My ex partner is refusing to leave my house i solely own

AskAsk

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

i don't think evicting her and the child is going to be simple as she has lived there for so long and claims she has contributed to the family home through the 20k contribution, so she is claiming a financial interest in the home.  she obviously has been getting advice as what she is doing is very much what is stated on here from the CA and shelter

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/if-you-were-living-together/your-ex-partner-is-trying-to-make-you-leave

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/relationship_breakdown/housing_rights_of_cohabiting_sole_homeowners/occupation_rights_if_one_partner_is_the_sole_owner

Why are you sharing the Shelter link that I already provided on page 1 of this thread? Have you actually read it yourself? 

We don’t know what that £20,000 is for which is why I asked on page 1 of this thread. That money might not have had anything to do with capital repayments or capital improvements to the property. That money could have been for utilities, food, nappies, holidays. Even if the ex could establish a beneficial interest in the property that doesn’t automatically give her the right to remain living in the property. 

If she cannot adequately home herself and the child then she can go and the OP could become the primary care giver. 

you have missed the point.  i am not saying she can't get evicted but that it is not simple to do so and it will need to go to court to decide, this would take a long time to do.  the OP could not simply call the police and ask them to chuck her out because she has no right to be there as the house is in his name.

she may be able to get some claim from the house even if the house is only in his name, from that link.

matters of this sort, where there is a family dispute, and even if they are not married, they will be considered a family, will make it harder to get rid of her as she is not a stranger or a friend sofa surfing.

You are completely missing the point and clearly haven’t read the information in those links. A court order is not required to evict her nor are the police required. 

so the OP goes to the house and push her out himself then if it doesn't require the courts or the police to do so.  the outcome of that action could end up getting the OP in trouble for assault if there is a fight and she claims he assaulted her.  the likelihood of a fight is very likely if he starts pushing her out of the house.

T.T.D

Pixie5740 said:

T.T.D said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

The OP will need to obtain an injunction for trespassing.

He has Mount Everest to climb Pursuing this rout.

Trespass would consist of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another

unjustifiable being the operative word, she would not be a simple squatter, a simple squatter has no justification for occupying a property of another…bare this in mind.

When a trespass is alleged in court the trespasser has to justify to the court why they are occupying the property or land, the district Judge decides if she is justified to then remain or not.

What do think the justification is going to be?

Yes that’s right, her justification argument would be that she is the ex partner of the applicant, the applicant and her has a child of young age, she will argue 50/50 contribution to the household such as upgrades modifications and or council tax contributions, food electric gas for the last 5 years, that she must be afforded time to get on the housing register and the council and housing priority lists. 
 

 

I never said anything about her being a squatter. I said that after reasonable notice she would become a trespasser in the eyes of the law which is true. The OP doesn’t need a court order to evict her. Reasonable notice and out she goes because as the moment she is a bare licensee. 

Establishing a beneficial interest in a property is possible under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 if the ex can establish she has made capital contributions to the property, paying for household bills doesn’t count, and for that she would need to take it to court. The OP could have her out of the property long before that ever happens. Besides a beneficial interest does not give you a right to reside in the property just some of the capital. 

I said she wasn’t a simple squatter,  I didn’t say you said she was a squatter either.
 I was ruling out It being a criminal offence to trespass in residential property, effectively squatting. Under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 it is an offence for someone to be in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered as a trespasser.

The OP would need to go to civil court to get an injunction to get her out for trespass once his notice to vacate had lapsed, yes police are not required but similarly police will not assist the OP for trespass going it alone to the property and trying to force her out this will just result in her getting police attending and making a report of DV and a referral to SS and tell him to go through the proper legal channels to regain lawful position and will reflect badly in family court. 

 I would never advise anyone to go and throw their child and their ex out by themselves as he could land himself on the wrong side of law, damage any access to his child, when it’s all said and done he could give reasonable notice but it’s a civil matter, and is dealt with correctly through the civil court by obtaining an injunction.

You seem to think the mere word trespass means she can be booted to the kerb by the OP.  It’s not and never is that simple, the OP left voluntarily leaving the ex in situ that’s a hurdle, going back and forcibly removing her would do himself no favours and play into her hands for DV claims.

