About to be homeless

Tassotti

Then it's a a case against loacal LLs providing acomodation for the poor , and the government telling them to f..uck off

IMO if you haven't got the money...don't call me harsh but fair

Strapped

silvercar wrote: »

Looks to me that the LL is making a BUSINESS decision to legally evict a tenant with rent arrears. it's not the landlord's fault that the tenant has rent arrears, why should he suffer as a result of this event? When you become a tenant you take on a commitment to pay your rent.

Not that I don't have sympathy for the tenant, but you are making the landlord out to be the evil one, whereas if he had a tenant who he could rely on to be uptodate with the rent, he may not have needed to sell up.

silvercar, I think you misunderstood my post. It was aimed at Tassotti, who seemed to think that somehow, if tenants become aware of their rights, all the LL on this site will fail. I agree with the LL legally evicting the tenant; I just object to LL's (I assume Tassotti is a LL) whinging about the process. Perhaps this should be a contingency that LLs should build into their business plans ie needing to regain vacant possession of the property for whatever reason.

Tassotti

I have already said that I feel 'sorry' for the tenant.

Have a go at me, it doesn't matter, because all LLs have infinite pockets and can 'help' tenants out.

I'm just saying...the good days are over and I need every £500 I get each week.

Know what I mean?

Didn't think so

clutton_2

in the original post the Op says that her notice to quit says she must leave by the 1st. (of the month)

She makes no mention of any papers from the court.

The law is unequivocal - no tenant (whether in arrears, or causing mayhem, or whatever else) can be removed without a court order.

If the LL has not been to court, the tenant cannot be evicted - end of - whether we like it or not - that is the law.

Only if OP comes back and says that the paper that mentions the "1st" is from the courts, - only then it will be clear if this is - or is not - an illegal eviction.

There are two separate legal issues here

1) rent arrears - the LL has to go to court with a Section 8 to get her out

2) LL wanting possession of his property for his own reasons - he must go to court after issuing a section 21


Tass simply because you have had poor experiences, does not make it acceptable in my book for you to use such profanity on here.

silvercar

There are some guidelines somewhere that councils should not put the (soon to be) homeless through the trauma of going to court and waiting for baliffs to turn up etc, when there is a clear obligation on the council to provide for them.

Really a correctly served S21, plus whatever is necessary to show the applicant is entitled to be supported by the council, should mean the council make a housing offer.

clutton_2

""Really a correctly served S21, plus whatever is necessary to show the applicant is entitled to be supported by the council, should mean the council make a housing offer.""

i agree 120% silvercar - but some councils are soo desperate for housing stock that they see this "going to the wire" as the only way forward - after all if a tenant is still in a landlords property - the council/community charge payer does not have to fork out for expensive B&Bs

i do believe that there was a westminster directive a couple of years back instrucing councils to not put families into B&B but if there is no housing stock - what can theydo - hence their tightening of the criteria which defines "homelessness"

its also a political decision - some councils see landlords as scum of the earth and others see us as helping them fulfil their legal obligations - and the rest are somewhere inbetween

Captain_Mainwaring_2

clutton wrote: »

Pru - they had been repossessed by the High Court on Monday at noon and the court had to order them to leave by Tuesday at 2.00pm (1993) - judge said it was the worst case of harrassment by a Lender he had ever heard and he wished he could have given more time but legally could not . This poor guy knew nothing about his rights and he and his family slept on mates floors for several weeks till he got a rental and then when he asked the Benefits Agency for an emergency loan for a deposit they said that was not an emergency matter and said no ...........

Tass - that is a most unkind post -

i am a LL, having a substantial portfolio,

as well as managing for other LLs.

If you choose not to believe that - that is entirely your choice.

""you feel the need to condemn LLs."

i do indeed feel the need to condemn landlords who do not act within the law - as this one appears to be doing - they give the rest of us a bad name.

All supposition - you don't yet know whether the LL is acting outside the law, all you know is the standard bad luck story. If the LL is reaching a term period, he or she is quite with their rights to get the tenant out, end of story.

You may want to house people for nothing, good luck to you, I'll give you my email address, or better still post on the "I'm in debt and don't want to pay back what I owe - huggy bleat bleat forum" and I sure your entire portfolio can be filled with nothing but trouble.

Some of us "gentlement" LL's do things right, and to have some tenant screw the !!!! out of us doesn't help. At the end of the day there is a mutual need between good tenants and good LL's, you start upsetting tha balance and encouraging tenants to stuff good LL's and all it will do is make things worse for the tenant- and believe me, good LL's are going to be very much in demand.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

clutton wrote: »

in the original post the Op says that her notice to quit says she must leave by the 1st. (of the month)

She makes no mention of any papers from the court.

The law is unequivocal - no tenant (whether in arrears, or causing mayhem, or whatever else) can be removed without a court order.

If the LL has not been to court, the tenant cannot be evicted - end of - whether we like it or not - that is the law.

Only if OP comes back and says that the paper that mentions the "1st" is from the courts, - only then it will be clear if this is - or is not - an illegal eviction.

There are two separate legal issues here

1) rent arrears - the LL has to go to court with a Section 8 to get her out

2) LL wanting possession of his property for his own reasons - he must go to court after issuing a section 21


Tass simply because you have had poor experiences, does not make it acceptable in my book for you to use such profanity on here.

Hold on, the court system is only a conduit from enforcement - it is quite reasonable for a landlord to insist upon vacation of the property in accordance with the contract. If the tenant doesn't leave, the the Court system is for enforcement only, no question about it.

Tassotti

Well said Captain...This is what I was trying to say, but you put it more eloquently..

https://www.costinglandlords.com

Tass

prudryden

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Hold on, the court system is only a conduit from enforcement - it is quite reasonable for a landlord to insist upon vacation of the property in accordance with the contract. If the tenant doesn't leave, the the Court system is for enforcement only, no question about it.

And here I always thought that the bailiffs were the enforcers or was that Dirty Harry?