Facing eviction and homelessness

hign10pines

Planet1309 wrote: »

Hi all,

Myself, my partner and two small children have been living in a rented flat for the last two and a half years, renting off of a private landlord

For the last six months our landlady has been trying to sell out property. She was recently adviced by the letting agent that it would be easier to sell it empty so has served us notice of two months (she only has to give us a month but has given us two)

The problem we have got is we are now unable to rent another property privately. My credit rating has taken a hammering since we moved in, mainly due to starting and running my own business. It's currently at 250 and classed as very poor so the agents won't touch us. I've never ever been even a day late on the rent but apparently this won't come into getting another place.

We registered on the housing list six months ago due to knowing we would be unable to private rent again but were classed as non priority so didn't get anywhere. Since receiving our eviction letter I have been on the phone to the council but have been told I will still be non priority until we are literally homeless.

What I've then been told I highly disagree with, both the council and Shelter (who I had a lengthy phone call with) have told me that if we leave at the end of our two month notice, we are intentionally making ourselves homeless and should sit tight until the landlady gets a court order and bailiffs to remove us. I find this morally wrong and will not be doing this, our landlady has been fully fair with us, never given us any problems and even given us an extra months notice then required. To make her have to take us to court and adding that extra pressure on the pair of us for something that is inevitable I feel it's unacceptable. Not only this but I run a local business and with our landlady also local herself, it certainly doesn't give a good impression. I have explained this to the council but have been told it's all I can do, if we do this then we will get emergency accommodation (my partner and children in a hostel for mothers and myself in an open house)

So basically to sum it up, the council won't help me unless I screw over my landlady and I can't rent privately due to my credit rating (I certainly won't be able to get a mortgage) and I'm two months time my family will be homeless

Both me and my partner are at breaking point and don't know what to do

Any advice would be highly appreciated

Many thanks

A tenant check will only see DRO's bankruptcies etc, only public information not your credit history.

Pixie5740

Red_Spider wrote: »

Pixie, that house is shared ownership!

What about this one then then:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53107624.html

If that doesn't take your fancy then what about an entire hotel?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-53825837.html

makeyourdaddyproud

dktreesea wrote: »

Why can't the council give the OP the deposit for another property if they don't want to house him and his family? [Because they don't have to, it's not their responsibility. How about about you paying for this family's housing crisis - I certainly don't want the taxpayer to?]

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 [Is it at all possible that this is a simpler, perhaps kinder first-call negotiation, and that the LL should get some credit?]. My advice to the OP stands. Stay until the bailiffs tell you to leave [Oh, that is fine advice - didn't see that one coming - skrew the LL over don't they all deserve it?]. 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 [No, it becomes the taxpayer's problem]. 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 [Crock of sh1te], of short term tenancies, where the LL can do whatever they like and keep churning tenants.
...

Sadly, I think your testament will prove disgustingly true and the tenant will overstay, pandering to the inevitable cliche esposed by "Can't pay, we'll take it away".

I won't look forward to the next series.

Teen_the_Drama_Queen

MYDP - if you read the whole thread, you will see that the OP is self employed and runs their own business, as he would pay tax too, then he is also a tax payer, he's not asking you to put your hand in your pocket and hand it over to him. As for your comment about screwing the LL over, you will see that he does not wish to do this.

dktreesea

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Sadly, I think your testament will prove disgustingly true and the tenant will overstay, pandering to the inevitable cliche esposed by "Can't pay, we'll take it away".

I won't look forward to the next series.

If you create, as a government, a situation where pay is low and rents are high, so high that anyone on low pay needs housing benefit just to be able to pay that rent, - (and this is a government created situation in England, caused by a government who has allowed social housing to be sold off to those who can afford it, rather than to be provided to those who can't afford to pay market rents, and refuses to build any more) - then you also have to expect, if a tenant faces eviction, that they might not be able to get together the few thousand pounds they need to be able to move house.


To move house you're faced with having to provide a security deposit, very likely before the original security deposit on your current property is refunded to you, one month, at least, rent in advance, a situation where you could have two rents to pay if there is an overlap, and letting agents fees. Then there's moving costs. If you own the furniture that's at a minimum a van even if you hire it and drive and move yourself. For a property big enough to house a family I don't think you'ld be seeing much change, anywhere in the UK, out of £1,000.


