tenancy earlier but he has to understand he has signed an legal agreement. However, you are prepared to CONSIDER releasing him early on condition an 1.ACCEPTABLE replacement tenant is found and 2.there is no break in rent payments between tenancies and 3.he allows you to do viewing/maintenance etc. That may calm things down and even if you found another tenant tomorrow it is likely to be a month before they can move in anyway which is at least another month closer to the end of his original tenancy.

[C Em]

Thanks for the prompt replies. 
There is one C2 on the certificate which needs attention, the rest are C3’s but it would have been nice to get everything in order for peace of mind. 
The tenants don’t have a guarantor but I have lodged their deposit with the TDS. 
Some good advice which I might try to put forward but his talk very quickly turned aggressive for no other reason than he thinks he can bully me into getting what he wants. 

[Richlist]

I've never understood landlords who try to stop tenants leaving early. Why ? If a tenant needs to leave early they are going to do exactly that or cause numerous problems if you try to stop them. Just let them go.....you've had 8 months of income. Let them go & move on.

[Grampa]

33 minutes ago, Richlist said:

I've never understood landlords who try to stop tenants leaving early. Why ? If a tenant needs to leave early they are going to do exactly that or cause numerous problems if you try to stop them. Just let them go.....you've had 8 months of income. Let them go & move on.

I agree to a point but there are a number of reasons I would say it isn't in the landlords favour to release the tenants earlier.

1. If there are extra fees the landlord has to pay for new tenant referencing which some agents charge for + also new set-up fees which I acknowledge would have to be paid anyway at some time but there is still an element of extra cost depending how earlier from the original end date.

2. If the property is tricky to rent ie: due to location, layout size etc. Had a number of these over the years that causes a groaning  in the office  whenever they become empty. 

3. If the tenants want to be released early at the end of November or earlier December as it makes it harder to find new tenants in the lead up to xmas so the landlord potentially could have a longer void period.

 

 

[Richlist]

2 minutes ago, Grampa said:

I agree to a point but there are a number of reasons I would say it isn't in the landlords favour to release the tenants earlier.

1. If there are extra fees the landlord has to pay for new tenant referencing (which agents charge + new set-up fees)which I acknowledge would have to be paid anyway at some time but still an element of extra cost depending how earlier from the original end date.

2. If the property is tricky to rent ie: due to location, layout size etc. Had a number of these over the years that causes a groaning  in the office  whenever they become empty. 

3. If the tenants want to be released early at the end of November or earlier December as it makes it harder to find new tenants in the lead up to xmas so the landlord potentially could have a longer void period.

 

 

1. In the OP's case it's only 4 months early (could be less if notice not served yet ). The landlord will need to pay all the usual fees if the tenant left at 12 months so I don't see any 'extra' costs for the landlord.

2. That's got nothing to do with the tenant. The location, desirability & suitability of a property is entirely the owners responsibility and I don't see how a tenant can be held to account for the owners poor choice of rental property.

3. This tenant wants to be released now so the point is not valid in this case.

[Grampa]

7 hours ago, C Em said:

My tenant is trying to force me to terminate his tenancy. (4 months early from a year’s tenancy)
He said he would stay if I would reduce the rent by 30% and I refused. He is now unwilling to let my electrician gain entry during working hours to carry out remedial work on the electrics (fit new consumer unit) for the EICR unless I cancel the tenancy. He says he will sue me for having unsafe electrics. 
After much talk he is now only allowing entry to do this work through the night or weekends knowing that my electrician does not work these hours. 
Ive kept all text messages regarding this as evidence. Can anybody give advice on where I stand in this situation?

People who threaten to sue very rarely do. Also if the tenant refuses access it is a situation of his own making and thirdly what would he sue for? He hasnt incurred a material lose.

I have found warning people you will put the phone down on them and not discuss the matter further if they continue to swear or be aggressive to be quite effective. A lot of the time they phone straight back with a different attitude. Sometimes it took putting the phone down on them mid-sentance a couple of times but they soon got the message.  

[Grampa]

9 minutes ago, Richlist said:

1. In the OP's case it's only 4 months early (could be less if notice not served yet ). The landlord will need to pay all the usual fees if the tenant left at 12 months so I don't see any 'extra' costs for the landlord. Would you pay for a new gas cert after 8 months and not  see that as "extra cost". Me-thinks you need to sharpen your pencil.

2. That's got nothing to do with the tenant. The location, desirability & suitability of a property is entirely the owners responsibility and I don't see how a tenant can be held to account for the owners poor choice of rental property. No but signing a legally binding contract has got everything to do with the tenant so the landlord is perfectly within his right to make a commercial decision   not to release early. 

