Confused about court case/eviction

piccybabes

Artfulldodger


Its along story re eviction, but in short

1. the house is suffering from subsidence,
2. there is no easy solution that wouldn't cost over £100k and party wall involvement
3. House is worth £150k
4. Insurance and I agreed only way to resolve was to sell declaring the subsidence issue and Ins co compensate for loss of value
5. Cash buyers originally said they would keep tenant but changed mind
6. Tenant is struggling financially and would benefit from social housing
7. Over last weekend, housing found by council - tenant will hopefully move out this Friday

Upshot is - insurance co loses liability for less than £100k
Tenant get Social Housing
I get compensated

theartfullodger

Thanks piccy:

Note, lodger not dodger: I don;t dodge.

pinklady21

Part of the problem is that often Councils will not entertain rehousing people facing eviction until the eviction has actually taken place. So the tenants are forced to stay put, as to do otherwise would render them "intentionally homeless" and therefore unlikely to receive any help from the Council.
Clearly, not every tenant who is served a S21 will require rehousing from the Council, but for those who have little other choice than social housing, it is another block that is placed in their way.

theartfullodger

Very true: In particular

pinklady21 wrote: »

....Clearly, not every tenant who is served a S21 will require rehousing from the Council, but for those who have little other choice than social housing, it is another block that is placed in their way.

Many private tenants will not be entitled to be rehoused by council...., particularly say healthy singles or couples not pregnant or with kids
http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness/guide/get_help_from_your_council_when_homeless
- and social housing is increasingly not a possible option for many people, especially in London.

martinsurrey

FBaby wrote: »

And I expect the OP will also have a contract to say that he can be given two months notice to vacate. A contract is a contract. Contracts should be respected on both sides, the law should come as a last resort, not as a mean of control just because it's there.

they wont, the LL will have given signed a contract stating that he'll give the tenant 2 months notice before he starts the process to end the tenancy, a process that can only be done by the court.

parkrunner wrote: »

Well he's doing nothing illegal as far as we know but if I was LL I'd certainly refuse him as a future tenant. Personally if I sign an agreement that states ie two months notice then that's what I'd accept, maybe I'm in the minority these days.

exactly, and as above the LL gave signed a contract stating that he'll give the tenant 2 months notice before he starts the process to end the tenancy, a process that can only be done by the court. and thats all the OP is wanting, the LL to fulfil their legal and contractual obligations.

FBaby wrote: »

Artfull, I'm debating the legal process, I'm debating the fact that I find it a sad state of our society that people think it is ok to use their 'legal rights' at any opportunity despite an agreed contract just because they can.

As above, you dont seem to understand what a AST contract even is.

First thing is to research the difference between 2 months notice to vacate, and 2 months notice of intent to seek possession (one is a legal clause in an AST, and one isn't, and a hint, the one you think it is, is wrong.)

the amount of people jumping in feet first who dont understand AST contracts or the law is staggering.

parkrunner

martinsurrey wrote: »

they wont, the LL will have given signed a contract stating that he'll give the tenant 2 months notice before he starts the process to end the tenancy, a process that can only be done by the court.



exactly, and as above the LL gave signed a contract stating that he'll give the tenant 2 months notice before he starts the process to end the tenancy, a process that can only be done by the court. and thats all the OP is wanting, the LL to fulfil their legal and contractual obligations.




As above, you dont seem to understand what a AST contract even is.

First thing is to research the difference between 2 months notice to vacate, and 2 months notice of intent to seek possession (one is a legal clause in an AST, and one isn't, and a hint, the one you think it is, is wrong.)

the amount of people jumping in feet first who dont understand AST contracts or the law is staggering.

I'm not arguing the law just saying that most tenants will move after the two month's notice. Tenants who force the LL to get a court eviction would not be looked at favourably by future LLs

[Deleted User]

Most tenants, if they have a choice, will move out. If you have no choice.., a LL's reference doesn't make a jot of difference because you are either going to end up receiving help from the council or homeless in most of these cases.

Always amazes me though how people being evicted with large rent arrears manage to find another property. They end up on the streets less often than i would have assumed. Some people just seem to get away with it somehow.

theartfullodger

deannatrois wrote: »

.....Always amazes me though how people being evicted with large rent arrears manage to find another property. They end up on the streets less often than i would have assumed. Some people just seem to get away with it somehow.

Indeed. Probably often due to the consequences of Thatcher's 1988 Housing Act "Section 21". Landlords evict using s21 (the "no fault", "for no reason at all" route) as it is easier and more reliable than evicting for rent arrears or other breaches of tenancy. And often give "good" references so tenant finds somewhere else quicker and thus leaves earlier. And doesn't bother to inform council of arrears, thus meaning those who should not be entitled to be rehoused are rehoused, wasting (my view..) scarce council resources and housing stock.

Too many landlords just want shot of a problem, don't care if it costs councils and/or the next landlord shedloads...

silvercar

theartfullodger wrote: »

Indeed. Probably often due to the consequences of Thatcher's 1988 Housing Act "Section 21". Landlords evict using s21 (the "no fault", "for no reason at all" route) as it is easier and more reliable than evicting for rent arrears or other breaches of tenancy. And often give "good" references so tenant finds somewhere else quicker and thus leaves earlier. And doesn't bother to inform council of arrears, thus meaning those who should not be entitled to be rehoused are rehoused, wasting (my view..) scarce council resources and housing stock.

Too many landlords just want shot of a problem, don't care if it costs councils and/or the next landlord shedloads...

Possibly the arrears arose because the rent was unaffordable. The rent was unaffordable because circumstances changed or the rent was unaffordable from the start but the only decent thing on offer.

Maybe the rent arrears weren't deliberate. In any case, most council properties are allocated based on need rather than a financial examination of the tenant.