Managing tenants in a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) can be a challenging task, especially when anti-social behaviour disrupts the harmony of the household. Evicting HMO tenants is often a last resort, but sometimes it becomes the only solution to protect the property and other tenants. This case study explores a real eviction, providing valuable insights for landlords facing similar issues.
A Problematic Tenant: The Background
The tenant in this case appeared ideal during the initial vetting process. They had a stable full-time job, a clean rental history, and passed all checks, including credit reports and references. Unfortunately, a few months after moving in, their housemates began to complain.
Key Issues:
- Hygiene Concerns: Foul odours and flies emanated from the tenant’s room.
- Fire Risk. During the servicing of the fire alarm a pile of fast food packaging in the tenant’s room was identified as a fire risk, prompting the property manager to clear the room and remove 36 bags of rubbish
- Unresolved Problems: Despite multiple verbal and written warnings, the tenant failed to address the issues.
After months of failed interventions, the landlord had no choice but to begin the formal process of evicting the tenant. The tenant then decided to stop paying rent.
The Eviction Process: Step-by-Step
Evicting HMO tenants requires adherence to strict legal protocols. Here’s how this case unfolded.
Step 1: Early Warnings and Section 21 Notice
- 3 months into tenancy: Complaints began, prompting the first warning.
- 4 months into tenancy: Multiple written notices were issued, with no lasting resolution.
- 5 months into tenancy: A Section 21 (S21) notice was served, giving the tenant two months to vacate.
Step 2: Escalation to Court Action
- Day 1: Accelerated possession documents were posted to the court.
- Day 19: A call from the court received to pay the £355 court fee was paid and the claim was issued. (Delay occurred due to the landlord not having a cheque.) The tenant was given 14 days to file a defence.
- Day 39: Following a lack of defence, a request for a Possession Order slip was posted to the court.
- Day 45: Letter received from the court stating the slip was incorrect, as an option had not been selected.
- Day 46: A corrected slip was posted, indicating a request for possession and costs.
- Day 84: A letter from the court advised that the claimant was not entitled to use the accelerated possession procedure. A court hearing was scheduled for Day 97.
- Day 88: Solicitor instructed to attend the court hearing.
- Day 97: The court hearing was held. The judge awarded possession and costs, with the tenant ordered to vacate by Day 111.
- Day 114: Request for Warrant of Possession emailed to the court.
- Day 137: A callback from the court was received, and the £143 bailiff fee was paid. The warrant was issued.
- Day 153: Notice of the bailiff’s appointment was issued for Day 201.
- Day 166: Confirmation slip posted to the court.
- Day 201: The property manager attended with a locksmith to change the locks. The bailiff arrived but couldn’t proceed due to an error in the paperwork (missing room number). Despite this, the tenant agreed to move out voluntarily and signed a deed of surrender. The tenant vacated the property.
- Day 215: The court issued another notice for a follow-up appointment 2 months later, although this was unnecessary as the tenant had already vacated.
Timeline Summary of Evicting HMO Tenants
- 6.5 Months to Gain Possession: From the initial Section 21 notice to gaining possession
- 3 Months for Bailiff Enforcement: From the Warrant of Possession request to the bailiff’s appointment
The Costs of Evicting HMO Tenants
Evicting HMO tenants can be financially draining. Here’s the breakdown for this case:
- Rent Arrears: £4,214
- Costs: £2,828
- Total Financial Loss: £7,042
This underscores the importance of avoiding delays and procedural errors during the eviction process.
Lessons Learned
This case highlights key lessons for landlords managing HMO properties:
1. PCOL vs Accelerated Possession
The accelerated possession procedure is paper-based and onerous, which led to several delays during the process, not to mention printing and posting the 267-page claim. A three-week delay occurred because the landlord couldn’t immediately make the required payment as it required a cheque. Later, a one-week delay was caused when the possession slip was rejected due to a box not being crossed out. Using the Possession Claim Online (PCOL) system could significantly reduce delays although it requires a court hearing. It allows landlords to make payments easily with a debit card and simplifies the process by enabling online submissions and corrections.
2. Double-Check AST Details
In this case, the Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) mistakenly listed the Agent’s name instead of the Landlord’s name due to a software error. This oversight led to the court determining that the claimant (the Landlord) did not appear to have a legal interest in the tenancy, triggering a court hearing. To avoid similar issues, add a step to your process to verify that the Landlord’s name is correctly shown on all ASTs. If any ASTs are found to have errors, reissue them promptly to ensure compliance and prevent complications.
3. Call The Bailiff On the Morning of the Eviction
A court administrative error resulted in the room number being omitted from the warrant of possession resulting in the bailiff being unable to carry out the eviction and a potential further 2-month delay. On the morning of the possession, contact the bailiffs to confirm that the room number is correctly shown on the warrant and get them to add it if not.
4. Act Promptly on Anti-Social Behaviour
A delay of five months occurred between the issue being logged and the Section 21 notice being served. While the intention was to give the tenant ample opportunity to address their behaviour, issuing the Section 21 notice earlier would have provided a necessary safeguard while still allowing time to work collaboratively with the tenant. Introducing a clear trigger for issuing a Section 21 notice after a set period of persistent anti-social behaviour—adjusted for severity—can help balance fairness with the need to protect the property and other tenants.
Communication as a Key Strategy
Despite the many challenges, the tenant eventually agreed to move out voluntarily. Open communication and negotiation played a crucial role in resolving the situation without further delays. This demonstrates the value of maintaining professional yet firm relationships with tenants, even during disputes.
The Importance of Proactive Management to avoid Evicting HMO tenants
Evicting HMO tenants can be a lengthy and costly process, but it also offers valuable lessons in proactive property management. By implementing robust procedures, maintaining clear communication, and addressing issues early, landlords can safeguard their investments and create a harmonious environment for all tenants.
Confidence Property offers professional support to landlords, helping to prevent and manage anti-social behaviour in HMOs through proactive tenant management and regular property inspections. If issues do arise, Confidence Property can guide landlords through the legal process and connect them with experienced housing solicitors to ensure the matter is resolved efficiently and in compliance with all legal requirements.
