Separating- can husband walk in house whenever he likes?

justme111

dobs wrote: »

Hi my husband is meant to be moving out in a few days, am staying with our children and im going to be paying the mortgage. QUOTE]
Rps , you must have missed it

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

dobs wrote: »

Hi my husband is meant to be moving out in a few days, am staying with our children and im going to be paying the mortgage. QUOTE]
Rps , you must have missed it

It's not relevant though...

justme111

Well, if the opening post is not relevant than what we are discussing here ?
THis discussion is indeed not relevant. Some people think it is right for him after moving out come in whenever he pleases because his name is on the deeds , some people think it would be not right. Pigpen says how it was in her case. Nobody seems to quote the law or cases where it went to court or more likely to police and what has been decided.

Guest101

justme111 wrote: »

Well, if the opening post is not relevant than what we are discussing here ?
THis discussion is indeed not relevant. Some people think it is right for him after moving out come in whenever he pleases because his name is on the deeds , some people think it would be not right. Pigpen says how it was in her case. Nobody seems to quote the law or cases where it went to court or more likely to police and what has been decided.

The Law is as I've described it - that's property ownership law and goes back centuries.

The police won't be involved as there is no offences committed ( it's a civil dispute )

And court don't have an overall guidance on this, so it can go either way. Depends on the application - non mol, occupation, forced sale?

rpc

clearingout wrote: »

He leaves, it is no longer his home. He forgoes the right to come and go as he pleases.

CAB disagree...

In a relationship breakdown situation, you and your spouse or civil partner:

• both have a right to stay in the family home
• both have the right to return if you move out
• cannot make the other person leave or change the locks
• cannot sell the property without the consent and signature of the other
• cannot raise a mortgage or loan against the home without the consent and signature of the other.

Source

Marvel1

It's best if he stays in the house, also herself and the children.

justme111

rpc wrote: »

CAB disagree...


Source

It does not say one can come visiting as one pleases when one moves out , does it ?

onomatopoeia99

justme111 wrote: »

It does not say one can come visiting as one pleases when one moves out , does it ?

It says you have the right to return if you move out. It does not specify how long you have to return for, be it five minutes or five years.

Are you going to argue that "return" only means "return to move back in" and thereby place an interpretation that the words do not support?

If the other party moves back in as is their undisputed right, is it less inconvenient for the other party having them there all the time than them dropping in, possibly unnanounced, once in a blue moon?

justme111

If the other party moves in there might be valid reason for it. If other party just pops in whenever , specially making a point they will the only possible reason may be to annoy whoever lives there.
If other party moves in there is certainty. It is their home as well. If other party is to pop in and out there is uncertainty for someone who's home it is due to someone who's home it is not . I think it is you who tries to find meaning which is not there. "Return after moving out" would usually be understood as "return to reside". Not pop in to do one's washing or watch tv for the evening.
Specific situation of unannounced visits is not covered in your link.

onomatopoeia99

justme111 wrote: »

Specific situation of unannounced visits is not covered in your link.

Not my link.

The words "right to return" as written on the CAB website would cover all visits, announced or not, of any duration, from five minutes to permanent. It has no specification on duration or frequency of the returns.

"Return to reside" is your additional interpretation of what is on the CAB site to narrow the scope of what they have written into something that agrees with your position. Your justification is that it "would normally be understood." By whom? Based on what?

I am keen to gain a clear understanding of when (or indeed if), short of an injunction or other order from a court, one joint owner of a property can deny access to the other joint owner of a property. Your statements suggest you have specific legal knowledge in this area. I don't, I can only go on the bare words presented by the CAB and the like. If the CAB website is wrong, please say so (also please tell them, so they can update it).