The OP can bring an action for the recovery of the property and land. However, the OP must establish a right to immediate possession of the land and that it has been unjustifiably occupied in order to succeed, the court will apply a balance of harm test obviously because they have a child together who is tied up in this and is innocent in any proceedings and decisions that are made by the Judge.

The OP does not have in my sincere opinion the elements, currently, for successful application for trespass injunction, he has not been dispossessed in the essence that the person occupying the land has no lawful basis to be there at all, she is not damaging it, rather that the property was and has been at some time the home of both parties and was intended to be their forever after home to raise their child in. 

He has to have that immediate justifiable reasons for her not to remain in situ and the court will apply balance of harm test because there is a young child caught up In the process.

I believe the OP may have better success in going for an occupation order where he can move back in but the court can restrict or limit her use of or require her departure of the home but leave the child in situ consistent with the balance of harm test.

Either way the OP doesn’t want to show a lack of disregard to his child’s welfare and security of a home the occupation order rout is better suited in this case, moving himself back in maybe a better position for future proceedings rather than appearing vindictive, angry, bitter and spiteful in the short term. 

Pixie5740

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

i don't think evicting her and the child is going to be simple as she has lived there for so long and claims she has contributed to the family home through the 20k contribution, so she is claiming a financial interest in the home.  she obviously has been getting advice as what she is doing is very much what is stated on here from the CA and shelter

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/if-you-were-living-together/your-ex-partner-is-trying-to-make-you-leave

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/relationship_breakdown/housing_rights_of_cohabiting_sole_homeowners/occupation_rights_if_one_partner_is_the_sole_owner

Why are you sharing the Shelter link that I already provided on page 1 of this thread? Have you actually read it yourself? 

We don’t know what that £20,000 is for which is why I asked on page 1 of this thread. That money might not have had anything to do with capital repayments or capital improvements to the property. That money could have been for utilities, food, nappies, holidays. Even if the ex could establish a beneficial interest in the property that doesn’t automatically give her the right to remain living in the property. 

If she cannot adequately home herself and the child then she can go and the OP could become the primary care giver. 

you have missed the point.  i am not saying she can't get evicted but that it is not simple to do so and it will need to go to court to decide, this would take a long time to do.  the OP could not simply call the police and ask them to chuck her out because she has no right to be there as the house is in his name.

she may be able to get some claim from the house even if the house is only in his name, from that link.

matters of this sort, where there is a family dispute, and even if they are not married, they will be considered a family, will make it harder to get rid of her as she is not a stranger or a friend sofa surfing.

You are completely missing the point and clearly haven’t read the information in those links. A court order is not required to evict her nor are the police required. 

so the OP goes to the house and push her out himself then if it doesn't require the courts or the police to do so.  the outcome of that action could end up getting the OP in trouble for assault if there is a fight and she claims he assaulted her.  the likelihood of a fight is very likely if he starts pushing her out of the house.

The OP doesn’t need to man handle the ex out of the property. The OP could serve reasonable notice and then change the locks on her when she is out. The police would likely just make things worse because they are notoriously bad when it comes to property disputes.  

Pixie5740

T.T.D said:

Pixie5740 said:

T.T.D said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

The OP will need to obtain an injunction for trespassing.

He has Mount Everest to climb Pursuing this rout.

Trespass would consist of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another

unjustifiable being the operative word, she would not be a simple squatter, a simple squatter has no justification for occupying a property of another…bare this in mind.

When a trespass is alleged in court the trespasser has to justify to the court why they are occupying the property or land, the district Judge decides if she is justified to then remain or not.

What do think the justification is going to be?

Yes that’s right, her justification argument would be that she is the ex partner of the applicant, the applicant and her has a child of young age, she will argue 50/50 contribution to the household such as upgrades modifications and or council tax contributions, food electric gas for the last 5 years, that she must be afforded time to get on the housing register and the council and housing priority lists. 
 

 

I never said anything about her being a squatter. I said that after reasonable notice she would become a trespasser in the eyes of the law which is true. The OP doesn’t need a court order to evict her. Reasonable notice and out she goes because as the moment she is a bare licensee. 