3. This tenant wants to be released now so the point is not valid in this case.  I was replying to your comment "I've never understood landlords who try to stop tenants leaving early. Why "

Wrong side of bed this morning RL?

[Richlist]

The OP is asking for advice on where they stand......I'm giving my advice, which is, let the tenant go. The landlord can refuse, the law is on their side but there is a need to be aware of the possible result of that decision. A landlord who stands their ground and refuses to let the tenant go will clearly see a breakdown of any remaining relationship they had with the tenant i.e. it can only get worse. They might then find......a few months without any rental income, the need to expend lots of time & effort and potential damage to property. Leaving 8 months into a 12 contract isn't a big deal.

[Melboy]

I would let the tenant go and my reason for coming to that conclusion to that is exactly what the OP is having to put up with right now and it can only get worse from what I have read.

[Carryon Regardless]

Different scenarios, different strategies.

Deposits are of limited value regarding recompense. 5 weeks being the max.

We are so controlled and find it awkward to even seek financial satisfaction, never mind actually getting it, I can see an argument for keeping the T for a long as.

I have negotiated an early release settlement. How we phrase any charges might bite back, but I would hope a settlement is acceptable as a payment. If the T has changed his mind he should pay for the luxury.

London rents are falling, maybe elsewhere in city locations also, due to the reduced number of T's needing to live near work. We are in business so the T feeling peeved his rents might now be higher is just tough. I'm not aware rents have fallen by 30%, and even as a starting point of negotiation, with menaces, it's taking the pee.

To my mind the biggest concern here is the difficulty in getting court dates and the power that gives T's who are aware. 4 months allows for some recovery so that threat can be realistic again.

I have one property I would hate to become mt. If the T's made such noises I would nail their feet to the flippin' floor.

Be sure to get a suitable G'tor next time, they are such loverly people that can do our dirty work for us.

 

[C Em]

We are not talking London rents here. It is an immaculate 1940’s 3 bed semi with generous front and rear gardens in the north of England at £575 per month. 
He wanted to give me £400 which is an insult. 

[Richlist]

Didn't you take any rent guarantee insurance or a home owning guarantor ? If not then the answers already given provide you with the options available. Different people have different opinions so the choice is entirely yours.

One thing is for sure, if you chose not to put any safeguards in place then you are likely to incur losses. 

[C Em]

Hi Richlist, No, I’ve never heard of the insurance (I’ve bought 3 houses over the last 9 years and have mainly had great tenants so I’m really still a novice and letting agencies have never mentioned it) and guarantors are not a thing in this area when letting property. 
Thank you, I’ll look into these options for next time. 

[Carryon Regardless]

I have wondered where up North.

I let properties in less affluent areas, at your rent price it's either very cheap or in an area worse than mine.

In the lesser areas I often find the quality of tenants is going to be lower, with associated additional risk. I must accept that but the lower value of the properties can mean the return is proportionally higher, until.

Also guarantors can more often be found, but again of a lower quality. So in the event they aren't really going to compensate the situation. But I still want one and if nowt else they can find the bugger when they've hoofed it. The fear of litigation 'can' be greater for some.

I did research on insurance some years ago. I didn't work for me then. In some cases it would be pointless but would involve more admin. I effectively self insure.

On more than one occasion I have accepted the hit as part of my increased risk. I do endevour to minimise it each time though. There does come a point where writing off is more intelligent than the effort of chasing for what is likely to be a limited return.

In this case I would be taking the physiological route to hopefully avoid him leaving damage when gone. Consider what you have over him. Do you know where he works, where friends and parents live. Him knowing this will follow him is a good deterant. Meanwhile unless your sure the next tenants will be lovely I would consider negotiating  a reduced rent, so often it's better the devil you know.

 

[bil8999]

Let him go, move on

 

[C Em]

Hi Carryon Regardless, It’s Carlisle, ex council but rest of estate privately owned and in the sought after end of town. Not an area which is classed as less affluent at all, very little unemployment and nice decent people on the whole. 
There is such a divide between prices in the far north of England and further down the country where the population fight for space to live. 
Believe it or not you can still buy a 2 bed terraced house in the poorer end of the north east where unemployment is high for 20k. 

[Richlist]

There was a time when one could buy a house on the Falls Road in Northern Ireland for considerably less than £20K but in reality you wouldn't want to do that either.

There's property at bargain basement prices all over the UK but buying investment property is not all about price. In fact price is way down the list of considerations.

[C Em]

Yes, we researched different parts of the city and soon realised that you need to pay more to get a house in the desirable area. Rents are higher and demand is always strong if you buy in the right place. Over the last 9 years we’ve bought 3 in the same street as we know they are well built and always sought after.