Facing eviction and homelessness

dktreesea

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

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".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

There's plenty of work in Glasgow. People in North Ayrshire can commute. Plenty do. The M77 carpark illustrates this every morning. And 10% unemployment is also 90% employment, so 9 out of 10 people who want to work in that area are in work.


Renting is expensive. In the absence of social housing (not so much a problem for Scotland because they no longer sell off their social housing (some common sense at last!) and are building thousands of new social homes a year) in England, definitely a problem that is getting worse, with Westminster intent on selling it all off, than better, moving to somewhere you can afford to buy seems a positive option to me.


I don't think getting work, for those already in work with a good work history, would be a problem. The fastest growing immigrant group in Scotland is the English and has been for years.


It's all very well saying social housing is a necessity, but Westminster doesn't agree with you. You say where's the work in L4, an inner city area of Liverpool. There will be plenty of people who live in L4 and work somewhere within the greater Liverpool area. Even if the unemployment rate in that particular area was 20%, that would still mean 80% of the working age population who want work in work.


What is the point of living in a place like Surrey if you can't afford to buy anything at all, If the LHA doesn't cover private rent and a social house in the area you are living is next to impossible to get?


We need to get away from this cradle to grave mentality as in "I want to live in this area but I can't afford it so I want the taxpayer to pick up the bill or give me a council house" and start to look out for ourselves and our own families, including relocating to a place where we can afford to live while we work.



What happens when the government widens the meaning of "intentionally homeless" to mean that the soon to be evicted tenant hasn't made sufficient effort, including moving away, to find their own accommodation? Or decides they only have a statutory duty towards children in that situation, not the parents? Renting is not secure. And there's certainly no such thing as rent controls. Look at what has happened to social renters in recent years, some of whom have had to give up their homes because they can't afford the bedroom tax.


I don't know if this will happen in England, but up here our council is now requiring people in social housing to pay market rentals if they have income over a certain amount.

Teen_the_Drama_Queen

dktreesea, relocating is all very well, but the OP is self employed, has their own business, suddenly moving up to Scotland would probably not be the best move and they have come on here for advice, not criticism. Not everyone has a ...'give me a council house'..... mentality, the OP says they WANT to rent privately, but their bad credit rating seems to be a stumbling block (according to the letting agents), they seem to be in a catch 22 situation.

dktreesea

Teen_the_Drama_Queen wrote: »

dktreesea, relocating is all very well, but the OP is self employed, has their own business, suddenly moving up to Scotland would probably not be the best move and they have come on here for advice, not criticism. Not everyone has a ...'give me a council house'..... mentality, the OP says they WANT to rent privately, but their bad credit rating seems to be a stumbling block (according to the letting agents), they seem to be in a catch 22 situation.

I'm not criticising the OP. My point was that not everyone can get what they want. Buying or renting, you don't always get what you want in the area where you want to live. Social housing is no different. I think it's horrendous that a person having to give up their private let is faced with having to wait for the bailiffs to evict them before the council will help them with accommodation. But depending on where they live, the horror of having to depend on the local council to house you may not be completely apparent to anyone who hasn't been through it. Would you want to be rehoused in a homeless hostel for families, with shared facilities? https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/new-temporary-accommodation-for-homeless-families-to-reduce-bb-use/




I come from a part of London where the council is offering housing to people in the OP's situation, well, further along the road as in the bailiffs have arrived, outside of the borough. That hasn't happened up here in Scotland yet, but you could still end up being housed on the other side of town, AND not be able to move your children to the local primary in the new area because there's no space for them.

Red_Spider

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

The house in Dalry looks like it might be a repossession, with the notice on the door. Usually the estate agent would have the "we have received an offer..." statement though. Also, is it non standard construction?
Again, it would usually say. Otherwise, if it's freehold, then it looks a good deal. Not much more than a bit of decorating and kitchen fitting (perhaps?!)

Abertillery - watch out for mining subsidence.

Liverpool - looks good, but what about the tinned up house next door? I'd be nervous about that. You could get kids lighting fires in there, rats, junkies, all sorts. If you could afford to buy both, it could be good!

Flats, leasehold - too much hassle and you don't really own it.

Just my simple thoughts on the matter...

Interesting to see the price differences between different areas of the UK.
Are these differences getting greater?

I kind of agree with you on this. I'd rather sleep on a camp bed in the cheapest house, than pay a penny to a landlord (or the bank or HMRC).

