to stay in current house even though landlord has asked us to leave? dilema

[arieschicke]

I am a single parent with 3 dcs. 2 have complex sn.
2 months ago ll served me notice as he is selling the property. I have been trying to secure a private rental with no such luck.
The council have advised that when we leave we will be placed in bnb accommodation, then temporary house or flat share and then after approx 6 months we could be successful in bidding for a council property.
now my ll has sold the house and is exchanging contracts in 2 weeks. has asked me to leave by then. council have advised we will be placed in bnb. shelter have advised me to stay until the court evicts us, which means another 6'8 weeks here but the landlord could lose the sale.
I really can't decide what to do. any advice would be really appreciated.

Oh dear. I'm so sorry you are in such an impossible situation. I haven't been able to read all of the pages on this thread so apologies if someone has suggested this already but who is your MP? Can you contact them for assistance. Mine is very responsive. Perhaps they can help in some way because this whole situation is so wrong for all involved.

What ll should do when looking to take back a property is allow enough time for the notice period and eviction procedure before they need it back for whatever reason.

The ll has tried to string out the rent right to the bitter end - he gambled and the op has no choice but to follow procedure - he shouldn't have been so greedy.

Newbrummie - assuming from your name you live in Birmingham. If so I can promise you there will be no brochures offered. You'll be allocated a room somewhere. Take a look at Norfolk Hotel on trip advisor. Sadly this is the type of hotel the council use for their B&B :( I believe they use Smithys too which isn't much better. If you're gong there seriously prepare yourself - kettle, plenty of dried foods you can make up, bring your own beddding if possible. I really hope its only for a week and I'm sorry you're in this situation.

I find it deeply saddening that any individual human being in the 21st century in a supposedly developed, civillised society (?!) can be totally comfortable in their decision to restrict vital shelter to another human being to the extent of making or keeping that person homeless, because they knowingly choose to appropriate more than their fair or necessary share of the limited supply of shelter; and/ or because they do not want a normal job (hard work); and/ or or they want to (hugely) benefit from someone else paying their mortgage/ pension.

And then (some landlords) go on go on to argue that this is completely OK because they are protecting themselves. They will look the other way rather than see the real human suffering they cause, to shrug their shoulders and blame insurance or the government.

Well let me just say that if it wasn't for selfish bastards like this, we wouldn't need government to legislate to ensure fairness. If it wasn't for so many selfish bastards, we would have a government in power that could legislate to ensure fairness.

Your landlord has no problem evicting a single mum with 3 kids so I would have no problem letting his sale fall through.

sorry meant to add that hopefully you'll get put in one of the council homeless hostels or if your lucky in temporary accomodation. thankfully they are using places like the norfolk as a last resort now. It used to be standard though

pod

I really have to disagree with you with regards LLs being the cause of the housing problem and their responsibilities to their tenants. I sympathise with the awful predicament the OP is in. It is awful that the council cannot/will not house her and her DC's until she is evicted. That is not the LL's fault.

I agree, unscrupulous LL's are a problem, and should be able to be dealt with much more swiftly and soundly.

However, many LL's are not unscrupulous and obey the terms of the contract with the tenant. If private LLs didn't exist, do you really think the problem would go away? There is not enough social housing to meet demand, and the council could not afford to buy enough housing stock to make up the shortfall. Many in these properties would not be able to obtain a mortgage to buy their own homes. You'd just shift the problem.

The OP's LL clearly should have allowed time to take vacant possession before putting his property on the market, he hasn't and this may hit him hard in the pocket. His problem, not the OP's. She should stay put until she is legally evicted.

I've not seen any mention of father or fathers in this thread. Any danger of help from that quarter?

Would you move OP? Some cheap parts of the country to rent if you'd consider that

orangutanhihio, RTFT. Most councils will not rehouse unless and until the tenant is evicted. If OP were to move out now the likelihood is that the council would say she is making herself homeless intentionally and would refuse to rehouse her.

