Hacker News Reader

Comment by madaxe_again | Hacker News Reader

Ah, letting agents.

I got evicted from a property years ago because they did a surprise inspection while I was out (which is, of course, totally illegal), and decided they'd found "mountains of cocaine" on the kitchen counters.

It was fucking Ajax kitchen cleaning powder. Still, they didn't care. The police (who they contacted) thought it was laughable, but couldn't do anything about the fact they were evicting me.

View on HN

For the sake of clarity it's worth noting that in England tenant rights are quite good. For an eviction to take place it must be ordered by the courts and a landlord can only apply to the courts for possession after providing a tenant with 2 months notice. A quick eviction in England takes 3 months, an average eviction is closer to 5 and in some cases it can take much much longer. The only situation in which someone can be evicted with no notice is if they are a lodger (renting a room with a resident landlord), which wouldn't involve letting agents or inspections. The confusion over evictions in England comes from tenants not understanding their rights, a notice to quit (Section 21) is NOT an eviction.

A tenant can only be evicted for rent arrears if they have over 2 months rent due (and bringing the arrears under 2 months at any time invalidates any court action), landlords cannot evict if they have not legally protected the tenants deposit and landlords have no rights to enter a tenanted property unless it is an emergency.

And then you'll never be able to rent again. At least through a letting agent, which is how most rentals occur.

I'd love to know why this is down voted, because it is unequivocally true.

Nearly all letting agents (probably all?) in the UK vet potential tenants and will run various forms of check, including credit checks. They will also ask for previous addresses, and if previously renting, will demand a reference from the previous agency and landlord.

(Not legal advice.)

Someone giving you a bad reference, or refusing to give a reference, because you won a legal case against them is generally the kind of thing that could get another legal case started.

On what grounds? If the previous landlord gives truthful reference (i.e. no slander and nothing illegal) when asked, including the trouble they had to go through to evict you, there's nothing to sue them over.

But that information alone would be very useful input for my decision on whether to lent to you or not.

What state did you live in? You've got tenant rights, and one of them is almost certainly "You can't be evicted for cleaning your apartment." Just a wild guess.

The fine state of County Durham.

As a tenant - a student tenant, no less - your rights are virtually squat.

That is absolutely not true. Having rented properties in the UK I know that letting agencies will treat you like shit. No matter. Contact the property ombudsman, he will sort them out:

http://www.tpos.co.uk/

Might even recommend going to court over it.

Brit chiming in here. The contempt that estate agents and landlords have for your privacy, well-being and life in general is almost indescribable.

Knowing some landlords, the number one thing they complain about is how impossible it is to evict anyone. I really doubt you had any rights.

was that last sentence the opposite of what you intended to type?

In the UK you almost certainly have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (even if the agent says you don't). This gives you a lot of strong rights which you can use if you know how.

In practice the agent or landlord has a lot of leverage but you can often win if you use the law to your advantage. In particular there is a very specific set of steps they have to follow to evict you.

Oh, I'm aware, and I essentially rolled over as I wan't too bothered about having to move, as I was sick to the eye teeth of dealing with them, and the property was barely habitable. Eviction was their threat if I didn't leave of my own volition.

Licenses/contracts are quite popular in place of ASTs in student/shared/bed sit accommodation.

Even in housing association properties, you can have a 2 year "trial" period.

You only have to lightly scratch below the surface these days to find rights eroded left and right.

EDIT: I said "in place of ASTs", but ASTs aren't always appropriate.

Do such contracts actually make a difference, though? You can put anything you want into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. An apartment lease can say, "Tenant waives all renters' rights under the law," but the tenant will still have all rights granted him by law. Is the problem simply that people believe the enforceability of their contracts beyond what is actually true?

I understand your point about other laws overruling contract law, but for housing (and I admit I haven't read the Housing Act(s)), I believe your rights under those acts are dependent on what kind of agreement is in place and the housing situation.

My understanding was that, roughly, if you pay a regular payment as rent for a property then you have an AST - whether the contract says so or not.

This is mainly in the context of house/flat rentals though; I realise that perhaps per-room rentals may have special cases.

They thought a student had 'mountains of cocaine'? Don't they realise how expensive that stuff is?!

Of course not. That would require understanding something beyond one's own immediate world.

What did the court say when they applied for a possession order?

To be fair, they just gave me my marching orders and said they'd proceed to eviction if I didn't scram - and scram I did, as the place was falling down anyway.

So were not actually evicted.

He also states:

"As a tenant - a student tenant, no less - your rights are virtually squat."

This is patently false.

So, the ol' bluff a college student because they don't know better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com