Pixie5740

In Scotland we don't have freehold and leasehold properties. When we buy a property we actually buy it rather than just buying a really long lease, even with flats. Yes the flat in Campbeltown seems cheap but Campbeltown is on a peninsula and the quickest way to the mainland is a ferry to Ardrossan (North Ayrshire) which is about an hours drive from Glasgow so the reason it's inexpensive probably has a lot to do with a lack of employment opportunities and the remoteness from a city.

In England you can get cheap properties in Barrow in Furness and Blackpool but again that will come down to lack of employment opportunities and the length of commute from somewhere which does have jobs.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38118174.html

None of this particularly helps the OP though because if he doesn't have enough money for a rental deposit at the moment then he doesn't have £30k to buy somewhere. He is also self employed with his business in the area he currently lives so packing up and moving to Blackpool or Campbeltown will leave him without an income.

The OP hasn't said that he won't move and has started looking at other rental properties but it seems that whilst the landlord wants the OP to be flexible she isn't willing to be flexible herself. In fact the landlord hadn't even served valid notice yet so the OP doesn't have to go anywhere for a while yet giving him time to save. Some councils and charities help those on low incomes with the deposit for a private rental when a Section 21 has been issued so that's something the OP could look in to if/when his landlord actually issues one.

sniggings

dktreesea wrote: »

They ended up with the costs of having to move twice. Including electricity and gas connection fees. Moving is expensive.

What fees were these? I've never paid a fee for having gas/electric turned on.

dktreesea

sniggings wrote: »

What fees were these? I've never paid a fee for having gas/electric turned on.

I think it depends whether the connection is still live? Our gas is capped so if we wanted it put back on we would have to pay for the meter to be installed again. When we first came back to the UK we had to pay a deposit to both the gas and electricity suppliers before they would accept us as customers. And the electricity wanted a connection fee.

dktreesea

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The OP hasn't said that he won't move and has started looking at other rental properties but it seems that whilst the landlord wants the OP to be flexible she isn't willing to be flexible herself. In fact the landlord hadn't even served valid notice yet so the OP doesn't have to go anywhere for a while yet giving him time to save. Some councils and charities help those on low incomes with the deposit for a private rental when a Section 21 has been issued so that's something the OP could look in to if/when his landlord actually issues one.

Why can't the council give the OP the deposit for another property if they don't want to house him and his family?

I don't have any sympathy for his landlady. She hasn't issued a section 21 because she is trying to get the OP and his family out on the cheap, hoping it won't cost her a penny. My advice to the OP stands. Stay until the bailiffs tell you to leave. If the taxpayer then ends up footing the bill and having to stump up a council house, or rent a private let on behalf of the OP, then that's the government's fault. Yes, I still think the government is not to be relied on and where possible it's better to find one's own accommodation and stay out of their clutches. But they created this situation, of short term tenancies, where the LL can do whatever they like and keep churning tenants.


I can guess why the LL wants the OP out. It might be to do with rent guarantee insurance, which doesn't pay out of the tenant has been receiving housing benefit but not passed it onto the LL. I notice our lease has a clause saying that claiming HB voids the tenancy. Mmm, good luck to any LL actually being able to enforce such a clause.


The government are wholly responsible for the terrible situation for renters in this country, financing rentiers BTL empires via the housing benefit, enabling them to charge far more than their properties are worth just because the LHA is way too high and they use it as a benchmark to decide how much to charge for their properties.


I hope it takes the landlady at least a year to get the OP out of the property. Serves her right. Even the rent increase hasn't been done properly. And I hope the OP takes the landlady to court if she tries to help herself to as much as 1p of his deposit.


Tenants have a right to a stable place to live, to not have to up and move every 6 months or a year just because their LLs want to sell/hike the rent/turn their property into a HMO/any number of reasons. It's about time the government (and Labour were no better than the Tories on this) started to put in place regulations that favoured tenants, similar to what there is in some countries, like Germany, on the continent.

Belloubec

I really feel for you, you must be going out of your mind with worry. Do you have enough money for checks bond and deposit? If so I would get speaking to other agents and be honest about your situation I'm sure there is once willing to take you on. Also Gumtree have private landlords on there that don't like to use agents so won't usually do credit checks maybe have a look there? I guess you'd have to do your research and make sure the landlord is a good one

Red_Spider

Pixie5740 wrote: »

In

In England you can get cheap properties in Barrow in Furness and Blackpool but again that will come down to lack of employment opportunities and the length of commute from somewhere which does have jobs.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38118174.html

orne.

Pixie, that house is shared ownership!