Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you with this.
You are correct. However you could then apply to the Court for relief.
This is where the Court considers the matter and sees whether the tenant can pay off the arrears over a reasonable period.
If this is for a private dwelling then the Landlord has to apply to the Court for an order for possession.
If its a private dwelling then the Landlord can not simply re-enter.
A Landlord MUST get a Court order which you would have an opportunity to defend.
Usually what happens is that a Landlord if the rent is late, will write to you and demand it.
If you do not pay and you have a mortgage the Landlord will contact the lender.
Usually the debt is paid and the lender adds the debt to your mortgage.
But as a last step the landlord can seek possession but MUST have a court order as this is a private dwelling
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
Thank you for your answer. So the clause could not be enforced without going through due court process anyway. Is it then the case that the court would use some common sense if there was a genuine reason for missing a payment by 2 weeks and in so doing rule that the lease could not be removed provided we stump up the arrears right away - or would the court be obliged to interpret the lease agreement to the letter exactly as signed (so we would be no better off, but have incurred court fees on top of loosing the lease)? Does that make any difference or is it still treated as a private dwelling?
You probably think I’m being over paranoid but it is a big investment to make when such a draconian clause exists!
Sorry - the last sentence of the first paragraph should have said "Finally, yes it is a private dwelling, but is might be let to a third party (which is permitted by the lease), does that make any difference..."
The clause can not be enforced WITHOUT a Court order.
If it a private dwelling even if sublet the answer is the same.
Does this help?
Almost - I understand that it cannot be enforced without the order - but if a court order is sought is the court just going to say "well you signed it and have to stick to it", or will they be able to prevent the landlord from doing something which would seem unfair given mitigating circumstances. Hopefully I'm making myself clear - its a matter of whether the court interprets the lease exactly as written or uses common sense to say it can't be enforced if there is a genuine reason for a payment being missed.
No it does not make sense.
The Landlord will apply for possession
This will detail outstanding sums due
If you pay those sums before the Court hearing there will be no order.
If the Court grants possession it can suspend it on terms, ie you pay £x a month or a week and the order cant be enforced as long as you stick to it
The Landlord then if you break it apply for a warrant.
You can then apply to suspend the warrant of eviction
Is that clear?
Yes - thanks a lot!