Huurder frustreer verhuurder met wanbetaling

Huurder frustreer verhuurder met wanbetaling
rental

Vandeesweek se leser sit met ’n tameletjie rondom ’n huurder wat nie wil betaal of verhuis nie.

Sy wil van ons paneel deskundiges weet wat haar regte as verhuurder behels.

Die huurder het haar werk vier maande gelede verloor, maar nie ons leser hiervan verwittig nie. In die tussentyd het ons leser reeds twee agtereenvolgende maande vir haar huurder kennis gegee, maar die huurder het tot nou toe nog geen poging aangewend om ander verblyf te vind nie.

Warren Jack van die Warren Jack Property Group in Port Elizabeth sê die Wet op Huurbehuising Nr 50 van 1999 reguleer die verhouding tussen ’n huurder en verhuurder van residensiële eiendom. Artikel 3 van dié wet omskryf sekere regte en verpligtinge wat die partye tydens die duur van die huurkontrak het.

“Een van die verhuurder se regte wat sodanig omskryf word, is dat hy of sy die reg het om tydige en gereelde betaling van die huurbedrag te ontvang, soos wat ooreengekom is in die huurkontrak,” sê Jack.

Hy verduidelik dat indien ’n huurder nie gereelde betalings van die ooreengekome huur maak nie, pleeg hy of sy kontrakbreuk en kan die verhuurder die huurder dan aanspreek om die kontrakbreuk te herstel.

“Indien die huurder nie gehoor gee aan die verhuurder se versoek nie, kan die verhuurder voortgaan om die huurkontrak te kanselleer, waarna die huurder die eiendom sal moet ontruim.”

Indien die huurder, volgens Jack, nie die eiendom ontruim nie, mag die verhuurder volgens artikel 3(5) van die wet die eiendom terugneem ná verkryging van ’n hofbevel. “Die verhuurder kan ook ’n eis instel vir die uitstaande huurgeld, verlies aan toekomstige huurgeld en skadevergoeding, indien van toepassing.”

Grant Howard van Kaplan Blumberg-prokureurs in PE sê kragtens ons gemenereg het ’n verhuurder ’n stilswyende hipoteek oor alle roerende besittings van die huurder wat teenwoordig is in die huurperseel.

“Die wet bepaal egter dat ’n huurder die reg het dat sy of haar woning en besittings nie deursoek mag word nie en dat daar nie beslag gelê mag word op sy of haar besittings nie, tensy ’n hofbevel hiervoor verkry word.”

Howard sê hoewel ’n verhuurder se stilswyende hipoteek nie geaffekteer word deur die bepalings van dié betrokke artikel van die wet nie, beteken dit nie dat ’n verhuurder bloot kan voortgaan om op die besittings beslag te lê en dit te verkoop nie. “Die hipoteek bestaan wel, maar die verhuurder sal steeds die nodige regsproses moet volg ten einde op die besitting beslag te lê.”

Hy sê daar is ’n paar faktore wat die uitsetting van huurders kan bemoeilik. Die eerste is artikel 26 van die Grondwet, wat bepaal dat alle persone die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising het en dat niemand sonder ’n hofbevel – wat ná oorweging van alle tersaaklike omstandighede toegestaan is – uit hul wonings gesit mag word nie.

Verder, sê Howard, het die Hoogste Hof van Appél bevind dat die Wet op die Voorkoming van Onwettige Uitsetting en Onregmatige Besetting van Grond Nr 19/1998 van toepassing is op gevalle waar ’n voormalige huurder van eiendom vir bewoningsdoeleindes ná verstryking van die huurkontrak onregmatig op die perseel aanbly.

“Die verhuurder sal aan die bepalings van dié wetgewing moet voldoen om ’n uitsettingsbevel te kry,” sê hy. “Faktore soos die regte en behoeftes van bejaardes, kinders, gestremdes en gevalle waar ’n vrou die hoof van die huishouding is, sal deur die hof in ag geneem moet word voor ’n uitsettingsbevel verleen sal word.”

Howard raai die leser aan om regsadvies in te win oor die gepaste regstappe wat sy moet neem om die huurder op ’n wettige wyse uit die eiendom te sit.

