!!!!!!!? Council telling tenants not to move out!?

Gstar_3

Yes, i have heard of this, sorry I have not read the other replies but the council will not re house tenants as they would be classed as making themselves voluntary homeless. They need to be served a section 21 or NTQ to take to the council office as proof they are being evicted. The council will tell them not to leave at the end of the notice. The landlord will need to start court proceedings to re gain the property. The tenants will then be re housed before your date for the balliffs if you are granted possession.
A client of mine learnt this the hard way and it took 8 months to get the property back.
I hope someone is able to be more helpful, but it is always worth giving the council a call and speak to the housing officer to confirm why they will not re house your tenants at the end of the tenancy.

DVardysShadow

ayayay wrote: »

Sue the counsel for tortious interference with contractual relations.

That sounds good, but

• it is the counsel who does the suing and the council who should be sued
• leave the tortoise out of it, he ain't done nothing

franklee

m_13 wrote: »

Am I missing the point here? The tenants haven't stopped paying the rent, they asked the OP to pretend he or she was evicting them so they would get a new shiny bigger property somewhere else?

OP - what the tenants asked you to do was to get involved in a fraud. Unless you genuinely no longer wanted to rent to them then writing a letter which you knew wasn't true, however nice they were, was dishonest.

Now that hasn't worked out for them they want to hand back the keys and see if that will work? How 'nice' exactly are they?

Yes, where is the problem? The tenants are "nice" and paying rent. So if the landlord wants to evict them he should do so through the proper channels, if he doesn't want to do that, and it reads like he's doesn't, then don't. I don't think these "nice" tenants should get getting priority treatment for council housing just for having a sympathetic landlord prepared to write a letter. If they were trashing the property or not paying rent I'd have sympathy with the landlord but I doubt a landlord would still be calling them "nice" were that the case so the problem seems to be tenants and landlord who what, think they're entitled to short circuit the procedures?

Seanymph

Why should the council house them? Why on earth wouldn't they just move to a bigger house?

Oh, because they want to freeload off social housing, get something cheaper and bigger for their money.......

Sorry, no sympathy here - tell them they are welcome to stay as long as they like, keep taking the rent off these 'nice' tenants and let them sort their own future out without being complicit in it.

Londonsu

Seanymph wrote: »

Why should the council house them? Why on earth wouldn't they just move to a bigger house?

Oh, because they want to freeload off social housing, get something cheaper and bigger for their money.......

Sorry, no sympathy here - tell them they are welcome to stay as long as they like, keep taking the rent off these 'nice' tenants and let them sort their own future out without being complicit in it.

Totally agree

Why do they think the council will give them a two bed place anyway - a baby can lives for months in the parents bedroom. Thats the way the council will see it.



And I would post on Landlords forum like property tribe or landlord zone and get advice some of these people have multiple properties and deal with this type of thing daily

danothy

SAMMYE wrote: »

I have a nice couple with a baby who have been good tenants for the last year paid rent always on time when Council wasnt messing about with the rent.

I had a 1 year assured tenancy with them which was a direct let through the Council which ends on the 9/06. The tenants asked me to write a letter to the Council saying that I would not continue to rent to them as the tenancy was up. They wanted me to do this because the place was too small for them due to them having a baby and the council told them to do it. I did that for them as I said they were good tenants and nice.

Anyway the Council has now turned round to them and told them when the tenancy is up to refuse to hand over the keys and not move and they will not rehome them until they are being taken to Court and the balliffs are knocking on the door!?

I cant believe it!? Surely that cant be right!?

The tenants are suggesting they just pack their bags and give the keys back to me and turn up at the Council forcing them to rehome them...

Any thoughts please guys?

If they turn over the keys then (as others have said) will likely be found to be intentionally homeless, this is a really bad idea for them in terms of rehousing.

As for you, if you are happy keeping them on then I suggest you write again to the council stating that you retract the previous letter and are willing to continue to rent to them. This in theory would keep paying tenants in your house and a roof over their heads.

As I understand it, if they are adamant that they want a bigger place they will either have to pay for it privately or be evicted by bailiffs to qualify for priority need, with the latter requiring your willingness to shell out of evict them them.

princeofpounds

It's a practice called gatekeeping and although govt guidelines say they shouldn't do it, most of them do.

I believe some landlords have managed to move the council into action by threatening to claim costs from them but can't remember the route - might have been courts, might have been local govt ombudsman or something.

Colincbayley

princeofpounds wrote: »

It's a practice called gatekeeping and although govt guidelines say they shouldn't do it, most of them do.

I believe some landlords have managed to move the council into action by threatening to claim costs from them but can't remember the route - might have been courts, might have been local govt ombudsman or something.

Time and time again this happens. It is a case of the council not knowing their own rules.
Speak to the council and refer them to 'Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities' Chapter 8, Para 30 Onwards ( I have a copy in .PDF format if you would like it emailed over )

"Homeless legislation states that local authorities have a duty to house certain categories of people. Local authorities are provided with guidance about coming to a decision of eligibility for re-housing homeless people. In particular, they should have regard to section 9.29 of the Code of Guidance on Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, which states: "A local authority should not require tenants to fight a possession action where the landlord has a certain prospect of success, such as an action for recovery of property which is let on an assured shorthold tenancy where the fixed term of the tenancy has ended." If, as it appears to be in this case, the local authority disregards this guidance, the landlord can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, claiming the landlord's costs of having to pursue a possession action"

Even though the council are in the wrong in this situation, it won't necessary stop them taking this course of action, as in my view their are just a little bit thick on this front.

SAMMYE_2

Colincbayley wrote: »

Time and time again this happens. It is a case of the council not knowing their own rules.
Speak to the council and refer them to 'Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities' Chapter 8, Para 30 Onwards ( I have a copy in .PDF format if you would like it emailed over )

"Homeless legislation states that local authorities have a duty to house certain categories of people. Local authorities are provided with guidance about coming to a decision of eligibility for re-housing homeless people. In particular, they should have regard to section 9.29 of the Code of Guidance on Parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, which states: "A local authority should not require tenants to fight a possession action where the landlord has a certain prospect of success, such as an action for recovery of property which is let on an assured shorthold tenancy where the fixed term of the tenancy has ended." If, as it appears to be in this case, the local authority disregards this guidance, the landlord can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, claiming the landlord's costs of having to pursue a possession action"

Even though the council are in the wrong in this situation, it won't necessary stop them taking this course of action, as in my view their are just a little bit thick on this front.

Thanks massively everyone you are all really kind giving me your time to help. Appreciate it so so much.

I think at the end of the day it will be a call for the tenants to make. I am not going to take them to Court to evict them so if they want to hand over the keys at the end of the tenancy and go directly to the Council forcing them to rehouse them then that is a choice for them to make.

I dont quite understand the problem though!? The one year tenancy is up and I have given them the required notice period. The Council telling them not to hand back the keys and not answer the door and wait until the Court and Balliffs are knocking at the door just sounds wholly wrong to me.

princeofpounds

You have to think about it in another way - the council will only house people who NEED housing.

When you give notice you are not telling people to leave directly, you are giving notice that you intend to tell them to leave, ultimately by means of a court order which is the only thing that can end a tenancy unilaterally.

Until they have the court order they have every right to stay in the home, so the council logic is they don't yet NEED housing.