A fresh alternative Home | News & events | Legal updates | Abandonment? Change the locks at your peril

Abandonment? Change the locks at your peril

25 February 2010

The Court of Appeal has ruled in Kalas v Farmer that a judge was entitled to find that a landlord did not reasonably believe their tenant had stopped living in the premises

The judge’s finding meant the landlord had no defence to a damages claim for unlawful eviction under the Housing Act 1988.


Facts

Kalas was an assured tenant of Farmer. When Kalas temporarily left the property, Farmer changed the locks. Later, Kalas successfully took possession of the property from Farmer, but was subsequently sent to prison. Farmer re-entered the property, changed the locks, and sold it with vacant possession. 

Kalas brought a claim for damages for unlawful eviction in accordance with Section 27 of the Housing Act, as Farmer had ‘unlawfully deprived [the] residential occupier of his occupation of [the] premises’.

At trial, Farmer stated that he believed, and it was reasonable to believe, that Kalas had abandoned the property and surrendered the tenancy. This ‘belief’ can be a defence to a claim for damages for unlawful eviction.

Decision

The judge rejected Farmer’s evidence and found that he had taken a calculated risk by re-entering the property. Kalas had not abandoned the property and Farmer had taken the law into his own hands. The judge awarded Kalas damages.

Farmer unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled there was sufficient evidence to support the judge’s findings thus: Farmer had not established a defence under Section 27(8) of the Housing Act.

What it means

This case is a timely reminder that landlords must conduct a thorough investigation when looking to take possession of a property that they believe to be ‘abandoned’. 

Without such an investigation and supporting evidence, a landlord will not be able to successfully defend a claim for unlawful eviction. A landlord needs to be able to prove that they believed, and it was reasonable to believe, that the occupier had ceased to reside at the property. Without this defence, a landlord will be found liable of unlawful eviction and ordered to pay damages.

The only sure fire way to avoid this is to get an order of the court for possession of a property.

If you wish to discuss this case or have any queries or concerns, please contact us.

© Shoosmiths. This page is for general information: it is not legal advice. Please read our full terms and conditions for details of the disclaimers and exclusions which apply.

Are any of the issues in this article giving you a headache? If so, we want to know

Name *

Comments*

The information you provide here will be used solely for the purposes of responding to your query for more information see our privacy policy.
 

Get in touch

Liz Hargreaves

Associate
T: 03700 86 4059
I: +44 (0)121 625 4059
E: liz.hargreaves@shoosmiths.co.uk