Related Posts

Topless sunbather upsets resident with children This week’s question relates to a topless sunbather at a townhouse complex’s communal swimming pool. Our reader recently accompanied her son, aged eig...
Close corporation divides family This week, the panel deals with an interesting situation involving conflict over a holiday house owned by a family in a close corporation. The man, h...
Deviation from plans bother neighbour When renovations to her neighbour’s property neared completion some two years ago, our reader noticed that the neighbour was deviating slightly from t...
Joint property ownership requires a proper contract While they were in the process of splitting up, our reader’s partner offered to buy her a house and to pay the bond on her behalf. She would like to ...
 
Comments

eEk wil graag n skrywe wat ek aan die verhuurder gestuur het aan u voorle Ek glo dat die skrywe alles sal verduidelik Graag wil ek weet wat my regte as pensionaris is
Joyce
These photos were taken when I moved into the flat, I contacted you per letter stating that I would repair and paint the flat if you supply the material, needed you responded by letter that you decline the offer the original letter is still filled in my file which I opened because I realized that you are not planning to repair the flat; when talking to the late caretaker she told me that to her knowledge the flat had been repaired when showing her the photos taken she said she will discuss it with you no feedback were ever given

I suggest when you get a court order to evict me be sure to bring the documentation of the repairs done and also by whom as I plan to claim the money spend and labour from you note that these photos have a date on which they were taken

I am sure that you think that I am rude but according to me we had never had problems until the death of my Son. Remember I then told to you that I would not he able to pay rent because he had no Funeral policy. Two and a half months I never paid rent and then started paying a addition amount of R500.00 but instead of taking it back from the money I owe you, your office started claiming collection fee although it was a stop order also putting addition charges for money in arrears which your staff should know could only be done by court order. Every letter I receive from your office is a treat so I suggest you take me to court let them settle the argument
I would also like you to know that I will ask the court to appoint a building inspector for this dwelling in connection that each floor is cracked from top to bottom and has already been reported to your office

As a landlord, one of the worst situations to find oneself in is dealing with a problematic tenant who does not comply with the terms in the signed lease agreement.
The most important thing for landlords to remember is that they cannot evict a tenant themselves. As much as most landlords would love to personally be involved in evicting their troublesome tenant, ? this is not the correct route.
There are many reasons for wanting to get rid of tenants, such as causing major damage to the property, staying on the property after the lease has expired and continuously breaking rules of the contract. But the most common reason for wanting to evict a tenant is due to late or(no payment of money in arrears .????????????????????? ?) (see arrears)
However, evicting such tenants is not a simple process. There are certain do’s and don’ts dictated by law that all landlords should be aware of in following the correct procedure and having their tenants removed from the property for good.
“When a tenant does not pay rent on time, although they are in breach of their contract and a landlord has the right to terminate the contract, this does not necessarily mean that the tenant will vacate the property or that the landlord can just put pressure on them to leave,”
The most important thing for landlords to remember is that they cannot evict a tenant themselves. As much as most landlords would love to personally be involved in evicting their troublesome tenant, this is not the correct route.
When a tenant is in breach of the contract, landlords should first ensure that the tenant is served notice to rectify the breach as stipulated in the lease agreement. If, or when nothing is done to rectify the shortcoming, a landlord can terminate the lease agreement and start the legal process to evict the tenant if they are showing no signs of leaving on their own.
The eviction can only be done by a court order, which may take up to 3 months. Legal fees will have to be paid to the attorney upfront, but these fees should later be reimbursed to the landlord by the tenant, as well as the outstanding rent money.
Although a landlord may feel that they have the right to keep a tenant from entering their property by changing the locks to the property, this is an illegal eviction and the landlord will find themselves in hot water with the law if they try this route. As in normal circumstances, should any locks on the property be changed, landlords are obliged to supply tenants with the new set of keys.
“As angry as landlords may be towards their tenant and seek to reclaim unpaid rent money, they are not allowed to – under any circumstances, or take the tenant’s possessions within the property as a means of compensation for rent money that is in arrears.
Landlords in the past have had criminal charges laid against them by tenants. A court order needs to first be obtained before actions relating to the tenant’s possessions can occur.

Leave a Reply