[Abriel]

Originally Posted by Oldnjaded

All we could think was when the agent phoned to say the tenants were suspiciously quiet, we were supposed to infer from that that they'd done a moonlight. Yes I know, RUBBISH!

Is that what they meant? Why didnt they just say so? weird

[ewoodie]

Originally Posted by ayrshire lass

I've just read something in aTV Mag that is a total SOR, it's that EVA gets a job at the factory as a machinist. How far fetched is that? Not just because she will never have been near a sewing machine in her life, but someone like her agreeing to a job like that. Unbelievable!

She might get to wiggle her best bits at Carla's bro tho!

[ewoodie]

Originally Posted by ceecee31

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I'm only dipping in and out of this forum. Has CS lately been pinching scenarios from other more classic comedies? I specifically mention the rat episode which was extremely reminiscent of Fawlty Towers, and then the lady cab drivers in competition with the old firm. Direct from the old Carr On Cabby film. Maybe the scriptwriters don't think we the the viewing public are savvy enough to recognise this??

You must have missed Becky's tribute to The Shining when she smashed down the Barlow's front door. Then there was Bohemian Rhapsody. I think Steve McDonald did some singing once but I've forgotten what.

[syncage]

Originally Posted by Abriel

Is that what they meant? Why didnt they just say so? weird

Very strange that the agents would alert her that " the tenants are being quiet" . That is ideally what the landlord wants from a tenant surely!! Maybe they just went on holiday and are going to have a shock to find Carla has moved back in... Or are we mean't to infer that they have stopped paying their rent?

In that case it's still completely illegal for Carla to simply move back into her flat at the drop of a hat. She needs to give them proper notice and start eviction proceedings. Basic Tenancy law is always completely ignored on CS (Tracey + Beth eviction was another recent example)

[billio]

"suspiciously quiet" = moonlit flit, done a runner, so she could move back in.

[syncage]

no such thing as a moonlight flit... tenants have to officially surrender their tenancy in writing and return the keys which does not equal being "suspiciously quiet".

In the "suspiciously quiet" case the landlord needs to apply for a possession order . It is not legal to just assume abandonment even if they have stopped paying rent.

[billio]

Of course there is such a thing, people can and do leave properties without notice, especially where rent is owed, or they are unlikely to get their deposit back due to damage etc. Some will steal furniture or fixtures and fittings, too.

If your tenants have moved all their belongings out and are obviously not living there (post piled up, etc) of course you can move back in. That might not be to the letter of the law, but who is going to stop you?

[syncage]

I mean't in the eyes of the law there is no such thing.

The point is that unless the tenant has expressly told the landlord or agent they are surrendering the tenancy then there is no way of knowing whether they have done what you describe or perhaps they have been sent to prison, or taken into hospital or gone on an extended holiday. The landlord can not assume and needs to take the proper steps to regain possession of the property. Even in a case where there is rent owing + damage done + the tenants have disappeared the landlord does not have a right to simply move back in.

[billio]

Try stopping her. I've been a landlord myself, if anyone challenged me, which realistically, someone who has trashed your house or just disappeared isn't going to, I would either claim squatter's rights, or that I needed to be there to secure the property.

[syncage]

Originally Posted by billio

If your tenants have moved all their belongings out and are obviously not living there (post piled up, etc) of course you can move back in. That might not be to the letter of the law, but who is going to stop you?

It is against law. Do you often do illegal things just because no-one is going to stop you?

The problem here is that people don't see it as morally wrong as soaps/media etc generally portray landlords as having whatever rights they like over their properties. When in reality they surrender many of these rights by law and by contract.

The risk would be that the tenant returns and can then sue you for unlawful eviction and you would likely end up paying £1000's. I can give you example cases if you are interested.

There are many reasons why someone might legitimately vacate a property for an extended period whilst still intending to return, and there are also documented cases of people who will try and trick a landlord into thinking they have left just so they can sue the landlord.

[billio]

Interested in an example of where someone is clearly no longer living at the address and the landlord has been sued for moving back in. What if you cannot contact your tenants? My neighbour had her gang of crooks do an overnight runner and had it let out again within the month, via an agency.

There is nothing morally wrong with doing that. I expect some tenants might "try it on" to extort some money, though.

I would take a chance on it, the very small risk being fined versus the loss of several months rent, is worth it.

[syncage]

Originally Posted by billio

Try stopping her. I've been a landlord myself, if anyone challenged me, which realistically, someone who has trashed your house or just disappeared isn't going to, I would either claim squatter's rights, or that I needed to be there to secure the property.

