Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,


I need some advice. I have a tenant for a Buy to Let flat of mine who refuses to pay the agreed contracted rent. I served him 1 month's notice as per the signed tenancy agreement and he refuses to leave. Can you please let me know what I can do next? I'm fairly new to renting and have no experience of this.


Many thanks,

Sue

Have a look at the .gov website: https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/overview


You need to follow strict procedures to evict a tenant, otherwise the notice will not be valid.


Also have a look at the Shelter advice guide for private tenancies: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting and eviction: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction

After rent arrears reach a minimum of eight weeks, you can serve a notice to seek possession. This will involve going to court where a magistrate will decide to either grant a possession order for eviction, grant a suspended possession order (common for social landlords where arrears have good reason, like benefits delays etc), or decline the possession order.


With private property, you are highly likely to be granted a possession order for rent arrears, providing you follow the correct process for doing so. Once you have that order granted, you can instruct bailiffs to evict.


It is worth throughout this process, trying to still reach the tenant and see what the problem is. It is also worth speaking to neighbours to see if the tenant has been seen or not. Has your property been abandoned for example? Or has your tenant any issues with the property, or some personal change of circumstance, such as loss of job or benefits? If they are not repsonding to you, then you have little choice but to evict.


Some useful links;


https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/overview


http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-legally-evict-your-tenant

It might be worth pointing out to the tenants that the council will not rehouse anyone who is evicted owing rent which they could have paid. That is called intentional homelessness.


If you have given them an assured shorthold tenancy there is a simpler procedure using a Section 21 notice. You will still need to be careful and involve the court. They have rights to remain until a court says they must leave and a bailiff comes to enforce the court's view.


If you go via a section 21 you must have protected the deposit and the property must be in good repair. They can get legal aid to contest the process. To get the missing rent you will need to make a separate court application for a money order. If they do not have any money this may not be worthwhile.


Do not evict them yourself, change the locks, threaten them, cut off the utilities or do anything not ordered by a court.

The mean response is that buy to let has driven demand replacing the first time buyer as the main factor driving house prices forcing up rents and making property affordable for many workers in the SE.


The nice answer is that I had plenty of experience when I dabbled a few years ago (and now well out of it) and can send you the relevant forms in word format if you PM me. Lots of small landlord chat rooms so you are not the only one! Get proof of posting and keep it polite but formal. My biggest headache was a lady with a custody battle over her daughter's baby, who refused to leave, probable mental health problems, illegally subletting to Chinese student lodgers, not paying rent, with child social services and housing involved, refusing to leave and hence making herself homeless. And it went to court. And she never paid the CCJ. After my first comment you may well say it serves me right.

Get advice. Do it properly - every detail. Otherwise you can invalidate your claim for possession.


Be warned - this could go on for a long time.


When does the tenenacy contract end?


You could try and get them out by fact of end of tenancy, rather than eviction for non-payment.

Been there done that. The common opinion is that you can't go wrong with property. In the late 80s it was the only subject at after work gatherings of those in their mid 20s . A couple of years later then it was handing the keys back to the loan organisation due to negative equity and massive interest rates.


Fast forward almost 30 years with low interest rates, population increase/rental demand and easier to get buy-to-let loans then it doesn't surprise me that there is a 'can't go wrong' general opinion - certainly I hear enough of it.


Generally it doesn't but sometimes it can. As said happy to be of help and don't use solicitors as most if it is easy to do yourself - if a bit frustrating at time. I even know a chap who works for bailiffs (by chance, not for suspect reasons).


Although I thought loss of tax allowances and increase in stamp duty was supposed to take the heat out of the market.


PS when I got into it with a mate, totally on a whim, we were looking at 40% gross returns. It was another world of cheap terraces, dodgy inner city areas and students. That market went years ago. Ah, the stories of the amateur buy to let landlord in the 80s and 90s.

  • 2 weeks later...

Wonder how it is going?


I sneakily watched Nightmare Tenants Slum Landlords on telly the other day. Tenants that refused to move, and ones that damaged the fixtures and fittings. Huh, they didn't leave a skip full of junk, you were lucky!


There's also an article in the Gruaniad about someone getting out of buy to let after 15 years. There was an amusing story about the cat that was not allowed out. I acted as an informal agents for a mate letting out his maisonette once. First tenants had a cat that was not allowed out.


When I came to re let you could hardly breath. A nice couple took it who I assumed had no sense of smell.


I let them off the first month's rent as they were happy to do some decorating. A couple of months letter they presented me with a bill for new carpets. Why I said? Because how can we live here when it stinks of cat pee. Nice one I thought as they had played the game well (take a difficult to let place at an attractive price and then sort it out).


The other thing about the Grauniad article is missing out income tax on rent and what looks like a massive underestimate of Capital Gains Tax.


Most tenants were fine, and occasionally brilliant.

I used to own a flat in Lewisham - the flat below mine was let to a social housing tenant family who were the tenants from hell. Moves were made to evict them for many breaches of the tenancy agreement (pets in house, late rent, very anti-social behaviour and drugs among minor issues as well as major arrears).


Night before eviction they left of their own accord - having turned on all the taps full blast, and put plugs in the sink before walking out the door. :-(

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...