C Africa wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:14 pm
Jack Welles wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:21 am
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! I'm out. The REAL
lawyers on Avcom have taken over
Ok Jack so critique me. So what's wrong? C -NOTE POSTS WORDING REARRANGED FOR CONVENIENCE - NO WORDING CHANGED
Debate accepted as long as it stays objective and impersonal - if that changes I'm out
- hope that's okay?
1. You cancel the contract in terms of the provisions in the rental agreement which allows you to cancel based on non-payment.
Agreed BUT only if the wording in the contract allows for that and it's done in the way provided for in the lease.
2. Following this procedure, the person occupying your property is now an illegal occupant and there is NO CONTRACT for him to rely on.
It's simplistic to suggest that he has no contract to rely on. There may be terms in the now-cancelled contract that apply to a cancelled scenario. One would have to look at the exact wording to know. The relevant legislation also implies (ie, it's not necessary to have them written into the original contract) certain conditions that would (effectively) be carried on from the contract to the post-contract period. The law also dictates that certain types of provisions in leases are, in fact, invalid.
3. Yes that illegal occupant is protected from EVICTION by the law, but the law does NOT provide this person with ANY other rights in terms of claiming any specific level of service of accommodation.
See answer to 2 above. In addition to that the underlined portion is quite simply wrong. The tenant has many rights and bear in mind that you have to differentiate between a legal tenant that becomes illegal and a squatter. The law deals with the two scenarios differently.
4. So now you are perfectly within your rights to make life as difficult for the person as you can (except denying him access to the property by locking the doors or something foolish).
No, this is simply not correct. Until you have a court order saying otherwise the landlord is not allowed to do anything to disturb, in any way, the peaceful occupation of the property by the tenant. In fact the tenant could get a spoliation order against the landlord. If they go to one of the legal aid clinics etc then money for their lawyers would be no object but would cost the landlord a few bob.
NOTE: 1) we are talking about residential property here and not commercial which has different rules.
2) My responses are pretty simplistic but largely correct. Anything more legalistic would be inappropriate for a social media platform.