Being made homeless, council advice seems dodgy

lighting_up_the_chalice

mchale wrote: »

Because once you have vacant possession, you pursue the tenant for all the costs you incurred to obtain VP.

You can't claim costs accrued as a direct result of your own incompetence. If the S21 isn't valid, the LL has zero chance of getting any costs accrued as a result awarded against the tenant.

mchale

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You can't claim costs accrued as a direct result of your own incompetence. If the S21 isn't valid, the LL has zero chance of getting any costs accrued as a result awarded against the tenant.

Ah so the LL wont reissue S21 again with correct info on it. :eek:

dinofabio

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

We've moved on from the feudal system in this country.

The law is heavily weighted in favour of the tenant, so referring to a feudal system is just ridiculous.

Just look at the Shelter website and it will give you chapter and verse of how a tenant can 'fight' a notice. It's not rocket science.

I've no doubt the OP can fight this but there could be consequences.

Try to work something out with the landlord is the easiest option for all

lighting_up_the_chalice

mchale wrote: »

Ah so the LL wont reissue S21 again with correct info on it. :eek:

I'm sure they will. And at that point, the correct homeless duty will be triggered by the council. From what the OP says, they are more than keen to assist with that process. So, no prospect of any costs award against the tenant at all.

Somerset

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the homeless section of the LA see more S21s than most people. Statistics from the courts would indicate that 7 out of 10 S21s are invalid, and that's just those that get as far as the courts, so an assumption that it's incorrect may have some merit.

I'm not arguing with you chalice, I like most of your posts. I'm a cynic - if my future were on the line, I'd make damn sure I was certain that notice was incorrect and why. I would never take anyone's word for it (aside from CAB/legal professional). Tbh, from reading the thread, the council 'lady' doesn't sound the sharpest tool.


If the OP wanted, I know there are posters on here that could identify whether it's ok or not.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dinofabio wrote: »

The law is heavily weighted in favour of the tenant, so referring to a feudal system is just ridiculous.

Just look at the Shelter website and it will give you chapter and verse of how a tenant can 'fight' a notice. It's not rocket science.

I've no doubt the OP can fight this but there could be consequences.

Try to work something out with the landlord is the easiest option for all

I'm not suggesting a fight. But the council require the correct notice to be served before they have a homeless duty. That's just a statutory requirement.

As for "The law is heavily weighted in favour of the tenant"? The LL can take the tenants home away from them without any cause or reason. How much "favour" does that give the responsible, rent paying, behaving in a tenant like manner tenant?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Somerset wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you chalice, I like most of your posts. I'm a cynic - if my future were on the line, I'd make damn sure I was certain that notice was incorrect and why. I would never take anyone's word for it (aside from CAB/legal professional). Tbh, from reading the thread, the council 'lady' doesn't sound the sharpest tool.


If the OP wanted, I know there are posters on here that could identify whether it's ok or not.

I agree that a second opinion is rarely a bad idea, but the behaviour of the council "lady" seems pretty exemplary to me. She seems to be acting in a pretty neutral capacity, offering to assist and advise both parties and, ultimately, accept the homeless duty. I'm not sure how she could be sharper.

emlou2009

Wow, lots to think about there!

The letter we were issued isn't an s21. It just says she wants us to move out by May 28th.

To be honest, I'm scared to ring her. The council lady said in order for her to not write to the landlady to tell her she hasn't issued a legal notice, I had to email her saying i wanted her to close our case. Which will leave us completely stuffed if we lose the extra month or two we stand to buy ourselves.

If she wasn't switched on enough to send a legal notice, she most likely isn'tg going to be switched on enough to take us to the high court! And from what most of you seem to be saying, it won't get there unless we outstay a s21 - which we haven't had yet.

benjus

You could always be honest with the landlady - tell her that you need help from the council, but the council can't do anything unless she follows the correct process. She probably won't be happy about it, but there's nothing she can do about it (not legally, at least).

I'm not sure why everyone is so keen for the council lady not to write to the LL - it may buy you a little more time in the property if it gets all the way to court before the LL realises she hasn't served valid notice, but what's the point? You can't stay there indefinitely and it will just antagonise the LL.

dinofabio

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

As for "The law is heavily weighted in favour of the tenant"? The LL can take the tenants home away from them without any cause or reason. How much "favour" does that give the responsible, rent paying, behaving in a tenant like manner tenant?

Firstly, it's not the tenants home - the property belongs to the LL. The tenant pays rent to occupy it. The LL can serve notice to leave in the same way a tenant can. No cause or reason is required by either party. Everything is equal. But that is where the equality ends.

A growing number of professional sponger tenants know how to work the system. 9 months plus is not an unusual amount of time to evict a non paying tenant if he knows how to play the game. That's 9 months living rent free. Legal costs incurred by the LL and then fingers crossed said tenants don't trash the house before they leave walking away £000's of debt as a parting gift. Theses type of tenants move on and do the same again because there is nothing to stop them doing so.

People like yourself, councils, shelter, cab etc are always on hand giving advise and encouragement on how to play the game.

On the other hand, the law provides very little protection for the landlord who is just expected to take the financial hit.

There are a lot more rogue tenants out there in comparison to rogue landlords.

Thankfully, the majority of tenants are fine, but don't try to kid me the law isn't heavily in their favour. The vast majority of LL's maintain their properties and do repairs it's in their own interest to do so.

========

To the OP. A lot of Landlords are insisting on landlord references going back 3+ years. Failing to produce references may restrict your rental options if you need to rent again i.e you may find that the the only places willing to take you on are run down dumps with less than helpful LL's. Try to leave on good terms with your existing LL is my advice.