Tenant wont leave!!

dktreesea

Guest101 wrote: »

dktreesea wrote: »

1: trespass is a civil matter
2: contempt of court is not a criminal offence, however yes you can go to prison for it - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
3: you wrote when possesion was imminent. Hence it had not happened.
4: yes I said that interfering with a HCEO was a criminal offence

As I understand it from my relative the HCEO (two of them) turned up to take possession, the tenants refused to leave, the HCEO called the police who told the tenants if they didn't vacate the property they would be arrested. I thought this would have been either for trespassing or contempt, but it looks like the only criminal offence would be interfering with the HCEOs who are trying to implement the court order.


I'm not even sure if nowadays this would have been possible because hasn't there been a recent change in the law that says, even for high court enforcements, notice now has to be given?


Yes, it's true, the tenants in question became homeless. They hadn't been able to secure another tenancy (they had had a fall in income) and presumably ended up being rehoused by the council. But I don't see why this is the landlord's problem and why the law doesn't protect the landlords better. They had their court order, an order the bailiffs didn't enforce because there are so few of them so the delay ran to weeks. The only reason my family were able to transfer the case to the high court was because their costs (rent arrears, their costs of having to stay elsewhere) were mounting up. Then there was no problem enforcing the writ because the high court officers are private rather than government, so did everything quite quickly.


What got me was there was no reason for the tenants to comply with the court order, until, literally, the police turned up and said if they didn't comply with the order they would be arrested.


No wonder private landlords are getting out of the business. Our letting agent current has the grand total of ten properties - ten! - to let across the whole of Edinburgh. Even on Zoopla, for 3 bedroom plus properties, only 151 are offered and some of those listings are older, so could have been let out by now.

Even so, the responsibility for housing people, besides that of the person themselves, rests with the council, not the landlord. Why shouldn't landlord's rights be better protected?

dktreesea

deannatrois wrote: »

That is just a cop out opinion. Time has nothing to do with being able to find another private rental.., you need another deposit, to be able to cover admin fees from a LA, be able to pass a credit check, be able to cover removal costs. Moving is a very expensive business and a lot of tenants don't have that kind of money readily available.., private rents can be a high proportion of earnings.

Believe you me, no tenant on this planet wants to have no idea where they are moving to on the day of eviction because the council hasn't got enough housing stock to give you anything but emergency accommodation (which can be many miles from where the private rental was.., a problem if you have school age children). I've been there, months of stress, no certainty of being given somewhere to live, and wandering the streets for five hours with autistic kids because the council wouldn't see us until then even though I gave them the eviction paperwork as soon as I had it. My LL did make us homeless, we are still homeless although housed in emergency accommodation. And rent was always paid on time. He just wanted to sell. We moved in to find the emergency accommodation had cockroaches.., took a month to get rid of them, but I still regarded myself as lucky. No one wants that if there is an alternative. But alternative private rentals today are not as easy to find as you seem to assume. I live in what is now an expensive area because people from London are moving here.., but I move areas and my son looses services that I've spent 2 years getting put in place.

Yes, but it isn't the landlord's responsibility to house you beyond the lease period, or, if the lease has moved onto a periodic tenancy because the landlord doesn't want to sign a new lease, beyond the date the S21 says you have to move out by. The landlord owns the property and he should be able to get it back without going through all the cr*p the courts are putting him through.


It's your responsibility to arrange suitable housing for yourself and your family, and if you can't then it's the council's. You're not homeless because of your landlord; you're homeless because the government has failed to build sufficient property to accommodate people who can't afford to rent on the private market.

Pixie5740

I think the very fact that landlords can start eviction proceedings for no reason whatsoever means that their rights are pretty well protected. No one is forced to become a landlord, it's a choice. If you don't like the eviction process don't become a landlord...simple.

Thrugelmir

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I think the very fact that landlords can start eviction proceedings for no reason whatsoever means that their rights are pretty well protected. No one is forced to become a landlord, it's a choice. If you don't like the eviction process don't become a landlord...simple.

