Council seeking possession order

sefton

princeofpounds wrote: »

No your post isn't very clear. You haven't actually been specific about what 'stamp' was or what it was for. There is information there but it's not very explanatory.

As you can see from the resulting replies most people aren't even aware that stamp duty can apply to rentals. I just happened to be because I came across it once in researching a different issue.

Even now I am not entirely sure if this is the same 'stamp duty' you and the court order talks about, nor why proof of it would ever be required for a possession order.

And it is not the case that the money has not been paid. The court order makes it clear it might not even be due at all, but proof of exemption is needed. And this money would presumably not go to the tenant, in fact it has very little to do with him, assuming it is SDLT.

Anyway, will google around on the issue.

It's dufficult to be precise because what happened is quite rare and I don't want to identify my cousin. I was told that no one left the court that day in any doubt the order would be struck out and 8 months later that is what happened.

In any event would this not all be superseded by the agreement made some time after the case which to all intents and purposes never happened (having been struck out).

squinty

I think the issue about the stamp duty is a a bit of a red herring - the relevant bit is that the original order seems to have been struck out.

In effect this means that the tenant has rent arrears of over £1000 with no enforcable court order. However you look at it, this is a breach of the tenancy agreement.

It seems entirely appropriate for the council to take action - you say that the tenant has recieved something from the Council saying that the are seeking possession. Is this a Notice of Seeking Possession? - if so this it seems that the council are being sensible and putting something into place that they can take immediate action if the agreeement is broken - again this appears sensible.

They may even seek a possession order that is suspended/postponed on terms - this does not sound excessive given the level of debt.

As long as the debt continues to be repaid at a reasonable rate it is very unlikley a court would evict.

If the court order has been struck out then I suspect the Council has no right to recover court costs. I'd suggest that a complaint is made, in writing, to ask about this. Check the councils complaints procedure on their website.

sefton

@squinty
The debt was over £1000 but is now about £700 and this is not a notice seeking possession. They are seeking a possession order. What difference does having or not having an enforceable court order make. If I were a judge I think I would ask the council if you wanted that kind of protection why did you enter into an agreement not to go to court if he stuck to the repayment schedule you set out.

As for the court costs I STRONGLY (and I can't overstate this) believe this action was brought about solely because my cousin asked his housing officer last week about the court costs. The more I think about this the more I am convinced this will not even go to court. I would bet they cannot come back with a coherent reason as to why they are breaking an agreement he has more than stuck to.

boo1

With a debt of £700 it is not unreasonable for the landlord to ask for a Postponed Possession Order/ Suspended Possession Order. It does not mean your cousin will lose his home, BUT he must keep up to date with paying the rent and the extra to comply with the terms of the Order or risk losing his home. It is, if you like, a safety net for the landlord to ensure that the arrears get paid.

As I have asked previously, is there a past history of rent arrears or is this the first time a debt has been run up? This may have some bearing if the case goes to Court.

sefton

boo1 wrote: »

With a debt of £700 it is not unreasonable for the landlord to ask for a Postponed Possession Order/ Suspended Possession Order. It does not mean your cousin will lose his home, BUT he must keep up to date with paying the rent and the extra to comply with the terms of the Order or risk losing his home. It is, if you like, a safety net for the landlord to ensure that the arrears get paid.

As I have asked previously, is there a past history of rent arrears or is this the first time a debt has been run up? This may have some bearing if the case goes to Court.

It might not be unreasonalbe if the landlord handn't promised in writing that they wouldn't

He has fallen behind with his rent a few times but never been taken to court before. However I can't see how a judge would take that into consideration.

Q Did you tell Mr X you would not take him to court if he stuck to the agreement
A Yes
Q Has Mr X stuck to this agreement
AYes
Q Have you had any communication with Mr X since entering into this agreement
A No
Q What are we doing here ?

As you can guess boo1. I'm no lawyer but I'd be surprised if I'm wrong about this. If I am what is the point of having an agreement in writing.

boo1

I would then suggest that your cousin takes the letter to the court with him to show the Judge that the landlord clearly stated that no legal action would be taken providing the agreement was kept to. Are you 100% sure it has? If you are then ask your cousin to get a statement of all payments made on his account since the agreement has been in place to demonstate to the Judge that no payments have been missed.