Establishing a beneficial interest in a property is possible under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 if the ex can establish she has made capital contributions to the property, paying for household bills doesn’t count, and for that she would need to take it to court. The OP could have her out of the property long before that ever happens. Besides a beneficial interest does not give you a right to reside in the property just some of the capital. 

I said she wasn’t a simple squatter,  I didn’t say you said she was a squatter either.
 I was ruling out It being a criminal offence to trespass in residential property, effectively squatting. Under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 it is an offence for someone to be in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered as a trespasser.

The OP would need to go to civil court to get an injunction to get her out for trespass once his notice to vacate had lapsed, yes police are not required but similarly police will not assist the OP for trespass going it alone to the property and trying to force her out this will just result in her getting police attending and making a report of DV and a referral to SS and tell him to go through the proper legal channels to regain lawful position and will reflect badly in family court. 

 I would never advise anyone to go and throw their child and their ex out by themselves as he could land himself on the wrong side of law, damage any access to his child, when it’s all said and done he could give reasonable notice but it’s a civil matter, and is dealt with correctly through the civil court by obtaining an injunction.

You seem to think the mere word trespass means she can be booted to the kerb by the OP.  It’s not and never is that simple, the OP left voluntarily leaving the ex in situ that’s a hurdle, going back and forcibly removing her would do himself no favours and play into her hands for DV claims.

The OP can bring an action for the recovery of the property and land. However, the OP must establish a right to immediate possession of the land and that it has been unjustifiably occupied in order to succeed, the court will apply a balance of harm test obviously because they have a child together who is tied up in this and is innocent in any proceedings and decisions that are made by the Judge.

The OP does not have in my sincere opinion the elements, currently, for successful application for trespass injunction, he has not been dispossessed in the essence that the person occupying the land has no lawful basis to be there at all, she is not damaging it, rather that the property was and has been at some time the home of both parties and was intended to be their forever after home to raise their child in. 

He has to have that immediate justifiable reasons for her not to remain in situ and the court will apply balance of harm test because there is a young child caught up In the process.

I believe the OP may have better success in going for an occupation order where he can move back in but the court can restrict or limit her use of or require her departure of the home but leave the child in situ consistent with the balance of harm test.

Either way the OP doesn’t want to show a lack of disregard to his child’s welfare and security of a home the occupation order rout is better suited in this case, moving himself back in maybe a better position for future proceedings rather than appearing vindictive, angry, bitter and spiteful in the short term. 

Evicting the ex does not mean evicting the child. The ex can go and the child can stay. 

Trespass is not a criminal offence, it’s a civil matter. I am just going by what Shelter says and that’s a bare licensee who has received reasonable notice and refuses to leave after the notice period becomes a trespasser. 

If anything the OP should be claiming DV against the ex. Threatening to take the child out the country, threatening that the OP will never see the child again, threatening the OP with occupation orders and non-molestation orders whilst admitting in writing she isn’t scared of the OP. 

In my first post on this thread I did enquire about mediation as resolving things that way would be better for everyone except the solicitors but as the OP hasn’t come back to this thread we shall never know. 

AskAsk

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

i don't think evicting her and the child is going to be simple as she has lived there for so long and claims she has contributed to the family home through the 20k contribution, so she is claiming a financial interest in the home.  she obviously has been getting advice as what she is doing is very much what is stated on here from the CA and shelter

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/if-you-were-living-together/your-ex-partner-is-trying-to-make-you-leave

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/relationship_breakdown/housing_rights_of_cohabiting_sole_homeowners/occupation_rights_if_one_partner_is_the_sole_owner

Why are you sharing the Shelter link that I already provided on page 1 of this thread? Have you actually read it yourself? 

We don’t know what that £20,000 is for which is why I asked on page 1 of this thread. That money might not have had anything to do with capital repayments or capital improvements to the property. That money could have been for utilities, food, nappies, holidays. Even if the ex could establish a beneficial interest in the property that doesn’t automatically give her the right to remain living in the property. 

If she cannot adequately home herself and the child then she can go and the OP could become the primary care giver. 

you have missed the point.  i am not saying she can't get evicted but that it is not simple to do so and it will need to go to court to decide, this would take a long time to do.  the OP could not simply call the police and ask them to chuck her out because she has no right to be there as the house is in his name.

she may be able to get some claim from the house even if the house is only in his name, from that link.

matters of this sort, where there is a family dispute, and even if they are not married, they will be considered a family, will make it harder to get rid of her as she is not a stranger or a friend sofa surfing.

