• Home
  • About
  • Clinic
  • Training
  • Eco Landlords
  • Landlord Law

The Landlord Law Blog

From landlord and tenant lawyer Tessa Shepperson

  • Home
  • Posts
  • News & comment
  • Cases
  • Tenants
    • Penalties for breaching tenancy rules
    • 15 Places for tenant help
  • Clinic
  • Podcasts
    • Interview
    • Surgery
  • Series
    • Analysis
    • should law and justice be free
    • HMO Basics
    • Tenancy Agreements 33 days
    • Airbnb
    • Grounds for Eviction
    • The Deregulation Act Explained
    • Tips

Ancient law may help landlords

December 1, 2009 by Tessa J Shepperson

old housesWe have all known it happen.

A tenant says that he is going, and then at the last moment changes his mind and decides that he would like to stay on after all, actually.

Thereby causing the landlord (and any tenants who he had lined up to move in) huge inconvenience.

Although the landlord will have the legal right to possession, he will have to get a court order first which could take months (by which time the tenant will probably be long gone).

Well according to an interesting post on the PainSmith blog, an answer to the problem may lie in section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737.

Eighteenth century landlords obviously experienced similar problems.  To quote the act:

“whereas great inconveniences have happened and may happen to landlords whose tenants have power to determine their leases, by giving notice to quit the premisses by them holden, and yet refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same”

The act goes on to provide that if a tenant gives notice and then fails to leave, a landlord can charge double rent “and such double rent or sum shall continue to be paid during all the time such tenant or tenants shall continue in possession as aforesaid“.  However note the following:

  • The tenant must have served a proper valid notice to quit, which has been accepted by the landlord
  • The double rent can  only be charged on a daily basis for the period of time the tenant overstays
  • It cannot be used if the tenant just fails to return the keys
  • It cannot be used if the tenant just stays on after the end of the fixed term (in which case in most cases a new periodic tenancy will arise)

Arguably the money can be deducted from the tenants deposit in the normal way, but the PainSmith blog warns that few judges or adjudicators are aware of this law, so it may be hard to enforce (although landlords could just print out the extract from the online statute linked above).

I would be very interested to know if any landlords have actually used this rule, and if so, whether (if it was challenged)  they were able to uphold the claim at court or arbitration.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: News and comment Tagged With: devious tenants, possession claims

Scroll down for the comments

Landlord Law for Landlords

Are you a landlord, unsure how to manage your properties in these uncertain times?  My Landlord Law service can help you in this crisis by providing online help and guidance and giving you one to one advice in the members' forum area.

>> Find out more about Landlord Law.


IMPORTANT: Please check the date of the post above - remember, if it is an old post, the law may have changed since it was written.

You should always get independent legal advice before taking any action.

Notes on comments:

For personal landlord and tenant related problems, please use our >> Blog Clinic.
Note that we do not publish all comments, please >> click here to read our terms of use and comments policy. Comments close after three months.

Keep up with the news on Landlord Law blog!

To get posts sent direct to your email in box click here

About Tessa J Shepperson

Tessa is a specialist landlord & tenant lawyer and the creator of this site! She is a director of Landlord Law Services which runs Landlord Law and Easy Law Training.

« Tenancy deposit scheme charges to increase
ProConference Residential Landlord & Tenant Update 2009 »

Comments

  1. J says

    December 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM

    Save that no distress for rent can be levied at all where the tenancy is a Rent Act tenancy (Rent Act 1977, s.147) and, in the case of an assured tenancy, the permission of the court is required (Housing Act 1988, s.19(1)). Given the criticism of the remedy in Abingdon RDC v O’Gorman [1968] 3 All ER 69, it’d be a brave DJ that allowed the use of such a remedy!