As would be the case in running any business. There's the good, the bad and the ugly. All part and parcel of doing so.

dktreesea

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I think the very fact that landlords can start eviction proceedings for no reason whatsoever means that their rights are pretty well protected. No one is forced to become a landlord, it's a choice. If you don't like the eviction process don't become a landlord...simple.

I'm all for a proper eviction process, with proper notice. But it shouldn't take a court order, then a delay of weeks for bailiffs to action the order because the tenants refuse to comply with it, then a transfer of the writ to the high court just to take repossession of your property.


I'd like to see bailiffs only have 48 hours to enforce a court order or then the clock starts ticking and the court becomes liable for the landlord's costs/rent arrears or whatever it is costing them. Having to transfer a writ to the high court just to get it actioned in a timely manner is a ridiculous use of our courts, imho. As for the HCEOs then needing the police because they can't enforce the writ...

Pixie5740

It absolutely should require a court order otherwise tenants could be forced out their homes when there's absolutely no need for them to leave. That's where a judge comes in.

I agree that councils should act sooner and house people after the court order has been granted but before bailiffs are involved but there's simply not enough social housing places to go around. Fining the courts won't solve that problem. A finite number of county court bailiffs also makes a 48 hour turnaround unrealistic.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm all for a proper eviction process, with proper notice. But it shouldn't take a court order, then a delay of weeks for bailiffs to action the order because the tenants refuse to comply with it, then a transfer of the writ to the high court just to take repossession of your property.


I'd like to see bailiffs only have 48 hours to enforce a court order or then the clock starts ticking and the court becomes liable for the landlord's costs/rent arrears or whatever it is costing them. Having to transfer a writ to the high court just to get it actioned in a timely manner is a ridiculous use of our courts, imho. As for the HCEOs then needing the police because they can't enforce the writ...

The police are the only body authorised to use arrest in the vast majority of circumstances.

Yes there are powers under some specific laws and situations. However as you've pointed out HCEOs are private companies, and there is no way giving powers of arrest to a private company would end well.

Pennysmakepounds

deannatrois wrote: »

And rent was always paid on time. He just wanted to sell.

What a load of cats P*ss.

You have to love the way tenants play the innocent hard done by people.

A section 21 is 2 months, and a LL would only issue that is a tenant refuses to move.

If the rent is paid and there are no issues the LL will normally be very accommodating and allow as much time as ia required (within reason) to the tenant to move.

Also, if you were able to pay the rent on-time and in full then there is no way in hell you could not find accommodation in 2 months.

There are always properties available.

Pixie5740

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

What a load of cats P*ss.

You have to love the way tenants play the innocent hard done by people.

A section 21 is 2 months, and a LL would only issue that is a tenant refuses to move.

If the rent is paid and there are no issues the LL will normally be very accommodating and allow as much time as ia required (within reason) to the tenant to move.

Also, if you were able to pay the rent on-time and in full then there is no way in hell you could not find accommodation in 2 months.

There are always properties available.

What makes you think that it's a lot of cat's !!!! that deanna's LL wanted to sell? It does happen you know.

Would a LL only issue a Section 21 if the tenant refuses to move? That doesn't make much sense. How would the tenant know the landlord unless the LL served notice? Even then the Section 21 doesn't end the tenancy.

2 months might be long enough for some tenants to find new homes but not always especially if it means having to find a new home in the same catchment area for the children's' schooling. Then there are tenants who claim housing benefit who struggle to find a landlord willing to take on a tenant if receipt of benefits. If these tenants can't find somewhere new then they turn to the council who can't/won't help until bailiffs have removed them from the property.

Nobody needs to become a landlord but everyone needs somewhere to live. Landlords can do a lot to prevent ending up with dud tenants such as learning and understanding their legal obligations as well as doing some due diligence when selecting tenants.

Guest101

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

What a load of cats P*ss.

You have to love the way tenants play the innocent hard done by people.

A section 21 is 2 months, and a LL would only issue that is a tenant refuses to move.

If the rent is paid and there are no issues the LL will normally be very accommodating and allow as much time as ia required (within reason) to the tenant to move.

Also, if you were able to pay the rent on-time and in full then there is no way in hell you could not find accommodation in 2 months.

There are always properties available.

Love how you speak of LLs as if their all one and the same...