BTL is clearly part of the problem of housing shortage -- not the sole cause but a material cause nonetheless. LLs compete directly with buyers for housing stock and have significant tax and other advantages as they do so. This competition exacerbates supply shortages, driving prices up further.

Thanks HomeHelp. It is quiet here tonight.

If there were less of the modern Buy to Let landlords yes, I believe it would be different - the proportions across the market are unbalanced, especially with the shortage of housing. The demand for BTL stimulated by cheap BTL mortgages forced up and propped up house prices and now the demand for having other people pay your mortgage so you can have a juicy retirement, keeps rents high.

The modern trend where we have a greater propertion of LLs with mortgages to pay is a big part of the housing problem - they want bigger margins and tolerate less risk.. in so doing they choose to insure against risk as they can't/ won't absorb it as a business cost as per AppleBarrel(this is a relatively new and expanding market directly stemming from the increase in BTL as it covers the mortgage) and in so doing further restrict who can rent a property HOME. Coupled with the absolute necessity of housing, it is really very unlike any other business model.

If people had different personal standards then the whole world would be different. People make choices that can contribute to bigger problems, that is what I am saying.

I could be an arms dealer because it pays really, really well and I would have great security in retirement, but I don't because it most often kills innocent people and I'd feel terrible knowing I'd CHOSEN to profit from that.

If you choose to invest in buy to let you should at least acknowledge the role you are playing in the (dire) housing situation and accept that it is your choice to particpate in this industry because the benefits to you personally are huge, but the experience is generally really shitty for people on the other side.

I mean, I know I should be so, so grateful that you let me live in your pension house whilst I pay you money, god forbid I should want to grow plants in the garden or have a pet, or actually be allowed to have children (yes there are a lot of 2/3/4 bedroom houses whose LL's won't accept CHILDREN! How is this legal?!!!) - all things you probably have, or choose not to - and you don't have to ask anyone's permission do you. You just get to live as you see fit with no one to be subservient to/ controlled by. I'm fucking owned.

Not all landlords, but very, very, very many.

Sorry for hijacking your thread OP, but having been in your situation more than once I'm passionate about tyring to stop it happening to others. But I'm bowing out now unless I can help you in some way. I wish you the best outcome possible x

'Would you move OP? Some cheap parts of the country to rent if you'd consider that'

She may already be in one of those places, and being in a part of the country still doesn't translate into a plethora of LL's willing to rent to a lone parent with three children, two of whom have complex SN, which is the inherent problem (in addition to many properties which are 'no children' even if you are not in receipt of LHA.

and lets not forget that is BECAUSE private landlords won't accept the OP (even with a conscience, a guarantor and 6 months up front to mitigate for one slip up in explainable circumstances), that she is being forced onto the council.

That is not the fault of the government - so go telling me that the majority of private landlords are not part of the problem

I can't believe that some people are telling you to make yourself homeless so that your landlord can make some money!! Think about it people she is a single parent with sn kids. And you still assess that profit is more important than safety and security of her actual real children? Unbelievable. Op whilst you don't want to cause inconvenience think of it like that - your need is so clearly greater than ll's!!!

Do you know the landlord Pottypourpianos? You must be intimately acquainted with them and their finances to make the statement that the landlord is necessarily doing this for profit. For all you know he may have lost his job and be about to lose his house. Someone may have died and he has to deal with an estate. He may be diagnosed with a terminal illness.

You have NO idea why the landlord is selling.

"Of course you should move out. The landlord may need that sale to repay debts etc, feed their children or anything else.

No wonder social tenants get a bad name, the council has offered to house you hmm"

Orangutanhiho, the council has indeed offered to house her BUT ONLY IF SHE PLAYS BALL! This means using the current system which says she has to stay until she is evicted. Crap for her and the landlord, nobody wins.