  2. Tessa Shepperson says

    December 1, 2009 at 10:15 PM

    I have kindly been given access to an article provided on the Guild of Residential Landlords web-site http://www.all4landlords.com, part of which cites Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd. v. Ballard (Kent) Ltd. [1999] 3 W.L.R. 57. I quote from the article:

    Laws L.J. states: 
”…the right to double rent conferred by section 18 of the Act of 1737 only arises where (a) the tenant holding over after his own notice to quit is in fact a trespasser (thus, the notice must be valid), and (b) the landlord treats him as such. Any other case departs from what I regard as the plain purpose of the section…”

    Though s.18 and Laws L.J. both specifically state that the notice must be “valid” a landlord is entitled to accept an invalid notice to quit. It is suggested by the Guild that acceptance of an invalid notice may provide an argument that the notice was “valid”).

    One of the intentions of s.18 was to compensate the landlord should he have contracted a new tenant to take the property after the date specified in the notice, however there is no requirement to have a tenant in waiting to charge double rent.

    Laws L.J. states 
”…it is to my mind entirely clear that the legislature was concerned only to compensate landlords for the potential loss of rent arising where a tenant holds over against the landlord’s insistence that he should comply with his own notice to quit. I do not say that the section applies only where the landlord has a new tenant ready and waiting; the recital gives the thrust, but not necessarily the focus, of the section’s reach.”

    Presumably, as the requirement is that the landlord treats the tenant as a trespasser, any request for double rent should be made using the words “mesne profits” so as to ensure the landlords intention is that the occupier is a trespasser. In addition, a landlord would be well advised to immediately commence possession.

  3. Fred belak says

    December 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM

    I am a former tenant at a property which I occupied for 7.5 years with my family, paying rent on time for the entire period. We held over for 2 weeks, as landlord was changing renewal terms up to 5 days before lease expiry. I have paid rent for period i held over, but landlord is still claiming double rent for period held over, under section 1 of Landlord and Tenant Act of 1730. Is there any basis in that? and where does one find a solicitor to defend against such claims ?

  4. Tessa Shepperson says

    December 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

    As discussed above, the landlords right to double rent appears to arise only when the tenant has served a valid notice. So if you did not serve any notice to quit, then it is arguable that you are not liable for the double rent.

    If the landlord has not issued proceedings, you could just refuse to pay. However if a county court claim is made, a good firm to consult would be PainSmith, the firm mentioned in the blog post, who originally wrote about this. They have a web-site at http://www.painsmith.co.uk.

    Otherwise you may be able to find a suitable firm via our referral service.

“Interesting posts on residential landlord & tenant law and practice - in England & Wales UK”

Landlord Law Virtual Conference 2021

Make sure you and your staff are fully up to date with the law – remember the only 100% protection against penalties and fines is 100% compliance!

Our virtual Conference has expert legal speakers and the recordings will be available for 3 months after the event.

Click here to find out more

Free Webinars

Subscribe to the Landlord Law Blog by email

Never miss another post!

Choose whether you want to get
>> daily updates or just the
>> weekly roundups

You will also get a FREE Ebook!

If you are new to the blog >> click here

Get Your Free Ebook:

Click to get your Free Ebook

>> Click Here for Your Free Copy

Featured Post

Coronavirus

Landlords and the Coronavirus Emergency – keeping records

Tessa’s Podcast

The Landlord and Lawyer Podcast

Worried about Insurance?

Landlord Law Insurance Mini-Course

Disclaimer

The purpose of this blog is to provide information, comment and discussion.

Although Tessa, or guest bloggers, may from time to time, give helpful comments to readers' questions, these can only be based on the information given by the reader in his or her comment, which may not contain all material facts.

Any comments or suggestions provided by Tessa or any guest bloggers should not, therefore be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified lawyer regarding any actual legal issue or dispute.

Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or perceived as creating a lawyer-client relationship (apart from the Fast Track block clinic service - so far as the questioners only are concerned).

Please also note that any opinion expressed by a guest blogger is his or hers alone, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Tessa Shepperson, or the other writers on this blog.

Cookies

You can find out more about our use of 'cookies' on this website here.

Associated sites

Landlord Law Services
Tenant Law
Eco Landlords
Your Law Store

Legal

Landlord Law Blog is © 2006 – 2020 Tessa Shepperson.

Note that Tessa is an introducer for Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers and will get a commission from sales made via links on this website.

© 2006–2021 Tessa Shepperson | Rainmaker Platform | Contact Page | Log in

This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
I accept