Self employed people who need housing benefit to support themselves and their family probably have fairly marginal income. LLs are leery about renting to people with variable incomes as it is, let alone to ones who depend on housing benefit to get by.


The OP has dependent children. He needs to be practical. In the absence of sufficient funds to be able to move into a property of his own choosing, his best bet is to sit tight and depend on the state to find him housing.



Yes, maybe the LL was just trying to do this in as pleasant a way as possible. She want's her house back. Fair enough. And the law as it stands currently says if the tenant refuses to hand the house back she is going to need a high court bailiff (quickest way) to regain possession. It may be it doesn't cost her anything at all, i.e. she can just take the costs out of the tenant's security deposit. But I don't see it's the OP's fault if they don't earn enough to be able to move house/persuade a different landlord to house them privately.


Social housing was created for low income people. Why shouldn't the OP be given social housing if that's the only affordable option for him? The disgrace is that the government has cut supply in England so drastically, the council may not be able to provide that housing.


And the state may not end up losing out at all. If the council have to rent on behalf of the tenant, so effectively being his guarantor, they can still ask the tenant to make whatever contribution he already had to make to his rent now. Housing benefit will still provide the balance to the new landlord.


If on the other hand, they provide social housing to the tenant, the rents for which are currently below market rentals, then the amount of rent they are forgoing housing the tenant and his family, keeping in mind they can still get the tenant's contribution, is likely to be less than the housing benefit they are currently forking out.

GDB2222

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

This was the position in this country, prior to the current AS tenancy regime. Tenants had security of tenure, and rents were controlled. However, it was almost impossible for prospective tenants to find a property to rent, precisely because tenants had security of tenure, and rents were controlled.

My late father was a doctor, and he had a flat above his surgery. He only ever let it to foreign PhD students, because he knew that they would always leave and go home, eventually. He didn't dare let to UK tenants.

Maybe, the present regime is a bit too good for landlords and needs some adjustment, but be careful what you wish for.

dktreesea

GDB2222 wrote: »

This was the position in this country, prior to the current AS tenancy regime. Tenants had security of tenure, and rents were controlled. However, it was almost impossible for prospective tenants to find a property to rent, precisely because tenants had security of tenure, and rents were controlled.

My late father was a doctor, and he had a flat above his surgery. He only ever let it to foreign PhD students, because he knew that they would always leave and go home, eventually. He didn't dare let to UK tenants.

Maybe, the present regime is a bit too good for landlords and needs some adjustment, but be careful what you wish for.

In a low wage economy like Britain has become, where a private landlord letting at a reasonable price a low income earner could afford faces making little or no money, possibly not even enough to cover the mortgage, the government should step in.


England should act as they do in Scotland, and provide social housing. So that means not selling it off to well off council tenants, requiring those who wish to remain in or secure council or housing association housing but earning well above the average wage to pay market rents, and building more in anticipation of the coming population increase.


The situation the OP finds himself in is outrageous. Think of the uncertainly, having to wait for months until he is forced out of his home by the courts because he can't afford, or fails to persuade a landlord to let to him, to move under his own steam. His situation is not the exception; it's becoming the norm.

*Robin*

Seven pages, and nobody has suggested one course of action which seems obvious to yours truly:

OP appears to have a decent relationship with his LL (on the surface at least). We have been told LL is an elderly lady who wishes to retire and sell her property quickly.

Wouldn't the easiest option be to market the property to other LLs as an investment opportunity, with excellent tenants in situ?

LL avoids a void [sorry!], redecorating costs and all the hassles and vagaries involved in marketing with vacant possession.. An investor won't offer the highest price, but given that OP's LL's costs in selling will be much lower it could be the best overall option; LL will get her cash much faster and OP won't have to move!

Could be worth-while suggesting this to your LL, OP?

preciousillusions

Your first port of call really needs to be getting the appropriate eviction notice i.e a section 21 which gives you two months notice of intent to evict. The letter your LL gave you means nothing whatsoever.

AnotherJoe

GDB2222 wrote: »

My late father was a doctor, and he had a flat above his surgery. He only ever let it to foreign PhD students, because he knew that they would always leave and go home, eventually. He didn't dare let to UK tenants.
)

Because students from abroad never overstay their visas, or claim asylum, or work illegally or take cases through the courts for years?

Bottom line is, not enough places, caused in major part by the government selling off social housing and not building enough (any) more.