My Rights as a Tenant

Hump

OK lets be clear

Worse case scenario = very rare

The EHOs from the council decide it's an unlicensed but licensable HMO - big trouble for landlord - but not necessarily an immediate problem for the OP.

The EHOs decide it's so dodgy i.e. HHSRS cat 1 hazards posing immediate or unacceptably high risk of death or injury that they scoot back to EHO towers and type up an Emergency Prohibition Order (see s43 Housing Act 2004). The EPO has to be served the same day - even if it means the EHO coming back after close of business. As soon as the EPO is served it is immediately in force.

Breaching the order - whether it's the landlord or any of the tenants is an offence (see s32 of the HA 2004) - which is where the 10-20 minutes comes from, because when/ if the EHOs return to serve the notice it's immediately active.

Now the DCLG and Lacors guidance says that the council might decide to accommodate the displaced tenants (and if they do then they can apply to the court for the costs to be met by the landlord as a general part of the cost of making the order). But have you seen the kind of places councils use, even if they were to decide to exercise their power (which is rare unless you have kids).

Again this is worse case scenario (and hopefully won't happen)

Again, as others have said or alluded to, you may have all the legal rights in the world and might eventually sue the landlord for every penny he has - but it won't harm to make a few calls and get plan B in place in case the worse happens.

Missmarple

So what did the Council Tax Investigation team say exactly ?

Did they say not to pay your rent and you will get back every penny of rent that you have paid and you can live there for free ?

I really don't know why you would want to go through all this. You are leaving in April why bother.....this is going to take months, even years and probably wont produce the outcome that you feel is your right.

Shelldean

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion that this Johnny-Come-Lately lukesy character is the person the OP shares this luxury Central London studio with.

I agree or their alter ego???

Shelldean

lukesy wrote: »

He stated his property is rented out with a 12 month tenancy agreement, is this not a legally binding contract? are you saying he can chuck them out, just disregard the CONTRACT he made with them? I would say he never mentioned it because its IRRELEVANT. Would you understand it better if he stated ALL IRRELEVANT facts in OP.

My point still stands. I made a comment on the facts that Keir had given to that point...ie: he'd not be given a place by the council if he already owned a property. It was only then he said ah well it's rented out. IF keir had given the full facts then I wouldn't have commented at all. The missing infor in this point was relevant.

I never said he should chuck his tenant out, just that by having them there in first place paint a different picture to the one he first stated when he mentioned he owned a property.

Oh and you don't need to shout I am not deaf!!!

Blackpool_Saver

Good lord is this piffle still going :rotfl:

kier333

http://www.martinco.com/lettings-agents/chelsea/news/landlord_who_broke_planning_rules_must_pay_143000-3930

Interesting

Hump

Have a look at this http://ideatest.conseq.org.uk/lacors/core/page.do?pageId=10485298 (though be quick as links sometimes get removed)

kier333

Hump wrote: »

Have a look at this http://ideatest.conseq.org.uk/lacors/core/page.do?pageId=10485298 (though be quick as links sometimes get removed)

My LL will be on there soon, he was round last night begging all tenants to make up some lies for him.....no way hosa

lukesy

kier333 wrote: »

My LL will be on there soon, he was round last night begging all tenants to make up some lies for him.....no way hosa

Take him to the cleaners, SCUMBAG