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.

No one has told the OP to break the terms of her contract. What we've advised is perfectly legitimate and permissible in law. If it wasn't then the LL could get the bailiffs out the last day of the 2 months' notice. You don't seem to take into account that if that's how it worked a lot of vulnerable people could be made homeless, left to the discretion of LLs who aren't always scrupulous.

No one has advised the tenant to break the terms of her contract "despite having somewhere else to go". She doesn't have anywhere else to go - have you not picked that up?

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. Governments acting as guarantors and paying LLs for damages? What kind of LL utopia do you want? Laughable.

Yes this ^^

Plus it was the banks that changed the multiples of lending criteria that fuelled the crazy price rises in the 80s/90s in the first place.

And the absolute insanity of BTL mortgages .

I get that autocorrect, but it can't really see the sense in it in the situation outlined by the OP. The council have said they'd give her B&B accommodation if she leaves the property on the day she's supposed to, and they'll probably do exactly the same thing if she waits until the bailiffs turn up.

It's not like OP is guaranteed a nice temporary home if she waits but will only get a B&B if she leaves when her contract ends. Either way she could easily end up in the same situation. For all we know, OP could miss out on a desirable social property because she waited too long to get in the system. It's not like social housing magically appears after bailiffs have come but is non existent up until that point.

If the council had said they would literally provide nothing for OP and her children if she leaves on the right date, then I'd be able to see the sense in shelters advice. Bit that's not the case with this council, they have said they'll make sure she has somewhere to stay, and that's why I don't think it would be right for OP to knowingly choose to cause someone else a massive problem with no real reason.

Sorry, post was agreeing with Suzanne.

She does have somewhere else to go Annie, the council have said they'll give her accommodation on the day the contract ends.

And of course overstaying the time that she has agreed to is breaking the contract, how could it not be? Obviously I understand that the law overrides that, but OP would still be breaking the terms of her contract.

My last paragraph isn't just about creating 'LL utopia'. It would help people who are in exactly the position the OP is in now, because it would make it easier for her, and others like her to get housing.

Ptolemy the concern on this thread about the advice the council has given us that it's so unusual and that other people have been stung by following that advice and the council has refused to house them. I've advised to get it in writing and a copy of their housing policy and if that is reassuring then the op can leave at the end of her notice period. Unfortunately I just don't trust it. I know there is another poster on this thread who was housed in a house before the notice period ended but that's just not the experience for most local authorities.

For those who wonder why a section 21 notice isn't enough to get housed - because that doesn't gatekeep sufficiently and would mean that thousands and thousands more families would be applying for social housing when there are only resources to house those who truly have no other resources. By forcing people to go through the eviction process you weed out people who could sort themselves out and landlords who may also be playing the system.

Ptolemys It's really naive to take the council at their word. They always say the right things. When it comes to actually having to do something, and them having to find the OP a room and actually pay for it, they may well tell her that she shouldn't have left yet or that she's made herself intentionally homeless.

My mum punched me in the eye when I was 16, and kicked me out at 2am. I managed to sleep at a friends' house that night, and went to the council offices first thing the next morning, on the advice of Shelter. I had a shiner of a black eye by then, and I don't think I'd stopped crying all night. They told me that unless I went with them to ask my mum to reconsider, they wouldn't house me. She wouldn't reconsider. Then they begged my friends' parents to let me stay. Kept asking awkward questions about how "one extra" wouldn't make a difference and they'd be "doing their bit." Eventually, they offered me a room in a Salvation Army. It was petrifying. They wouldn't even let me lock the door because there was a problem with drug abuse on the premises. They told me I had to stay until they found me a B&B, and if I left, they'd know I had somewhere else to go.

I did leave, eventually. I became a wreck. Strange men kept coming into my room because I couldn't lock the door, I had no things, it was the scariest place. The council struck me off the list. They said clearly I had somewhere to stay or I'd have slept in the bed they'd found me. I'd prefer to sleep outside than there. I'm a vulnerable disabled female, so I was pretty high up the priority list.

I wouldn't mess around with them. They'll take any excuse to get you off the housing list.

One council employee told the OP that they'd put her B&B. I don't think the OP was even clear if that was now before eviction or after eviction. Others have said to check this as not all council employees know what they're talking about and she might have been given incorrect advice. Many, including myself, say by leaving the council will view her has having made herself homeless and that's why we advised getting to stick it out or get something in writing from that particular council employee. That was never resolved so we don't know if it was correct advice or the best advice.

Many people who have gone through this have said the council have come through at the last moment.

Again, this is a LL arguing the point for the LL when on the OP's side there's a family going to be made homeless. That supersedes everything - unless you're a LL and you're more concerned obviously about money being lost.

By the way can I just clear up a misconception on this thread? Children are not taken into care because parents are homeless. If the local authority will not house a family then social services may pay a deposit and months rent in advance but we never, ever take children into care simply because parents can't access housing.

I understand that the council may well not be trustworthy on this, that's why when I posted pages back I agreed with others that were saying OP should get this confirmed.

But getting the conformation that she would have somewhere to go should be the first thing to do IMO, it doesn't seem right to jump straight to the conclusion that the only think OP can do is wait for the bailiffs to turn up.

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you Rightside. It sounds awful. The person at fault was your parent, the council couldn't give you what they didn't have, nor should they give out limited resources until they know that someone really does need it. Although it is extremely harsh to treat a 16 year old in the same way as an adult.

