Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

501 replies

arieschicke · 19/05/2015 17:13

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.

OP posts:
suzannecanthecan · 23/05/2015 16:16

Lotsofcheese, surely any 'professional' landlord is fully aware that his game is about investing money in property for capital gains over the long term

The rent may only just cover the cost of maintaining the property but the point is that you still own the property and should you chose you can liquidate said asset

suzannecanthecan · 23/05/2015 16:19

'Everyone knows the score'

yep, the score is we are all being rinsed rotten by the banks, all the hobby landlords will be up the creek sans paddle if interest rates go up, prices drop or some other thing shifts.
They too are just pawns in the game for the big boys

LinesThatICouldntChange · 23/05/2015 16:59

When interest rates go up, not if.

So yes, this thread is chasing its own tail as someone put it very well upthread.

It's pointless to generalise that all HB tenants are feckless or that all LL are greedy bastards.

And some people are arguing themselves into a corner by claiming that actually, HB tenants are apparently a 'better' bet for LL, but then complaining if LL don't want to rent to them.

People put their own family first. Therefore if we were in the OPs position we'd sit tight til eviction, but in the LL position, we'd probably not rent to anyone who fits a 'high risk' category. And that probably does seem tough for individuals who know they'd be a good bet, but it's rather like a young male driver who happens to be extremely safe: they still get shafted on insurance because they belong to a high risk group. Ultimately no one can blame LL for not renting to high risk groups.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 24/05/2015 01:27

No, but we can and do blame landlords who deliberately choose to become landlords for competing with would-be owner-occupiers while benefiting from substantial tax advantages that others can't access, driving up property prices, removing liquidity from the housing market, creating added pressure on the government to keep inflating asset price bubbles, transferring wealth from the younger to the older generation, and generally fucking about with housing so that it works really appallingly badly for millions upon millions of people. The fact that so many landlords kid themselves that they are benefiting anyone other than themselves in the process just rubs salt in the wound, as does the horrendously contemptuous attitude they all too frequently show to the people they rent to (and choose not to rent to).

The number of people needing transient accommodation is much much lower than the number who are renting because purchase is not an option. Some young professionals; students; ex-pats; people undergoing life changes. More or less everyone else wants and needs a long term, secure and affordable roof over the heads, and a large cottage industry of private landlords contributes not one jot to that.

suzannecanthecan · 24/05/2015 07:37

?Personally I blame the government for legislating in ways that incentivise ?BTL, people are bound to invest money where they can see a good chance of making a profit, that's just being entrepreneurial.

PtolemysNeedle · 24/05/2015 08:49

As investments and tax advantages go, property is not one of the lower tax options. You are mistaken if you believe it is. And I very much doubt any landlord becomes a landlord just for the sake of competing with would be owner occupiers.

Most people are just trying to do the best they can in life, and provide for their own future and family as best they can within normal society. I can't see why some people think that's something to be ashamed of, it isn't. I also don't think many landlords are kidding themselves that they are benefitting anyone other than themselves, but why would they need to? Is there something wrong with doing things to benefit your own family? Are we all supposed to only make choices with our own finances if they benefit strangers?

Landlords provide a service to a tenant that wants that service, for whatever reason, and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone other than that individual landlords and that individual tenant.

I appreciate that there are problems within the housing market, but that is not all the fault of landlords.

lotsofcheese · 24/05/2015 09:22

There's a lot of LL-haters around on MN.

There's not quite the same level of bile & resentment for food-producers, utility companies or other providers of essential services.

specialsubject · 24/05/2015 09:33

exactly. I've said that and asked for a reasoned explanation from the bile-spewers. Still waiting - and will be waiting a long time.

one of the spewers is on this thread so away we go.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 24/05/2015 11:20

Op, what an awful situation for you to be in, hope you're ok.

Sadly, given the way that social housing stocks have been depleted, you will have to follow Shelter's advice and sit tight until the bailiffs come, unless you can reach a satisfactory written agreement with your housing officer, which will allow you to leave earlier. Sadly, in most of the country, that's not going to be possible. Do absolutely nothing which might mean you take the risk of being intentionally homeless, with dwindling housing stock and increased numbers of people to rehouse, housing officers are almost obliged to reduce the list in any way possible, even if those ways might be considered to be somewhat underhand.

It may well cause some distress to your LL, however, as others have said, he should have been aware of the risks of leaving the S21 so late in the proceedings, and, if he has taken legal advice in the matter, might well have recourse to recouping any costs from his lawyer.

