Facing eviction and homelessness

theartfullodger

deannatrois wrote: »

I went through three different tenancy agreements, did not receive new prescribed information but on checking during the four years, the deposit was protected. I doubt it would be worth the OP pursuing this, unless his deposit is not protected. If it isn't, then its a whole different ball game.

Dean - I think you can sue LL for not providing PI only: See here

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/tenancy_deposits/getting_your_deposit_back/tenancy_deposit_compensation_claims
1st example letter-before-action list not supplying PI as one option.

If this is correct you have up to 6 years from when it should have been protected (30 days after you paid).

Suggest you contact Shelter re. this: May be worth quite a bit! Worth a 'phone call?

See
http://www.landlordsguild.com/the-importance-of-prescribed-information/
&
http://www.property118.com/deposit-protected-confirmed-writing-prescribed-information/74237/

.....A deposit protected but not complying with the Prescribed Information Order can render the landlord liable to a penalty of between one and three times the deposit ....

[Deleted User]

Thanks Artful.., but the money was protected which was the main aim of the laws. I may be mad but feel its a bit like the 'compo culture' we are developing to pursue a claim for a legality.

I was lucky, I always kept the email showing the prescribed information on a notice board so not reissuing it didn't cause any problems. I didn't enjoy the LL's attitude but it doesn't mean I have to join him lol. Just the way I am.

joesab

do you have anyone who would stand as guarantor? Ive been recently in a similar situation, eventually found a house with a letting agent but they asked for a guarantor in the event of not being accepted.

dktreesea

Something to keep in mind about being housed by the council. You may not get social housing. They could just rent a private property for you. Read the fine print if you accept one of these. They're under no obligation to rent a property within an LHA band. I had a friend who got caught like this. They were evicted and rehoused in a private property, for which the rent was a gob smacking £1,200 a month. They didn't offer the tenants a council house and pressured them to find another place on their own. At various times the agent was asking them to pay the shortfall of the rent (i.e. between the actual rent and the LHA. They refused and kept referring them back to the council. Eventually the council caved in and offered them a council house. The first one they refused and wanted to refuse the second one, but the housing officer said if they refused two properties, the council was under no obligation to house them and they would have to pay the shortfall between the LHA and the actual rent (£500) for the property they were in. They ended up with the costs of having to move twice. Including electricity and gas connection fees. Moving is expensive.


If this ever happens to us, I would look at moving away from the area and buying a house somewhere, even if it was a £30k do-upper 40 miles away. I'd rather have a mortgage for £100 to £200 a month than go through the uncertainty of having to move every six months to a year.

StumpyPumpy

dktreesea wrote: »

If this ever happens to us, I would look at moving away from the area and buying a house somewhere, even if it was a £30k do-upper 40 miles away. I'd rather have a mortgage for £100 to £200 a month than go through the uncertainty of having to move every six months to a year.

I see you appear to be in Scotland where houses are much cheaper. This isn't an option for large sections of the population of the UK. For instance, within 40 miles of where I live you couldn't get a "do-upper" garage for £30k.

SP

Pixie5740

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

I see you appear to be in Scotland where houses are much cheaper. This isn't an option for large sections of the population of the UK. For instance, within 40 miles of where I live you couldn't get a "do-upper" garage for £30k.

SP

Property isn't much cheaper in Scotland compared with the rest of the U.K. Yes there are some cheap areas just as there are some cheap areas in parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland but to label all housing in Scotland as cheap would be incorrect. For example until last year house prices were rising faster in Aberdeen than they were in London.

You can get a 1 bedroom flat in some parts of Glasgow for under £30k but I doubt you'd want to live in those areas.

seaspray10

It’s a stab in the dark but there are a lot of LL on this site, so an idea of your location, budget and property type needed, may (fingers crossed) lead to something.
Good luck

dktreesea

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

I see you appear to be in Scotland where houses are much cheaper. This isn't an option for large sections of the population of the UK. For instance, within 40 miles of where I live you couldn't get a "do-upper" garage for £30k.

SP

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Property isn't much cheaper in Scotland compared with the rest of the U.K. Yes there are some cheap areas just as there are some cheap areas in parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland but to label all housing in Scotland as cheap would be incorrect. For example until last year house prices were rising faster in Aberdeen than they were in London.

You can get a 1 bedroom flat in some parts of Glasgow for under £30k but I doubt you'd want to live in those areas.

You can get a three bedroom house in parts of West Scotland for less than £50k. Wales the same. Yes, England would be a challenge, but not insurmountable.


Stumpy, while I appreciate that those who live in Surrey, and similar lovely parts of the UK, aren't exactly looking to the rest of the UK for housing, if people can't afford to buy, or even rent privately, in the area where they live, then perhaps they should move to another part of the UK where they can afford to live.


I posted these on another thread, but they illustrate my point:



http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-40005987.html


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-41084450.html


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38591094.html


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57853385.html


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-39849717.html


Renting isn't always cheaper than buying. And social housing may not be the prize a lot of people think it is.

always_sunny

dktreesea wrote: »

... if people can't afford to buy, or even rent privately, in the area where they live, then perhaps they should move to another part of the UK where they can afford to live.

are there jobs there? If you could be a semi (ok needing lots of TLC) for £23k...

StumpyPumpy

dktreesea wrote: »

Stumpy, while I appreciate that those who live in Surrey, and similar lovely parts of the UK, aren't exactly looking to the rest of the UK for housing, if people can't afford to buy, or even rent privately, in the area where they live, then perhaps they should move to another part of the UK where they can afford to live.

Relocating isn't as easy as you seem to think. Where is the work in, say, Liverpool 4? I pick this because that is my original home area, and I know what employment opportunities exist there, which is why I moved. North Ayrshire, another of your cheap housing areas has unemployment at around 10%

I don't know the OP or their circumstances beyond those mentioned here but do you really expect them to move possibly the length of the country away from relatives and friends? What about the OP's children? When you are isolated from family, people often lose access to "free" child care in the form of Grandparents and their wider family and social circles - all this adds to the day to day living costs that makes a move to a cheaper area a very expensive option.

We are in the fortunate position of owning our own home in a leafy suburb. As such we could move anywhere in the country and be quids in property wise if we wanted to. However, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that everywhere in Surrey qualifies as one of the " lovely parts of the UK".

dktreesea wrote: »

Renting isn't always cheaper than buying. And social housing may not be the prize a lot of people think it is.

To put things in perspective for you: the cheapest 3 bedroom house in Surrey on Rightmove at the moment (non-retirment, non-auction, non-shared ownership) that I can find appears to be http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57705041.html
Which is a "do-upper" and also good for plane spotters, but hardly lovely and at 8 times average salary is unaffordable to many. Social housing is not, as you seem to think a "prize" for many people, it is a necessity, and most people don't rent because they think it is cheaper: they rent because that is the only way to put a roof over their heads.


SP