Baliff’s, recovery of rent arrears.

Dear All,

I hope you can help with this as my enquiry is either straightforward or perhaps the beginning of a worrying trend.

My client is a Wandsworth Council tenant and has some rent arrears to the total of £315.38, which he disputes and has a good argument and we are pursuing the housing benefit section about this.

In the meantime my client has been sent a letter titled ‘NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISTRAIN GOODS’. However, he has not been to Court for rent arrears, although since he received said letter they have served him with a notice on intention to seek possession.

Within the letter is the note that if the full amount is not paid in full that no further warning will be sent to you and the next contact you can expect will be the visit by the bailiff. There is then the standard spiel about how it is import to clear arrears and that sufficient goods will be removed to clear those arrears, plus costs and expenses of the bailiff.

Can Wandsworth Council instruct a bailiff at this stage i.e. no money judgement order or no order at all in fact, and if so what would happened if say they did then subsequently housing benefit cleared the arrears?

As I say it could be a new power that the Council has, which I am and colleagues are not familiar with, or some erroneous empty and perhaps potentially unlawful threat?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Have a look at 11.8.28.30 (eg para 11). Landlords of secure tenants do not have to obtain a court order to be able to seize a client’s goods for unpaid rent.

That said, you might complain that they shouldn’t be taking enforcement while there is a genuine HB issue which may clear the arrears once resolved.

While it is true that a local authority is not restrained by statute from instructing bailiffs without a court order, unlike landlords of assured or protected tenants, that doesn’t mean that the bailiffs have the right to enter.  A residential tenant has exclusive possession and that includes the right to exclude his landlord and any of his agents.  So, until the landlord gets a court order granting possession he has no right to enter the property without the tenant’s permission, other than his usual right to effect repairs or carry out an inspection.  If the bailiffs ‘barge in’ without permission they are trespassing and leave the landlord liable for a claim for damages and a possible breach of articles 6 and 8, and, article 1 of protocol 1of the Human Rights Act.

However, he needs to sort this out with the council as each letter or visit from the bailiffs will incur a charge.  Instructing bailiffs for rent arrears in the non- commercial sector is a highly unusual step, particularly for such a small amount, so something tells me there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

nevip

Normal rules about bailiffs are that they can only get in for the first time if they are allowed in by someone in the property (not a child), or can come in through an unlocked door or open window (i.e. without breaking in).  If they have been in once in this way, then they can break in if necessary when they return.

I’m not sure from your post whether you are implying the situation is different in the type of case mentioned, but the CAB document referred to doesn’t make any differentiation.

Hi Derek

I’m fully aware that Bailiffs can climb through an open window or break down connecting doors if on the property legally.  Or can return and break in once they’ve been on the property legally.  So I’m not saying the powers are different here.  What I’m saying is that the normal rules do apply and as long as they do not get onto the property legally they can’t do a damn thing about it, other than rack up charges, just because the landlord didn’t require a court order to engage their services.

Thanks for the replies.

Nevip, I think you are onto something and it seems on doing some ‘digging’ that my client and the LA have been at war for several years…he also has nine JSA appeals against sanctions two of which he has applied for leave to appeal but been refused..I have a feeling his case will reach the exceptional case threshold without too much effort..