Read your lease agreement. Find out the dates it was agreed upon to pay the rent. Go to your county and find the Landlord/Tenant laws. If the rent is due on the 1st of each month, and the lease agrees with a 5 day grace period. You can legally file in rent court the 2nd day of the month. You cannot charge them late fees until the grace period has ended. Go to court, wait for the appeal period and then file a Warrant of Restitution. Wait until the sheriff gets the Warrant and then evict them.
You can also, not renew their lease. Do this with certified letter, or in person. On the day after they are scheduled to move out and they have yet to provide you with their keys, go to court to file a "Tenant Holding Over". Submit your evidence that you asked them to move out and they haven't and wait for the sheriff to evict them.
You much choose one of the two actions in accordance to your county/district/town you live in.
There is no "resolve" when you have bad paying tenants. Move them out. The owner of the property is losing money, the faster you get a new resident the better!
If the landlord has such an agreement between a tenant and his subleaser, then the subleaser is no longer a subleasor, and becomes a co-tenant, who would have the same rights as the original tenant. Most landlords don't like subleasers because they are not bound by the same terms as the tenant. By the same token the subleaser is in a bad position because he doesn't have the same rights as a tenant, and can be kicked out at any time.
Yes. Since the tenant affixed the improvement to the property, it becomes a fixture, which belongs to the landlord. An exception to this is if there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant, or if the landlord gives permission for the improvement to be removed. Standard picture hooks, and other like objects, do not constitute fixtures, and may be removed if they belong to the tenant.
Yes it's illegal to mislead a tenant. There are certain ways you could get out of it, if you did mislead him, but didn't out rightly lie to him. If it can be proven that you purposely did mislead him than it's illegal just like misleading anyone else.
Never heard of anybody paying rent two years in advance. But, yes, if there is a reason. The landlord surely would have to pay back the unused portion of rent, but, if the tenant is violating the lease, he can be evicted. Serious violations, like damaging the premises, selling drugs, running a house of prostitution, setting the place on fire, having a pit bul, or even just smoking could easily result in an eviction, even with that much rent paid in advance.
Yes, to an extent, as most countres have specific landlord/tenant laws. Basically, the collection of unpaid rent would qualify for consumer laws, in the manner in which they attempt to collect the monies owed that the courts have awarded a judgment. Like, the enforcement of judgments, writs of execution, those types of things. But mainly, the landlord/tenant laws would apply first, since these are specific laws for tenants and rental proceedures.
Local courts resolve local issues like conflicts between neighbors.
Yes. The tenant should be considered the landlord of the sub-tenant. Therefore, he can evict, just like any landlord.
It may be that the Housing Autority cancelled the Section 8 contract because of the tenant's breach. In that case, yes, the tenant is simply responsible for all of the rent, and if the tenant does not pay, the landlord should move forward with eviction. But, there is federal regulation saying that the tenant cannot be evicted if the Housing Authority simply stopped paying for some reason that has nothing to do with the tenant, like the housing authoriy's error, or budget problems.
No, he dislikes sport.
David has said he doesn't like sport.
If a landlord plans to make upgrades to a tenant's apartment, they will usually pay for the tenant to stay somewhere else, like a hotel. While the tenant is gone, their apartment will get new carpet, paint, or whatever else is needed to make it nicer.
Not really, no.
It depends. If the sub-tenant was there by right and the landlord allowed a sub-lease, then that's a situation where nothing has gone wrong. If the landlord is suing, it sounds instead like the tenant did not have the right to sublet and in that case they are responsible to complete the lease and the sub-tenant may not have had the right to be there.
The landlord has control over what type of use a tenant can have in the building before signing the lease. The landlord/owner has to maximize revenue and limit risks as much as possible. For example if the building is mostly boutique shops and restaurant's you would not want an auto-body shop in the building. This would not be a good tenant mix. It would be too noisy, the odors will be in the building, there is an issue of hazardous waste from used oil and the list goes on. Not to mention that the consumers will not like coming to a place in this environment, and a host of EPA issues regarding the hazardous waste. I know this is an extreme example but good tenant mix in a building is essential for the landlord/owner to make money and for the tenant to succeed in his/her business. Its is somewhat like a partnership. So the landlord will restrict what type of use or business the tenant is allowed to have in the landlord/owners building.
Employment issues can be discussed and resolved at a number of levels. If you can discuss issues and resolve them with your Employer then that is clearly the best outcome. However, when this is not possible then the Citizen's Advice Bureau is good place to start. if you need professional legal support you through complex issues like Redundancy, Discrimination, Bullying etc then you need to use Solicitors. Good solicitors such as Minster Law have a proven track record.
you get issues, like hepatitus C
Failure to contribute to household expenses may or may not be grounds for eviction. This depends on the term of the lease. Not contributing to household expenses is the same as not paying utilities in most household situations. A landlord may not evict a tenant for not paying his utilities, just like the landlord cannot turn off utilities to force the tenant to pay his rent. Therefore, if the tenant has paid his rent on time then the landlord has no grounds for eviction. However, after proper notice, the landlord has the right to evict the tenant. Now, if you are renting a room to the tenant, then you're charging him with room and board, not rent. If that's the case, you have to spell out the terms of that agreement, any violation of which will allow you to evict him. In that case, you still have to undergo the same eviction proceedings any landlord would go through in a regular landlord/tenant relationship.