Help with unfair eviction asap!

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Afraid ur wrong again, it's whatever the contract says. If it said 48, and the person really was an EO. He has contractual rights to 48 hours notice!

And what if such notice was served? Do we know that it wasn't? And even if it wasn't, would that contractual term really afford any protection from eviction, or protection from prosecution were he to regain entry by force, as advised to, by you, and others?

I'm just suggesting that we should always ensure we have ALL the facts before advising actions. Without the facts, any advice may be flawed, and the person receiving that advice will pay the price, not you, the poster.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

What do either of those have to do with either EO or a HMO?

Because they are a factor in determining the OPs rights, something it would be wise to do before offering advice which includes force. I'm sure any right minded person would agree with that.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Ok explain under what criteria he only has a licence to occupy.

As I have already pointed out more than once, and accepting that he has a non-resident landlord, the services he receives may make his tenure a license to occupy as they may negate his exclusive occupation. If his contract states that his room is cleaned, he doesn't have exclusive occupation, and he has a licence to occupy, not a tenancy. But no-one (not even you) has asked him that before advising him to force entry.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

As I have already pointed out more than once, and accepting that he has a non-resident landlord, the services he receives may make his tenure a license to occupy as they may negate his exclusive occupation. If his contract states that his room is cleaned, he doesn't have exclusive occupation, and he has a licence to occupy, not a tenancy. But no-one (not even you) has asked him that before advising him to force entry.

So ur suggesting it's a holiday let/ b n b situation? Not saying ur wrong, but far fetched

jamie11

preable wrote: »

Call the council and ask to speak the the liaison officer for unfair evictions

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

As I have already pointed out more than once, and accepting that he has a non-resident landlord, the services he receives may make his tenure a license to occupy as they may negate his exclusive occupation. If his contract states that his room is cleaned, he doesn't have exclusive occupation, and he has a licence to occupy, not a tenancy. But no-one (not even you) has asked him that before advising him to force entry.

Even if you're right, and I confess I'm not sure, there would be no criminal behaviour if he did effect entry, the action would be a civil matter.

preable wrote: »

Call the council and ask to speak the the liaison officer for [STRIKE]unfair[/STRIKE] illegal evictions

Unfair cuts no ice in the eyes of the law.

BigAunty

deannatrois wrote: »

Normally with eviction notices, they have to prove that you actually received them. .

I think the onus is on the landlord to be able to demonstrate that they've sent the notice in case it is contested in court,so they tend to do it with a witness, using proof of postage,etc.

I don't believe they have to prove the tenant received it and I think the practice is not to send notices by signed by delivery as invariably the tenant may refuse to take the envelope from the postie.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

So ur suggesting it's a holiday let/ b n b situation? Not saying ur wrong, but far fetched

Not at all. Many landlords provide a basic service as described because it negates a tenancy and the protection that affords. For running a vacuum over a carpet once in a blue moon it's a pretty good deal.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jamie11 wrote: »

Even if you're right, and I confess I'm not sure, there would be no criminal behaviour if he did effect entry, the action would be a civil matter.

No it wouldn't. Forcing entry into a property without the right to do so is very much a criminal matter. But, if you think it's not, just let me know where you live and I'll be happy to give you a first hand demonstration which may change your mind.

jamie11

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Forcing entry into a property without the right to do so is very much a criminal matter. But, if you think it's not, just let me know where you live and I'll be happy to give you a first hand demonstration which may change your mind.

Ha Ha! You'd be welcome, I can assure you the Guardia Civil take a very different view, however you're welcome to come and stay in my holiday chalet.

Seriously though, the OP is asking about unfair/illegal eviction, I think he has a case, he is not a lodger and therefore has some rights, not many I agree, but some all the the same. One of those rights is protection from illegal eviction, as such he has every right to enter his room again until his landlord follows the proper protocol to evict him. If there is no live in landlord then he is a tenant, not a lodger.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jamie11 wrote: »

Ha Ha! You'd be welcome, I can assure you the Guardia Civil take a very different view, however you're welcome to come and stay in my holiday chalet.

Seriously though, the OP is asking about unfair/illegal eviction, I think he has a case, he is not a lodger and therefore has some rights, not many I agree, but some all the the same. One of those rights is protection from illegal eviction, as such he has every right to enter his room again until his landlord follows the proper protocol to evict him. If there is no live in landlord then he is a tenant, not a lodger.

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.