You are completely missing the point and clearly haven’t read the information in those links. A court order is not required to evict her nor are the police required. 

so the OP goes to the house and push her out himself then if it doesn't require the courts or the police to do so.  the outcome of that action could end up getting the OP in trouble for assault if there is a fight and she claims he assaulted her.  the likelihood of a fight is very likely if he starts pushing her out of the house.

The OP doesn’t need to man handle the ex out of the property. The OP could serve reasonable notice and then change the locks on her when she is out. The police would likely just make things worse because they are notoriously bad when it comes to property disputes.  

why do i get the feeling that the locks are already changed??  and if the locks are changed while she is out, it would be easy enough to get the locksmith round to unlock it.

jeeze, even i could unlock a lock myself with a drill 

T.T.D

Pixie5740 said:

T.T.D said:

Pixie5740 said:

T.T.D said:

Pixie5740 said:

AskAsk said:

for those advising selling the house.  the OP will need to evict his ex-partner and his son from the property first before he can sell the house as it needs to be sold with empty possession.

to evict them will not be an easy matter as they will have the right to live there under law because of the relationship and the fact that they have been living there for so long.  the court will have to be satisfied that the child will have adequate housing before they will agree to an eviction order.

Did you read the information in the Shelter link I provided? She is not a tenant so no eviction order is required. She isn’t even an excluded occupier. Unless she can prove that she had some kind of beneficial interest (no having a child does not create such an interest) then she is a bare licensee. Very easy to evict, no court order necessary, just reasonable notice and then she becomes a trespasser if she remains in the property following the reasonable notice according to Shelter. 

The OP will need to obtain an injunction for trespassing.

He has Mount Everest to climb Pursuing this rout.

Trespass would consist of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land in possession of another

unjustifiable being the operative word, she would not be a simple squatter, a simple squatter has no justification for occupying a property of another…bare this in mind.

When a trespass is alleged in court the trespasser has to justify to the court why they are occupying the property or land, the district Judge decides if she is justified to then remain or not.

What do think the justification is going to be?

Yes that’s right, her justification argument would be that she is the ex partner of the applicant, the applicant and her has a child of young age, she will argue 50/50 contribution to the household such as upgrades modifications and or council tax contributions, food electric gas for the last 5 years, that she must be afforded time to get on the housing register and the council and housing priority lists. 
 

 

I never said anything about her being a squatter. I said that after reasonable notice she would become a trespasser in the eyes of the law which is true. The OP doesn’t need a court order to evict her. Reasonable notice and out she goes because as the moment she is a bare licensee. 

Establishing a beneficial interest in a property is possible under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 if the ex can establish she has made capital contributions to the property, paying for household bills doesn’t count, and for that she would need to take it to court. The OP could have her out of the property long before that ever happens. Besides a beneficial interest does not give you a right to reside in the property just some of the capital. 

I said she wasn’t a simple squatter,  I didn’t say you said she was a squatter either.
 I was ruling out It being a criminal offence to trespass in residential property, effectively squatting. Under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 it is an offence for someone to be in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered as a trespasser.

The OP would need to go to civil court to get an injunction to get her out for trespass once his notice to vacate had lapsed, yes police are not required but similarly police will not assist the OP for trespass going it alone to the property and trying to force her out this will just result in her getting police attending and making a report of DV and a referral to SS and tell him to go through the proper legal channels to regain lawful position and will reflect badly in family court. 

 I would never advise anyone to go and throw their child and their ex out by themselves as he could land himself on the wrong side of law, damage any access to his child, when it’s all said and done he could give reasonable notice but it’s a civil matter, and is dealt with correctly through the civil court by obtaining an injunction.

You seem to think the mere word trespass means she can be booted to the kerb by the OP.  It’s not and never is that simple, the OP left voluntarily leaving the ex in situ that’s a hurdle, going back and forcibly removing her would do himself no favours and play into her hands for DV claims.

