Can I use statements and evidence of previous claim as new evidence in counterclaim?

BigAunty

Thomas3 wrote: »

May main concern is not about the section 21 part but about the section 8....

What is your particular concern with the S8?

Many landlords have a belt and braces approach to eviction, issuing both notices to tenants with debts in case the S8 notice fails.

A court judge must award possession to the landlord if at the time of serving the S8 and at the time of the court case, the tenant owes 2 months rent (if the rental period is monthly).

Some tenants subvert the S8 process by paying down the arrears to below 2 months just before the court case. I *think* the judge has a discretionary element to awarding possession if it doesn't meet this criteria but a landlord can't take this chance, hence the S21 notice as a back-up.

BigAunty

Thomas3 wrote: »

...I would like in my counterclaim to ask the court to re-consider my claim as a criminal act by showing in the previous claim ...

Get expert advice on this 'criminal' aspect or look at the difference between civil and criminal law. It is my understanding that both the eviction process and the small claims process is based on civil law only. It matters not a jot in a civil case if the claimant or defendent lies, the judge will make a judgement based on the evidence, however conflicting it is. It doesn't lead to one or other of the party being led away in handcuffs!

For example, harassment by a landlord, such as threatening, abusive behaviour or cutting off essential services to them, may be a criminal act such as 'breach of the peace' and lead to arrest by the police and prosecution by the court. So, too, is illegal eviction, for example, if a tenant finds out the landlord has changed the locks and chucked out their belongings when they did not gain possession in the courts (this breaches civil and criminal law which means that the claimant can seek compensation through the civil courts while through the separate criminal court, the defendent can end up in prison).

Most tenancy disputes are civil in nature, about the tenant or landlord not fulfilling their obligations according to housing law and the tenancy agreement.

This includes your failure to pay rent. You will note from the Shelter website that witholding rent is a breach of your tenancy agreement that often leads to eviction. There is only one permitted way of witholding rent and that is by following a set procedure in the event of non-repair of the property in order for the tenant to use the rent money to pay for a repair. Even then, the Shelter website says that unfortunately, a landlord can then legitimately serve notice in retaliation for this so its a risk that the tenant takes.

ihatemyhouse

I don't think the reason you with held the rent will be seen a good reason by the court, its not like the flat is dangerous to live in

BigAunty

Thomas3 wrote: »

As I stated above I will now make a new claim through the counterclaim (defence for claim of possession) for Breach of quiet enjoyment of the property AND loss of amenity instead of just Breach of quiet enjoyment of the property.

You will find these links useful. Please identify where you are able to counterclaim on these grounds during the eviction process at court.

I am not familiar with the counter claim process. Therefore I would appreciate clarification about how/when you provide this defence and if these are legitimate grounds. From my browse of the advice Shelter gives, I am not aware whether you can do this but you could certainly speak to Shelter to get expert advice on this.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/eviction_of_private_tenants/eviction_of_assured_shorthold_tenants

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/money_problems/rent_arrears/eviction_for_rent_arrears

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/court_action_for_eviction

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/eviction_of_private_tenants/the_steps_involved_in_evicting_private_tenants

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/court_action_for_eviction/possession_hearings

BigAunty

jamie11 wrote: »

To stop paying rent because of a perceived debt is stupid, rent is your number one priority.

Courts are there to decide the case, not your ill conceived ideas of what your 'rights' are.

.

I agree that the OP is naive. He is conflating civil and non-civil law. He is trying to address specific issues that could have been dealt with outside of the eviction process with the eviction process itself and he won't get an opportunity in court to conflate them in the way that he hopes.

He cannot see that the damaged jacket is not a defence in the eviction process. In fact, under the S21 process there is no defence allowed, the most he can argue is an extra week or two in the property to find onward accommodation before the possession notice comes into effect. He has witheld rent, which is cannot be defended on the grounds he gives.

This isn't to say his landlord is a good one, though. Just that the tenant doesn't seem to have a scooby about his actual rights and obligations, not a good grip on fairly simple court processes designed for the layman.

