Jono
0 Thanks
8 Posts
I have been looking at the Doctrine of Surrender by Operation of Law, also known as implied surrender. In my case the tenant is on remand indefinitely due to the pandemic and has been held for over 6 months so far. When he finally gets a hearing he may get a custodial sentence, no one can give a time frame for this or how long he will eventually be in custody. He is six months behind with the rent already. He has applied to have his rent paid but I have not seen it and try as I may I cannot get through to any of the agencies to sort this out. Getting in touch with the tenant is near on impossible. I believe I have the right to determine the tenancy based on the fact that it is both inconsistent and inequitable for the tenancy to continue. I don't believe I need to issue a section 8 or section 21 and get a court order. The facts are plain, he is unable to fulfil his obligation under the tenancy, I have tried my hardest to assist, no one within the benefit system is responding to help, the courts cannot assist for many months or perhaps years. This legal doctrine is based on events and not inclination, so even if the tenant would like to keep and fulfill his tenancy agreement he is unable to do so. This approach will undoubtedly be argued by by those in authority and by the agencies who are so far not responding. They will no doubt try and say I am acting illegally and quote past uses of the doctrine to suit their argument, and insist that s8 and s 21 are used. But just as a doctrine is made up of previous judgements, a new case can come along that may just change things from how they are at the moment, and a new precedent could be born smack in the middle of a legal system, that is clearly not working and is inequitable for Landlords. Does anyone have any opinions on this somewhat bold approach, what do you think the outcome would be if I boldly go where no man has gone before!