The OP can bring an action for the recovery of the property and land. However, the OP must establish a right to immediate possession of the land and that it has been unjustifiably occupied in order to succeed, the court will apply a balance of harm test obviously because they have a child together who is tied up in this and is innocent in any proceedings and decisions that are made by the Judge.

The OP does not have in my sincere opinion the elements, currently, for successful application for trespass injunction, he has not been dispossessed in the essence that the person occupying the land has no lawful basis to be there at all, she is not damaging it, rather that the property was and has been at some time the home of both parties and was intended to be their forever after home to raise their child in. 

He has to have that immediate justifiable reasons for her not to remain in situ and the court will apply balance of harm test because there is a young child caught up In the process.

I believe the OP may have better success in going for an occupation order where he can move back in but the court can restrict or limit her use of or require her departure of the home but leave the child in situ consistent with the balance of harm test.

Either way the OP doesn’t want to show a lack of disregard to his child’s welfare and security of a home the occupation order rout is better suited in this case, moving himself back in maybe a better position for future proceedings rather than appearing vindictive, angry, bitter and spiteful in the short term. 

Evicting the ex does not mean evicting the child. The ex can go and the child can stay. 

Trespass is not a criminal offence, it’s a civil matter. I am just going by what Shelter says and that’s a bare licensee who has received reasonable notice and refuses to leave after the notice period becomes a trespasser. 

If anything the OP should be claiming DV against the ex. Threatening to take the child out the country, threatening that the OP will never see the child again, threatening the OP with occupation orders and non-molestation orders whilst admitting in writing she isn’t scared of the OP. 

In my first post on this thread I did enquire about mediation as resolving things that way would be better for everyone except the solicitors but as the OP hasn’t come back to this thread we shall never know. 

Are you always in the habit of repeating back what someone says?

I have maintained this is a civil matter.

I also said she wasn’t a simple squatter and I didn’t say you said she was a squatter yet you parroted back about me saying you said she was a squatter and now a civil matter!?

Say the op lays in wait for her to leave! Are you real? do you think she’s going to leave a young child home alone? To make the that move?

He moves himself back in, changes the locks, it’s highly probable he does that while his ex is out with the child, what do think this will result when the OP’s ex comes back to find she has been locked out with a youngster? 

She will call police, who will attend, he will be seen as the aggressor, a referral to SS perceived to have committed DV.
This then plays into the hands of the OPs ex who will then apply for legal aid where at the moment she isn’t entitled to any, and back up any claims she states he is aggressive and conducts himself like he has in throwing her out. He damages his own access as she will stop him if she does that, it may also print her to flee and never return to the area.

He is also fully liable for any property of theirs, I can imagine seeing how vindictive she sounds that her costume jewellery just got 10X more expensive and have gone missing with an iMac Pro and 4 iPhones and 3 iPads. 

Taking a piece of information from a website who means well isn’t gospel, you have to consider that this type of play is done when there isn’t children on the chess board. When there is you don’t do it and follow the civil rout in court where it belongs.

He could call her bluff on a the occupation order threat, and non-mol, but he’d be waiting forever, she won’t do it because she knows she’s on the back foot going into this scenario, OP would save his mediation money and go forth with an occupation order himself, as like I keep saying, he quite possibly will not meet requirement to go down the civil injunction rout for trespass. 

elsien

MalMonroe said:

If you are currently going through court, don't you already have a solicitor who can help you with this matter, too? Or is that the one who has provided a shocking service?

If you have moved out of your house and left your partner in situ with your son, it's going to be very difficult to get her to move because the law will be on her side as she has a small child. Also where will she live if she does move out? Does she have parents in the UK to turn to?  

What you say here : "to add to this my ex partner of 5 years has now said i owe her £20,000 as this is what she had sent me over this period prior to splitting up. She has forgot to mention that I have paid every single bill and my mortgage and she has has back more than what she sent me over the years. My total household costs over this period is around £80,000.
She has even used my credit cards etc and only ever paid some of it back and is threatening a no win no fee court case but again I am not sure where I stand but I feel if anything she owes me." is of no relevance. Your ex owes you nothing.