Poppie68

Your long suffering LL has been putting up with your nonsense for nearly 2 years....

Maybe stick to one user name to post on future:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4380437[/QUOTE]

Poppie68

BigAunty wrote: »

I agree that the OP is naive. He is conflating civil and non-civil law. He is trying to address specific issues that could have been dealt with outside of the eviction process with the eviction process itself and he won't get an opportunity in court to conflate them in the way that he hopes.

He cannot see that the damaged jacket is not a defence in the eviction process. In fact, under the S21 process there is no defence allowed, the most he can argue is an extra week or two in the property to find onward accommodation before the possession notice comes into effect. He has witheld rent, which is cannot be defended on the grounds he gives.

This isn't to say his landlord is a good one, though. Just that the tenant doesn't seem to have a scooby about his actual rights and obligations, not a good grip on fairly simple court processes designed for the layman.

Sorry BigAunty...the op knows exactly what he's doing...

Thomas3

BigAunty wrote: »

I agree that the OP is naive. He is conflating civil and non-civil law. He is trying to address specific issues that could have been dealt with outside of the eviction process with the eviction process itself and he won't get an opportunity in court to conflate them in the way that he hopes.

He cannot see that the damaged jacket is not a defence in the eviction process. In fact, under the S21 process there is no defence allowed, the most he can argue is an extra week or two in the property to find onward accommodation before the possession notice comes into effect. He has witheld rent, which is cannot be defended on the grounds he gives.

This isn't to say his landlord is a good one, though. Just that the tenant doesn't seem to have a scooby about his actual rights and obligations, not a good grip on fairly simple court processes designed for the layman.

As previously explained, the damaged jacket is just one part of landlord harassment. And I am not naive but just trying to deal with the information I have in a short time.

CKhalvashi

Thomas3 wrote: »

As previously explained, the damaged jacket is just one part of landlord harassment. And I am not naive but just trying to deal with the information I have in a short time.

I agree.

The damage, if OP feels necessary, needs to be reported to the police on 101.

The eviction can't be contested, if the S21 is valid. That's a civil law part.

CK

BigAunty

Thomas3 wrote: »

As previously explained, the damaged jacket is just one part of landlord harassment. And I am not naive but just trying to deal with the information I have in a short time.

In a historic thread that's nearly a year old where you wrote under a different user name, you expressed an explicit understanding that non-payment of rent by witholding it for expenses you perceive to be caused by the landlord would result in your eviction.

You were told then by forum members that you couldn't withold rent for the expenses of phone calls to Shelter or because of delayed ESA benefit payments for a sickness you believed was caused by your landlord. You knew nearly a year ago what would happen if you didn't pay your rent and that you couldn't justify in court non-payment of rent.

So I take back my observation of your 'naivity' - you are just plain obstinate or deluded. You are on some sort of moral crusade with a weak legal basis. For some reason, your sense of hurt makes you impervious to how courts operate, how tenancies work and so forth.

Your landlord and accommodation sound terrible and perhaps this has fuelled your sense of outrage. Unfortunately, this outrage or sense of victimisation will not protect you from being evicted.

You have spent a lot of time, energy and money on your bogus defence which could have been more productively spent on your rent, finding a new place to live or job seeking.

Most tenants in shared properties that they cannot afford, or do not like, or do not get along with the landlord or do not get along with the flat-mates (you experience all 4 of these) take postive action by finding themselves different accommodation.

You seem positively masochistic about staying in a property that is causing you poverty and stress. You aren't rustling up a hurried defence in a short time, you were aware nearly a year ago that you were skating on thin ice so far as witholding rent was concerned and what this would lead to.

What is stopping you from finding new accommodation? Is it your joblessness and being a HB claimant, fear of getting a bad landlord reference? Lack of money? Belief that the judge at the possession hearing will be impressed with your speech and throw out housing law in favour of your charisma or show pity?