She is also NOT currently "a social tenant" but a private one. Only once she has a council house will she be a "social tenant". Your post is so ill informed it's untrue.....try reading the thread rather than just the title.....all these things have been addressed.

A few years ago my parents were in the process of buying a house in similar circumstances. The house had a tenant, a young girl with a baby who had nowhere to go and no money for the deposit to go elsewhere until her deposit for the current house had been released. The solicitor refused to exchange until the property was empty. The seller, obviously realising he could lose his sale told my Mum, "mo problem, I'll go down there right now and get her out!" This was 7pm at night and he was fully prepared to go down there mob handed and remove this girl and her baby from the house.

He reckoned without my Mum who many years ago was in a similar place herself, three young children, a husband who had walked out and she was evicted with nowhere to go.

As a result my Mum could easily put herself in this young girl's shoes and there was no way she was going to be party to such a horrible action. She promptly told the seller in the politest possible terms to "do one" ...very Jeremy Kyle (GO MUM).

He lost his sale because not all buyers are heartless (nor are all sellers) and my Mum remembers being that young girl.

Could the children's father not help out? Is that an option? As guarantor or pay a deposit?

Chilling story Grateful!
To him the tenant was just a thing to b?e milked for profit and then discarded,

Where was that girls mum ?
I'm not saying the landlord wasn't a beast but how do people find themselves in these situations?

All the drama over a B and B - it's a roof and short term and if it's a dump you get them to bloody well clean it or they don't get paid - you do need some audience participation in your life otherwise nothing will turn out right for you.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32815226

Landlords are earning £5.6bn a year by renting out unsafe homes which fail to meet legal standards, a report says.
The Citizens Advice study says 740,000 households in England live in privately rented homes which present a severe threat to tenants' health from problems like damp and rat infestations.
Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said: "Rogue landlords are putting profits before safety."
The government said it had given councils new powers to tackle them.
The report, A Nation of Renters, says that among these 740,000 households are 510,000 children while 180,000 of them have a disabled resident.
And it says landlords are receiving £5.6bn a year on rent for homes with category 1 hazards - the most severe - which includes £1.3bn in housing benefit.
The report also says:
16% of privately rented homes are physically unsafe - compared with 6% in the social rented market
8% of privately rented homes have serious damp
10% pose a risk of a dangerous fall
6% are excessively cold
Private renters living in homes with a category 1 hazard pay an average of £157 per week on rent
Ms Guy added: "The government has rightly said it wants to tackle the country's housing crisis - it must make targeting dodgy landlords, giving tenants better rights and driving up standards a major part of that effort."
Citizens Advice says there are now more than a million families raising children in privately rented homes in England - three times higher than a decade ago.
It also says private renters are under-protected and that taking court action against a landlord can be a lengthy, complicated and expensive process.
The charity recommends that:
Tenants should be entitled to rent refunds where properties are dangerous or not fit to live in
A national landlord register should be set up to help ensure landlords operating illegally cannot move to different areas to avoid legal action
Councils should also set up local licensing to tackle specific issues in their private rental markets
The report is part of Citizen Advice's Settled and Safe campaign.
In the last year more than 80,000 people asked the charity for advice regarding a problem with a privately rented home.
The campaign called for an end to retaliatory evictions - where landlords unfairly evict tenants who have raised problems - which will be made illegal later this year.

Don't know where audience came from ? Sorry
But seriously half the shit going on in my life is because my ex husband keeps wringing his hands and bleating that he "can't" imagine if we all took that stance the country would grind to a stand still

"16% of privately rented homes are physically unsafe - compared with 6% in the social rented market"
The 6% is pretty shocking, too. Perhaps more shocking!

Newbrummie love your attitude - you are so very right.

I do think too many people rely now on the govt or the " state" to run their lives for them.

There is going to be a large scale ( and much overdue IMO) roll back of the State and people wil need to adjust to that.

It's not easy but nobody has me and the kids interests at heart like I do, so the only person who can improve our situation is me. The sooner that penny drops the better