You were living as a family for at least five years and anything either of you has spent has surely been for the good of your family, particularly your son. You MUST think about him. His welfare and mental health must come first. Think about what will it do to him to be thrown out of 'your' home. You have fallen out with his mother, not him. You're unlikely to be given any amount of custody until you can stop feeling/being vindictive towards your ex. And as your son grows, he'll not want to hear tales of how his own dad tried to evict his mother and him just because he wanted to 'live in his own home'. 

I know it's difficult to think straight in this kind of situation because a similar thing happened to me, except I was the woman with the child. It's certainly not pleasant but if you can try to communicate without anger or spite, you'll get more out of any negotiations. The more willing you are to make efforts to compromise, the better it will be. But any court will always put the needs of the child first. And as your son is so young, I don't really think you're going to get what you want. He needs his mum and a roof over his head for a start and he has that now. Please don't make him suffer because you feel wronged.

Why not see if Citizens Advice can help? https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/  

Not sure why I’m bothering, given that you say you done return to threads, however:

1. She finds somewhere to rent, like many other parents do.
2. Many children have to move houses when their parents split up. It’s not great, but it’s not the end of the world. And the child can still stay there with dad, at the times agreed via shared care. 

3. Custody isn’t a thing and the rest of that statement is just wrong. 

4. It’s not a divorce. The needs of the child are considered alongside the legal rights of both parents.
5. He needs both parents and someone wanting their own property back isn’t about being wronged. Are you suggesting that the OP forfeits any rights to his own property while carrying on paying the mortgage and stays sleeping on his parents setter until the child is 18?



 

Lookingforanswers101

GOOD afternoon all, thank you so much for your feedback. Some frightening and some useful. I am sorry for the lack of response as I thought I would have Notifications.

I dont think I was clear in my first post about certain aspects.

1: I am NOT asking my child to leave, I can work from home with flexi-hours so can easily look after him. I also have a big family support network and he has always lived with us both sharing parental responsibility.
I WOULD NEVER SEE MY SON HOMELESS and have effectively made myself homeless for 4 months and counting and paying every single bill so my ex can find something suitable so our child can spend equal times in both homes.

2: The 4k being claimed was supposed to be towards rent but was always paid back more due to poor spending habits and use of my credit card etc. Some was supposed to be towards savings but again was always taken back the following month so resulted in -figures. I was not trying to claim anything against her and still not.

I have also been falsely accused of being a drug addict and have made no false claims but I find it interesting that some people/a person thinks my son is not my main concern.

Thank you 

Pixie5740

Lookingforanswers101 said:

GOOD afternoon all, thank you so much for your feedback. Some frightening and some useful. I am sorry for the lack of response as I thought I would have Notifications.

I dont think I was clear in my first post about certain aspects.

1: I am NOT asking my child to leave, I can work from home with flexi-hours so can easily look after him. I also have a big family support network and he has always lived with us both sharing parental responsibility.
I WOULD NEVER SEE MY SON HOMELESS and have effectively made myself homeless for 4 months and counting and paying every single bill so my ex can find something suitable so our child can spend equal times in both homes.

2: The 4k being claimed was supposed to be towards rent but was always paid back more due to poor spending habits and use of my credit card etc. Some was supposed to be towards savings but again was always taken back the following month so resulted in -figures. I was not trying to claim anything against her and still not.

I have also been falsely accused of being a drug addict and have made no false claims but I find it interesting that some people/a person thinks my son is not my main concern.

Thank you 

1) Contact Shelter for advice on your housing situation. You will get more sensible advice from them than the harridans on this thread claiming you’ve lost your property. 

2) Attempt mediation with your ex. Even if she doesn’t agree to it or it doesn’t help at least you will have shown willing. 

3) (I’m assuming you are male) contact one of the domestic abuse organisations like Men Kind. Abuse doesn’t have to physical it also includes emotional and psychological, coercive control and isolating people. 

justwhat

i would like to bet any court action would side with the mum. If you change the locks and forcibly get her out, the police will be called and they will side with the mum and child.

The law and the system is geared in favour of the mum. You need to get a good solicitor and play hard ball.

Why should the mum and child move out they have no need or probably any desire. And they will stiff you for maintenance  and keep your house for as long as they can. Negotiating or mediation is a 2 way street.

Good luck cant see there being a fair or just outcome unless you ex partner decides to be reasonable.