Again, this is a LL arguing the point for the LL when on the OP's side there's a family going to be made homeless. That supersedes everything - unless you're a LL and you're more concerned obviously about money being lost.

It's not just about a LLs money being lost. It's about how this situation can do nothing except get worse long term if councils and homeless charities are actively making HB claimants a high risk for LLs.

Ptolemy the council should have suitable accommodation for a vulnerable homeless teenager though - that's their job. Sure her mum shouldn't have abused her but given child abuse is a fact, councils have to provide resources to deal with that.

Rightside- the Southwark judgement case means that you would have been assessed as a child in need had that happened now and should have been offered foster care or a suitable young persons hostel.

Ptolemy that ship has sailed. You're putting the cart before the horse because if there was suitable housing available for hb tenants they wouldn't be in these shitty situations to start with. It's not shelter fault the system from top down is broken.

If it was a choice between taking a B&B now just to help the LL or hanging on in your home with the chance that 8 weeks later, after giving the council more time to find suitable housing, you might go straight into a council house (while acknowledging you might still end up in a B&B first), I would stay in the house. I don't think any parent would do any different.

I think you're viewing it too simplistically Ptolemy. This is the system as it is and that's it. No government has helped to improve it to any great degree. Labour was going to introduce three year tenancies but I don't remember the Conservatives having anything that would help people regarding renting.

Agree with you on housing for vulnerable teenagers, sadly it's just one of many services councils should be better resourced to provide.

There would be more (not neccesarily enough, but more) housing suitable for HB claimants if councils supported their applications to private LLs. So many LLs refuse HB claimants because of their mortgage or insurance stipulations, or even if they don't have a mortgage but just want to lower the risk that they'll have to pay out court/bailiff costs. If councils could lower the risks LLs face from HB claimants rather than actively increasing them, I think it would at least help the current situation.

I can't see how three year tenancies would help anyway, plenty of renters don't want to be tied for that long, and at the end of three years, those that do want to stay would be in the same situation anyway.

How are the council going to have more time to find OP suitable housing if she waits for the bailiffs? Surely they won't start looking until she is officially homeless? If she's not homeless until she's evicted then those extra weeks are wasted. So if anything, the earlier the process is started, the more likely the council is to be able to find something.

Why on earth should councils lower the risks LLs face? Who is going to pay for that and why should they? It all filters down anyway. Not all LLs have suitable properties that they can pick and choose the perfect private tenant, if there is such a one. I'm sure lots of LLs don't have insurance and happily rent to people on HB. You're trying to remove all risk for LLs under the guise that it's in HB's claimants' interests too. Which in some respects it might be but the whole system needs an overhaul with both sides' interests taken into account.

I think they can choose if they want three years. It was to be in the tenant's benefit if they needed it so that people with families aren't moved on every six months having to find a deposit each time, moving kids from schools etc.

People keep telling you Ptolemy that councils don't act until the last minute. That's why they wait. They wait in case the tenant finds somewhere in the meantime as they have a supply shortage so they try and filter out those that can find somewhere else, leaving those that are really in need. This has been covered.

I agree the whole system needs an overhaul with both sides interests taken into account.

Councils should lower the risks LLs face with HB tenants because then HB claimants would find it easier to get housing. It's not removing all risks for LLs because obviously LLs that rent to people who pay their own rent in full still have risks. It can never be mitigated completely, nor should it be, it's a business. There is no guise there, the benefits to HB claimants would outweigh the benefits to LLs.

People keep telling you Ptolemy that councils don't act until the last minute

Yes, I get that. Which is why I questioned you saying that the council would have more time to find somewhere for the OP if she waits. They won't have more time, because they won't be looking until the bailiffs come.

But there are other stakeholders in all this - e.g. taxpayers. Who is going to agree that the money they pay in tax is going to be used by councils to lessen the risk for LLs who are making money for themselves? Too simplistic.

It doesn't work like that Ptolemy as people have said. She will move up the list in terms of priority the longer she's in the system. If she goes into the system now in terms of moving into the B&B she'll have to wait her turn to move up the list. That's why she should stay put. I'm not the only one saying to wait - loads have, people with experience and knowledge from different angles - those that have been through it, those that work in housing and LLs. Why do you keep arguing that it's that easy and just move into the B&B now just to help the LL out?

And during that time in the system people will fall off the list - e.g. maybe after a week in a B&B people will decide sleeping on a willing friend's floor is preferable or family scrape together a deposit for them etc. The council weeds people out so the longer she's in the system the better. She has tw kids with SN. She doesn't need to be going into a B&B earlier than she really has to to help a LL out ffs.

Maybe it is too simplistic, but housing families in temporary accommodation, paying for B&Bs and administering the checks and waiting lists isn't exactly cheap for the taxpayer either. They're already paying the costs for people who can't pay for their their own housing, my idea just does it in a different way. It won't cost anything anyway if tenants don't damage property and leave when their contract is up, which should be easier for them to do as there will be other private landlords willing to take them.

But, there are good reasons why I'm not a politician or a councillor, so what do I know!

Well bring it up with your MP if you think you've found the perfect, catch-all solution for everyone that no other government person has managed to work out.

I can't believe how much you're arguing this in favour of the LL - trying to push a vulnerable family into taking shitty accommodation to benefit a LL. Nauseating.