House prices may be falling but prudent landlords remain in a strong position, with many saying they intend to use the lull in the otherwise relentless upward path as an opportunity to increase their portfolios. Many landlords may consider purchasing knock-down priced repossession and other properties in readiness for property values to increase.

This is because while capital appreciation may he on hold, rents are on the rise.

But common sense suggests that a natural consequence of current conditions will be that more tenants will default on their rental payments. Many will do so for reasons beyond their control, such as redundancy.

However careful landlords are in vetting prospective tenants, there will be many who will breach their agreements, leaving landlords with a shortfall on income they rely on to service their mortgage commitments.

A recent report prepared by market researchers BDRC found that nearly one fifth landlords questioned said they had missed a mortgage payment in the preceding three months because of tenant rental default.

Of course many landlords find it re-assuring to have the benefit of rental guarantee and legal expense insurance from the outset of tenancies. Indeed, most letting agents encourage landlords to take out such cover.

But what if the landlord elects not to pay for a rental guarantee?

They may be referred to a letting agent’s appointed solicitors or to an insurer’s appointed solicitors. However, landlords do not necessarily have to appoint solicitors. Instead they may choose to seek out organisations that offer tenant eviction services for a fixed fee.

This seems to be a growing business within the lettings industry. There are many providers and an initial Internet search will identify scores of businesses offering high success rates.

In reality, these organisations often have arrangements with firms of solicitors for the issuing of court proceedings and representation during the eviction process. These cut price arrangements do not always live up to expectations.

Having represented uninsured landlords in court I have been disappointed by the ‘inexcusable’ errors which have sometimes appeared in initial statutory notices, resulting in possession actions being compromised. Simple errors which should have been picked up by service providers, or if not by them, by their appointed solicitors have simply slipped through: errors such as misspelling of names; failing to incorporate all parties in to the court proceedings; citing an incorrect monthly rental and failing to show a correct accumulative arrears total.

How easy it is for a landlord to state that the rental is four weekly (as oppose to monthly) because he or she receives four weekly housing benefit rental payments from the local authority - a simple misunderstanding on the part of the landlord which can have consequences if not picked-up by the service provider or appointed solicitors and no redress by reason of the declaration signed by him.

Whereas these instances may be few and far between in relation to the total volume of proceedings, this is still of little comfort to any landlord who suffers unnecessary delay in obtaining vacant possession with little prospect financial recompense from a defaulting tenant.

The growth in tenant eviction service providers begs the question: why can’t firms of solicitors who proffer residential re-possession services provide a service at a similar non-contentious competitive rate? The answer may be that they consider such work not to be ‘economically viable’ - meaning that it would not generate as big a profit as they would like.

With the decline in conveyancing transactions and firm’s ‘bread and butter’ money, perhaps they should consider the viability of ‘standard’ possession work.

For as long as landlords elect to use third party service providers, they need to satisfy themselves that their interests are properly protected and the matter will proceed without avoidable hiccups. For this they should use providers with a solid industry background.