Sadly, being a landlord in this country requires no knowledge of the law! Many (if not most in my experience) have no idea of what their rights and responsibilities are and ride roughshod over tenants. In practice you are right it is pretty much impossible to stop a landlord from acting this way as the hassle of taking legal action against them isn't worth the aggravation and the tenant ends up losing their home one way or another

In Carla's case though she has mentioned letting agents so it is a suspension of reality that they would allow her to unilaterally end the tenancy and illegal take possession.

[billio]

Well, they must be pretty sure the tenants moved out, then. We didn't get the whole story, maybe the tenants are flipping dead.

My neighbours' agency let her flat almost immediately, after a deep clean etc.

And I am aware of the law, thanks, but it is our servant, not our master and some common sense comes into play.

[syncage]

Originally Posted by billio

Interested in an example of where someone is clearly no longer living at the address and the landlord has been sued for moving back in. What if you cannot contact your tenants? My neighbour had her gang of crooks do an overnight runner and had it let out again within the month, via an agency.

There is nothing morally wrong with doing that. I expect some tenants might "try it on" to extort some money, though.

I would take a chance on it, the very small risk being fined versus the loss of several months rent, is worth it.

If it is clear that the tenant is not living in the property then all the landlord has to do is apply for an order of possession which will take one, maybe two months. No need to lose several months rent. Part of applying for the order of possession would be showing that you had made efforts to contact the tenant and ruled out the possibility that they were on a extended holiday, in prison, in hospital, away caring for relatives etc.

In most instances of what you are calling a "moonlight flit" the tenant will be in arrears to begin with so notice can be given and possession legally regained that way.

[syncage]

Originally Posted by billio

Well, they must be pretty sure the tenants moved out, then. We didn't get the whole story, maybe the tenants are flipping dead.
.

lol!!

[billio]

Yeh, some people might do that but I'd call it a suspension of reality to go through that rigmarole when someone is clearly not living there at all.

[Oldnjaded]

Irrespective of the legalities of the situation, I still have no idea what happened, since all we heard from the script was that the tenants were suspiciously quiet. What the hell does that mean and how were we supposed to infer from that they'd left/died/fallen asleep/taken a holdiday etc etc etc??

Would it have killed them to insert one extra line of script that could have explained how Carla was able to move straight back in?

[syncage]

why did they even bother to invent these tenants just to (silently) write them out again... we all thought her flat was empty anyway!

[billio]

I just took as read that for whatever boring reason that I'm glad they didn't choose to bore us with, it was Ok for her to move back in.

[Oldnjaded]

Originally Posted by syncage

why did they even bother to invent these tenants just to (silently) write them out again... we all thought her flat was empty anyway!

Good point. They introduced and got rid of these mysterious tenants in one ep in a couple of throwaway lines. Why bother?

I reckon TPTB have been reading all the DS threads/posts about 'why the hell is Carla living in a poky little above-the-bookies flat when she's got a cool bigger flat of her own' ?

[MagentaMoons]

Regarding Carla's tenants, I agree with other posts how silly it was to say they had "gone quiet", it could have been more easily done by Carla simply saying she had only let the flat on a short term lease i.e. one month or three months, etc. She could then quite simply mention it was newly vacated so she would go back for a bit of space away from Peter!

A footnote to this tenancy/landlord situation, I recall sharing a house in my uni days and having the place to myself one afternoon, decided to take a long, hot bubble bath. The next thing I knew, the landlady and her son walked straight into the bathroom asking me "who I was", I'd never met her, so it was understandable I guess. She was a nightmare of a landlord that's for sure, thankfully our next one was the sweetest man you could meet, even arranging a van to collect all our belongings to move into the house he let us!

[dancingdemelza]

When Carla's agent phoned and said the tenants had gone quiet, she left the factory to find out what was going on.

She came back to Peter's flat and found Peter drunk and ranting. She had no chance to tell him (or us) what the situation was with the flat and decided to move out from Peter. For all we know (which is nothing) the tenants might have relinquished the tenancy making it quite legal for her to move back in. The fact that she was going back to her flat obviously means it wasn't currently occupied by the tenants for a reason/reasons not mentioned.

[Makson]

Originally Posted by Mystery Man

But why on Earth is a bookie having to wear that disgustingly manky old jacket? Becky never wore the same outfit twice, so you'd think the wardrobe budget could stretch to a new leather jacket, surely?

Of course there are two people who haven't worked in the factory - Ken and Deirdre. I can't wait!

And why on earth would a man with his own business be living in a manky bedsit right above his shop for??! Surely he is on a comfortable income to afford a decent sized house/flat
Even desperate students would turn their noses up at living in such a dive.

[amysmum]

Where did Carla get the different clothes from. She walked out of the flat with just her handbag yesterday. (Although that handbag could hold a wardrobe of clothes!!)

[pegasus2]

Faye has to be in detention for the next fortnight - but doesn't school break up tomorrow for the summer holidays?

(put this in wrong thread originally)