eviction

elona

I do not know if this is any good as a suggestion but could she get a live in job in a hotel, school or any institution?

It would get her some shelter for a time while she considers her options.

margaretclare

misspriscilla wrote:

If I understand it correctly an 'ouster injunction' involves a case of violence. There was no violence. He convinced his lawyer that he didn't want her around the house anymore, for reasons she said were blatant lies. When she tried to say this in court the judge told her to be quiet and speak when she was spoken to. I might add that she has free access to the children which makes the eviction notice even more difficult to understand. I don't know what her position regarding the tenancy was.

He had a lawyer whom he 'convinced'...but didn't she have a lawyer to speak for her?

I can't understand all this. I understand about the blatant lies - yes, but she has a side of the story that can be told. We see and hear often enough the misconception that 'if we split up we will be entitled to 50% each'. I have NEVER heard of someone getting absolutely nothing out of the marital assets. Why wasn't she allowed to stay in the house with the children and HIM get out - this would be a more usual scenario. And she wasn't violent? I really don't understand this at all.

The frosty nights we've been having lately, and last night there were gales with a wind-chill factor...unless she has SAS-type survival clothing and equipment there is likely to be a frozen corpse in that tent found by someone walking their dog. And this guy promised to love and cherish her????

Aunty Margaret

Bossyboots

misspriscilla wrote:

If I understand it correctly an 'ouster injunction' involves a case of violence. There was no violence.

No, it does not just include violence although where this is the case the injunction is easier to obtain.

It is in fact not that uncommon to find one spouse seeking the ouster of the other when the marriage has broken down and all it takes is a convincing story of discord in the home affecting the children or some such other and it will be granted. Sometimes this is a useful tool to assist the party intending to move out to obtain alternative housing but this is not always the case and these days, it is less effective as in most cases the council do not have to re-house single adults.

We don't know the facts here but the husband must have put together a convincing argument of poor behaviour on the part of the wife or some scenario where the children were suffering to have obtained the order.

Aunty Margaret, being on the receiving end of an ouster order/injunction does not mean that you lose your right to your share of the home, just that you cannot live in it while the order is in force. Also, there is a significant rise in the number of men remaining in the home with the children instead of the old ways of mother always having custody.

As we don't know the facts (and I would caution, that neither does the OP unless she was living in the house with them), it would be wrong to denounce either party for their actions. People don't always tell the truth to their solicitors, or their friends and family.

Savvy_Sue

Agree that Shelter are worth speaking to, also for rehousing then it's worth contacting any local Housing Associations. They may run a common 'waiting list' with the Council but do have some specialist accommodation and also sometimes more flexibility.

misspriscilla

Thank you all very much for your helpful advice. She now has a sympathetic solicitor who has persuaded the husband to allow her to stay until an appeal is heard.

jobbingmusician

Thank you for letting us know - good to know she's not on the streets in this freezing weather.