Tent thread

BitterAndTwisted

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Is that the one where the LL was aware of a problem shortly after granting the tenancy but took 3 YEARS to even start eviction proceedings?

I expect she couldn't evict her tenant because it was a let with the Local Authority. The article says the tenant left owing £5k in rent top-ups but the landlord would have taken a fair bit more than that in rent from the LA in three years, wouldn't she?

Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance about how LA's rent direct from private landlords but I imagined there would have been an absolute minimum term involved before eviction proceedings could take place.

Wee_Willy_Harris

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I expect she couldn't evict her tenant because it was a let with the Local Authority. The article says the tenant left owing £5k in rent top-ups but the landlord would have taken a fair bit more than that in rent from the LA in three years, wouldn't she?

Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance about how LA's rent direct from private landlords but I imagined there would have been an absolute minimum term involved before eviction proceedings could take place.

If you rent direct to the LA, they pay the rent to you as agreed, then deal with the tenant themselves. From what the LL says in the article...

"Miss Godfrey made repeated attempts to bring the Miss Cole into line and said she tried everything to avoid court action.
But after a string of broken promises she was forced to begin eviction proceedings a year ago."

.... it sounds like a regular let with support from Social Services. So the LL could have served notice in the usual way, but chose not to. I'm guessing she was getting a healthy rent.

john539

What's happening !

No twitting Twitter, no iPad action.

I'm getting worried, they may have seen sense.

Wee_Willy_Harris

I'm starting to think that the first proper advice they have sought turned out to be "Christ, just shut the f*** up!".

Brb

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I'm starting to think that the first proper advice they have sought turned out to be "Christ, just shut the f*** up!".

hahaha

prefixed with You DID WHAT ?

john539

Brb wrote: »

hahaha

prefixed with You DID WHAT ?

The lawyer must be looking on aghast open mouthed.

john539

We're going to be left in the lurch.

We're never going to find out.

tbs624

Following on from post 426 : My interpretation of that one was that the majority of the rent had probs been paid via LHA/HB and that it was the T's personal top up which hadn't been handed over to the LL, but the newspaper managed to make it sound as though *no* rent had been paid at all.

Yes, T's should pay their full rent but newspapers should report in a way that presents *the facts*

Was it the Argus (again)?Ah, yes......;)

As others have pointed out, the LL wasn't happy from the start, so she seems to have been a little slow off the mark in getting those eviction papers properly served.

Wee_Willy_Harris

If any of the admin team from "An end to....." are reading this, can I just say.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXKnVdeFxiY

tbs624

I'd like to just say a huge thank you to Tessa Shepperson and to Nearly Legal for their comments on this case .:T