I've been in your situation, waiting everyday for the knock from the bailiffs is terrifying, even worse when you have a child with additional/complex needs. You have done everything you could do, explored all other avenues and have nothing with which to reproach yourself. The law in this case is an ass. It doesn't help anyone but itself.

Unless B&B accommodation has radically changed and I know it hasn't you will be expected to be out of the building by 8am and not return until 5pm. You will have no access to cooking facilities. If those 2 things will make life unbearable for your DCs, then you might want to get a letter stating that. You might also want to look at ways to prevent bed bugs biting you.

Hope everything works out for you.

Goatlington · 24/05/2015 11:32

You have done everything you could do, explored all other avenues and have nothing with which to reproach yourself.

No proof whatsoever of this. None.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 24/05/2015 11:43

Apart from the OPs posts of course, which we have to take at face value.

You might like to read them goat.

Goatlington · 24/05/2015 11:59

I have . Hence my post.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 24/05/2015 12:07

I have tried so hard to secure a private rental, I have a guarantor who has offered to pay 6 months rent in advance for me but unfortunately I haven't been accepted due to failing the credit checks. (I have a ccj from when ds was diagnosed and I had to give up to work to care for him. I defaulted on a credit card and it went to court as I couldn't afford the minimum repayments.)

I do have a specific housing officer but he is very very difficult to get hold of. He and another officer (temp accommodation) verbally offered me the bnb accommodation for when the landlord wants us to leave.

ok thanks everyone I will go back to the council and ask for the offer in writing

It's now fairly obvious that you haven't, so I've helped you out a touch.

Goatlington · 24/05/2015 13:43

Nope. We only have what the OP has told us.

She may have only looked in a two mle radius, she may be ultra picky as she wants a ocuncil house. Only she knows. You don't, I don't.

And to get a CCJ for defaulting on a CC means that you have had months and years in some cases to sort the problem and decided not to. A phonecall, a payment plan and it's done. And then moan when because of that you can't get anyone decent to rent to you.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 24/05/2015 14:29

You're right, Goat, we only have the OP's word for what her situation is. We don't have proof. perhaps she doesn't have children with special needs. Perhaps she doesn't have children. Perhaps she is in fact an 86 year old male Viscount living in the Home Counties with a good line in vivid renderings of distressing circumstances. Perhaps you're actually a kind and caring person who doesn't come across as a Katie Hopkins style figure IRL. All of these seem remote possibilities to me, certainly a lot lmore remote than the possibility that she's telling the truth.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 24/05/2015 15:36

Ptolemy:
"As investments and tax advantages go, property is not one of the lower tax options. You are mistaken if you believe it is."
I'm sure it must give you great pleasure to deliver such withering rebuttals of a strawman. If you'd actually attended to what I'd written, you'd realise that your response was completely irrelevant. The point I was making was that landlords enjoy a tax advantage over would-be owner-occupiers, not that they enjoy a tax advantage over investors in other assets.

"Most people are just trying to do the best they can in life, and provide for their own future and family as best they can within normal society. I can't see why some people think that's something to be ashamed of, it isn't."
There's this tremendously useful concept called 'ends and means'. The point of it, is that just because doing something results in a nice benefit for you or your family, doesn't mean that you are justified in doing it. You seemed to be ever so keen on applying this concept to tenants who may stay on until formally evicted by bailiffs in order to protect their families, but oddly unaware that the concept also applies to people who choose to buy and let a home to build financial security for their children.

"Is there something wrong with doing things to benefit your own family?"
Ding! Wrong question. The right question is, "how much harm should we inflict on others to benefit our own family?". In the case of tenants, your answer appears to be: "None whatsoever. Fuck off out the house if your landlord gives notice, lest you cost them some money." In the case of landlords, your answer appears to be "I couldn't give a shit what harm is caused to other people, so long as my family benefits". Careful not to spill that goose sauce on your gander.

"Landlords provide a service to a tenant that wants that service, for whatever reason, and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone other than that individual landlords and that individual tenant."
I'd love to see you spell out the ineluctable logic behind your bizarre assertion that individual actions aren't the business of anyone else. I'm sure the purveyors of pornography, prostitution, arms, narcotics and terrorist training manuals would love to learn at your feet.

"I appreciate that there are problems within the housing market, but that is not all the fault of landlords."
Don't your arms get tired from whacking at strawmen? Do you really honestly struggle to understand that there are more possibilities than:

  • The problems of the housing market are entirely the fault of landlords and
  • The problems of the housing market are not at all the fault of landlords?
Has it genuinely never occurred to you that the truth might be: the problems of the housing market are partly the fault of landlords?
PtolemysNeedle · 24/05/2015 16:19

The point I was making was that landlords enjoy a tax advantage over would-be owner-occupiers, not that they enjoy a tax advantage over investors in other assets.

