Council seeking possession order

sefton

I have looked at the shelter website I didn't know they delt with this kind of thing. I've got a number for him to phone this afternoon. Thanks for all the advise.

boo1

sefton wrote: »

The arrears are at a level where now he finally seems to have some fiscal

responsibility

I am quite happy to pay it off in one lump sum and have him pay me in installments. I will do this at the end of the month
That would be more than 5 weeks before the date of the hearing. Would that

necessarily

put an end to it.

Not necessarily. If he regularly runs up arrears you may find that the Judge will grant a Suspended Possession Order on the terms that he pays the current weekly rent EVERY week and runs up no more arrears. If he falls into arrears again he will have breached the Order and further legal action can then be taken. He may also have to pay court costs still, depends on the Judge. This is what our HA would ask for if we have a tenant who historically does not pay rent (we take printouts of the account to court to demonstrate this).

As previously said, it is important that he talks to Shelter and talks to his Housing Officer again.

sefton

boo1 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If he regularly runs up arrears you may find that the Judge will grant a Suspended Possession Order on the terms that he pays the current weekly rent EVERY week and runs up no more arrears. If he falls into arrears again he will have breached the Order and further legal action can then be taken. He may also have to pay court costs still, depends on the Judge. This is what our HA would ask for if we have a tenant who historically does not pay rent (we take printouts of the account to court to demonstrate this).

As previously said, it is important that he talks to Shelter and talks to his Housing Officer again.

I understand that but as I said previously an agreement was made with his housing officer and he has paid on time all the time since the agreement at more than three times the agreed rate. I'm sure he will want to see the housing officer but I fail to see what more he can or should do. I believe this action is malicious and has only come about because he asked about the costs days before he was served with a summons

boo1

I understand that your cousin is now paying more than the agreed amount, but how have his past payments been? Was this a one off arrears blip or does he have a history of paying in arrears? It is likely that the Judge will take all this into account, as will the Housing Officer.

sefton

boo1 wrote: »

I understand that your cousin is now paying more than the agreed amount, but how have his past payments been? Was this a one off arrears blip or does he have a history of paying in arrears? It is likely that the Judge will take all this into account, as will the Housing Officer.

I thought I had made it clear. He had a meeting with the housing officer he agreed a payment schedule to prevent the council taking him back to court. He kept this up for months overpaying on the agreement week in week out.

Once he realised the councils time to appeal against the decision to strike out the original case was up he sent an email asking if they were still entitled to the costs (knowing they were not). Within days they had applied for a new hearing. That really is it. What went on before is largly irrelevant. He made a deal and he has stuck to it. For months.

joerugby

sefton wrote: »

Trust me I was confused about that as well but there is stamp/land tax payable on the the rent recieved from him and the council had never paid it.

Stamp duty land tax is not payable on rent

Madjock

there's more to this than what we are being told. The council would not go to court again if an agreement has been adhered to, as they would have no chance of having possession granted. And SDLT on rent????

boo1

sefton wrote: »

I thought I had made it clear. He had a meeting with the housing officer he agreed a payment schedule to prevent the council taking him back to court. He kept this up for months overpaying on the agreement week in week out.

Once he realised the councils time to appeal against the decision to strike out the original case was up he sent an email asking if they were still entitled to the costs (knowing they were not). Within days they had applied for a new hearing. That really is it. What went on before is largly irrelevant. He made a deal and he has stuck to it. For months.

Not really irrelevant, if he has a large back history of arrears and failed agreements then that may be why they have reapplied to court. They may want to cover themselves incase the agreement is broken in the future. Perhaps if you could give us this information and how much he owes now, what his weekly rent is and whether he gets any Housing Benefit we may be able to advise you further.

G_M

I too think some information is missing.

This mysterious stamp duty (which as said is not payable on rent) - what's that about?

And if the council are again seeking a possession order (the first one having been struck out for a reason none of us understand) then either
1) they have now paid this stamp duty and/or
2) there are still arrears we don't know of and/or
3) it is, as the OP suggests, malicious

Well, if it's 3, go to court. Counter claim for previous court costs, prove the arrears are paid off, and the court will
a) not grant the council possession and
b) award your cousin costs

But the moral is ... don't get into arrears.

OK OP - you don't want to hear moralising, but simply from a practical perspective, if your cousin pays his rent, then he shouldn't have court cases brought against him. And if he does have court cases brought against him, he'll win.

DVardysShadow

Seanymph wrote: »

... It being struck out is, to me, irrelevant. That is about the stamp duty, and I'm not even sure what it means. But what it doesn't mean to me is that they weren't entitled to take him to court in the first place. Of course they were. So he may have a benefit from the judgement being struck out - but I dont' think that should mean that the local tax payers should foot the legal bill because he didn't pay his rent.

I think you would look at this differently if your council took you to court and it got struck out. And if it happened to you, as a taxpayer I would be asking the council why the damn fools wasted my money taking something to court which got struck out. I certainly would not expect you to pay the council's costs and I would expect the council to be paying yours.

But what concerns me most is what is the business about stamp duty. I don't think we have enough of the story to advise on the housing aspects, only the court aspect seems clear enough.