Help with unfair eviction asap!

harrys_dad

It is a real shame when threads get derailed like this, albeit with important discussions about law and circumstances. Is it possible the people involved could have their "discussions" through Private Messages so we could all concentrate on what is happening to the OP. Surely the best advice was earlier in the thread, namely "call Shelter".

C_Mababejive

Havent trawled through it all. Regardless of the occupiers rights, and its a bit late now anyway, when the henchwomen knocked he should have refused to leave. Had they made threats or laid hands upon him, he should then have called the Police. Police would have acted to prevent a breach of the peace and detected any possible crimnal activity. If none detected, they would have issued advice/verbal warnings and the two venemous harridans would have been forced to retreat and reconsider their position.

lighting_up_the_chalice

thesaint wrote: »

Please quote where any of the poiunts you make are in the opening post in regards to notice. The OP has stated there was no notice. Are we required to see evidence that no notice was given before advising?

No. The OP has stated that they haven't received a notice. That doesn't mean that one wasn't served.

thesaint wrote: »

This seems to be a question, but you have ended it with numerous exclamation marks.
If it were a question, I would ask you to quote where I advised the OP to force their way back into the property.

You did sound rational at the beginning, but are sounding more and more like a loon with each subsequent post.

Grammar? That's the best you can do? A poster is advised to break into a property without fully (or even remotely) exploring his rights to do so, and you think my use of exclamation marks is worth mentioning? Clearly, I'm not the loon.

anselld

BigAunty wrote: »

Here is the Shelter definition of an Excluded Occupier

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/private_renting_agreements/excluded_occupiers


I think it originally comes from the Protection from Eviction Act of 1977 which sought to improve the legal process of eviction for tenants but excluded those who lived with their landlords.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43/contents

... and if you go through the tenancy checker you get to question 2C, "do any of the following apply"?

... and if you tick "I'm provided with services as part of my rent (cleaning, provision of meals or laundry)" then the result pops up "excluded occupier".

Guest101

anselld wrote: »

... and if you go through the tenancy checker you get to question 2C, "do any of the following apply"?

... and if you tick "I'm provided with services as part of my rent (cleaning, provision of meals or laundry)" then the result pops up "excluded occupier".

Correct, but you still get contractual rights.

tbs624

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not necessarily. And that's the point I'm making. He is being advised on the assumption that he has a tenancy, but that has yet to be established. As the advice amounts to a criminal act if he ISN'T a tenant, I just feel it wise to establish his tenure before encouraging such actions. He probably is a tenant, but "probably" isn't enough when such potentially harmful advice is being offered as a certainty.

My bolding. Valid point but OP was advised to contact TRO, Shelter et al.

From the Forum Rules:
"To reiterate what we say at the top of every forum page, this is an open forum. You should not rely on any information given here without checking it yourself first. ........


We believe this is an amazing forum with a huge wealth of information of benefit to many people, and most of its users are keen to help others. But sometimes messages are posted that are poorly researched, ill-conceived, or downright wrong. Sadly, they can even be misleading and deceptive.

You should not, therefore, rely on information being accurate or complete. If you do, you do so at your own risk. So, please, please take care to check everything out yourself, and be very careful.


and.....

I want to give advice, why can't I?
If you're discussing a topic you have a professional knowledge of you can make that clear, but please don't give "advice". We don't have the resources to check what you say is correct and would hate to hear something had happened to someone reading it."

lighting_up_the_chalice

tbs624 wrote: »

My bolding. Valid point but OP was advised to contact TRO, Shelter et al.

I made it quite clear what advice I was referring to. I cannot imagine any circumstance under which contacting TRO, Shelter et al would be considered a criminal act.

lighting_up_the_chalice

deannatrois wrote: »

When I was in emergency accommodation provided by the council, I was given a licence to occupy. No cleaning services or services of any kind (other than repair) were provided, it was a three bed flat with its own entrance and rent was paid. I paid for heating, council tax etc like you would if you were in a tenancy.


But the council gave me an agreement that if they found me not homeless they could evict me within 2 days. I found a tenancy within that period, but I know someone who didn't. She just had to move out.


So does that mean that the council was doing something illegal? If so, how are they getting away with it? Or is the stated 'rules' to make a licence a licence rather than a tenancy wrong? I am asking this because there is not only the OP on here who could benefit from understanding what makes a licence a licence (and not) but rather a lot of people in emergency accommodation.

Accommodation provided under the duty of S188 of the 1996 HA (Homelessness - Duty to provide interim accommodation) is not a tenancy. It is almost always a license to occupy pending discharge of any homeless duty owed.

outofmoney

Love the way that most of the posts are disagreements between posters and yet the OP doesn't seem to have made an appearance for a couple of days at least.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Perhaps he's on remand for breaking and entering?