Then your point is irrelevant. Throughout every aspect of life there are differences in tax advantages, taxes due, things that are non taxable. Taxes are payable or not depending on a myriad of different things, just as they should be. It is a non issue.

The point of it, is that just because doing something results in a nice benefit for you or your family, doesn't mean that you are justified in doing it.

No, it doesn't, I agree. I think where we disagree though is that you automatically think that all landlords are doing something harmful, whereas I don't. Therefore I think it's fine for someone to do something to benefit their own family as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You seemed to be ever so keen on applying this concept to tenants who may stay on until formally evicted by bailiffs in order to protect their families, but oddly unaware that the concept also applies to people who choose to buy and let a home to build financial security for their children.

That would be because of that belief I have that it's fine to do something to benefit your own family as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Renting out a property doesn't hurt anyone. In some cases, breaking an agreement could have a harmful effect directly on someone else and their family, and that's the difference.

Ding! Wrong question. The right question is, "how much harm should we inflict on others to benefit our own family?".

The question was fine actually. But see above for my answer to the question you choose to ask instead.

I'd love to see you spell out the ineluctable logic behind your bizarre assertion that individual actions aren't the business of anyone else. I'm sure the purveyors of pornography, prostitution, arms, narcotics and terrorist training manuals would love to learn at your feet.

Right, so every purchase you make with your own money is someone else's business? Is that it? Is it my business where you choose to shop for your family's groceries or what utility company you choose to buy electricity from? Is it my colleagues business what car my next door neighbour chooses to buy? I'm talking about renting out a property FFS, not violent criminal acts.

Has it genuinely never occurred to you that the truth might be: the problems of the housing market are partly the fault of landlords?

Yes, it has occurred to me, after reading so much LL hate on here and discussing the issue plenty of times. The problem I have in answering the question comes from the fact that 'landlords' aren't one homogenous group. They range from convenience landlords who rent out their home while they work abroad for a couple of years, to accidental landlords that can't afford to sell, to housing associations, to individuals that almost own entire streets.

Personally, I see the only problem being with the big money landlords that own so many properties that they have some control over the local market, but then you get people on here saying that big professional landlords are better because they can afford to lose money while people who want social housing go down the homelessness route. We can't have it both ways.

LinesThatICouldntChange · 24/05/2015 16:51

The CCJ is bound to put potential LL and letting agents off. You don't get a CCJ lightly... It really is a last resort and comes about when you have ignored, or not complied with, offers of payment plans. However empathetic we are to the OP's plight, the fact is she has bad debts- she owes money.

Howcanitbe · 24/05/2015 17:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tobysmum77 · 24/05/2015 17:26

I think whatever debts the op has are largely irrelevant. She is a single mum with 3 kids and the idea of them being in a b&b is horrible.

museumum · 24/05/2015 17:37

I haven't read the full thread searching for identifying details but I'm now shit scared you're in the house we are buying.
We have to be out of our flat on 24 June. We are buying a house which was owned by a couple who separated then they let out to a tenant till they were divorced.

We are still exchanging missives. But the tenant was served notice and shoukd be out now. But if she refuses to go then it will be us who are homeless at the end of June :(

There were litterally NO other houses we could find to offer on and we very nearly gave up on buying before this one appeared.

suzannecanthecan · 24/05/2015 17:50

I think you can sue the landlord if you bought the property with vacant possession and he fails to provide that.

As was pointed out (by a landlord) earlier in the thread it is a failing on the part of the landlord to not tie up all the loose ends before agreeing to a sale

suzannecanthecan · 24/05/2015 18:07

'But if she refuses to go then it will be us who are homeless at the end of June'

he'll be in breach of contract and you will be able to sue him for the cost of alternative accommodation, plus storage of your furniture, and possibly other costs
he must be aware of his position wrt the law?

Howcanitbe · 24/05/2015 18:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LinesThatICouldntChange · 24/05/2015 18:44

How can museumum sue the LL if they haven't exchanged contracts?!
Surely the point she was making is that they've either been served notice (if they are tenants) or are working towards a completion date of 24 June (if they are owner occupiers) and will therefore be up shit creek. If museumum is an owner, potentially a whole chain will break down, with all the financial and emotional costs because she won't be able to move