Housing Eviction

[WaferThinIce]

I realise this isn't the right place but am hoping to get some information or guidance as soon as possible. Friends (genuinely friends and not me) have been given an eviction notice as their landlord is selling their home. They, so far, haven't been able to find other suitable accommodation. They either can't afford it or they miss out because they come second. It's a family of three adults, parent and 2 children, and one older teenager, plus dog. As the end of their notice period comes ever closer and they still haven't secured a place they are getting very worried and stressed. Does anyone know what they can do if they haven't found another home. Will they be turned out onto the street or what might happen? Will there be an obligation on the local council to offer them temporary accommodation. They have looked not just where they currently live but also nearby towns and there's just nothing available.
Thank you

@girl71

Also, note that you bought your house in the 90s when housing was exceptionally cheap (average price under 60k). If you needed two jobs to be able to afford a house back then, then you would have next to no chance of affording one now. You were just lucky to have been born at the right time.

A family friend and her husband who both have medical conditions were at risk of being made homeless after receiving notice because LL was returning and had missed out on several properties with LAs , they went to the council and as above stated were told they could be helped but only once they were at the classification of impending risk of being homeless and with something like 2 weeks to go were offered a 1 bed flat in an okay area in our city. So tell them to sit tight and keep in regular contact with housing associations and the council.

Just out of interest, what happens if LL doesn't pay the mortgage? Who then evicts the tenant?

@clarkkentsglasses

Just out of interest, what happens if LL doesn't pay the mortgage? Who then evicts the tenant?

This is what came up on a generic google "If you’re a tenant whose landlord hasn’t been paying the mortgage and is in mortgage arrears, you may be facing eviction because the landlord’s mortgage lender has instigated repossession proceedings. You may have a right to remain in the property if your tenancy is binding on the mortgage lender." and this link : www.housingrepossessions.co.uk/landlord-hasnt-paid-mortgage-what-will-happen-now.html

Do not under estimate the stress involved in achieving your rights to the letter to the law.

Legal entitlement of going to the far extreme of your rights as either a landlord or tenant results in untold stress for all sides.

Far better is to reach compromise.

If the landlord needs to sell, they may be able to sell to another landlord and keep you in place (so ask the sales negotiator)
The sales agent has a vested interest in a vacant property, so ask if they do rentals and try to prioritise you as a tenant on one of their other properties
The tenant may not have enough funds to secure a new tenancy, so ask the landlord if they are willing to help fund this.

In reality, the landlord needs to make commercial decisions, helping you fund your move will be less expensive than going to court for eviction, so don't think asking them for financial assistance is a ridiculous idea. Infact, I am surprised this hasn't been offered to you.

From the tenants point of view, waiting for the ultimatwvoutcome of court and bailiff eviction is very stressful at all stages, and you have no control over where you end up living.

Likelihood of poor (or no) future landlord references, CCJ poor credit rating will make future decent housing options unlikely. Rehoming a pet and looking at possible separate accommodation for adult children will increase your control over options significantly.

So ultimately compromise and cooperation on all sides will lead to the most beneficial outcome for all concerned.

Declaring myself as a (one property) landlord here.

I hate the current system where councils defer the point of homelessness in this way. It's just such a waste of court time and isn't fair on the tenants who have to live under the stress of formal proceedings and baliffs, often with unscrupulous landlords putting pressure on along the way. Plus if tenants don't know this and do leave on the notice date, they can unknowingly really have screwed themselves over.

Absolutely the landlord needs to get all of the documentation right but, assuming that's the case, then people should have to leave when notice expires and that should not be counted as making yourselves voluntarily homeless. You could change it to a system where the landlord has to pay for the tenants to get a hour of independent legal advice on the notice as part of the process.

That said, I also think tenants have too few rights and landlords should have to give much more notice when evicting other than for tenant fault.

Finally, absolutely agree with the fact that I choose to be a landlord and these are risks I knowingly take on.

@MidnightMeltdown I think these kinds of subjects will always be divisive. I just wanted to clarify that i bought my first flat, a studio for £66k in North London. It was the deposit i needed to save which, i if i remember, at that time was £3500 . It was a new build .

I can see both sides- tenants are in a desperate situation an need somewhere to live. The landlord wants to sell the property though and provided he has correctly served notice and gets an eviction order, he should be entitled to do so. The deal with private renting is not that the landlord is obliged to house tenants indefinitely under all circumstances. Also from a societal perspective if landlords can’t get tenants out even when wanting to sell, there will be even less rental property available.

[quote girl71]@MidnightMeltdown I think these kinds of subjects will always be divisive. I just wanted to clarify that i bought my first flat, a studio for £66k in North London. It was the deposit i needed to save which, i if i remember, at that time was £3500 . It was a new build . [/quote]
Do you understand the changes in the housing market since that period?

In my town it is simply not possible to save the required deposit whilst also paying rent, and even two people on average wages are unable to get a mortgage at 90% as the ratio of wages:mortgage is so different.

You can not compare 1990s housing with now. It is a whole generation ago.

Agree @Luobogao - councils should be doing more here.

@CayrolBaaaskin

Agree *@Luobogao* - councils should be doing more here.

With what money and which houses?

Central government is to blame, but cynically understands that voters will blame councils.

As a start with the money being spent on court at the moment? Tax landlords more as well.

@Luobogao

As a start with the money being spent on court at the moment? Tax landlords more as well.

Do you think that Housing Associations or Local authority Housing Departments should not have to get possession orders and bailiff's warrants to evict tenants? if not, why?

I can see both sides too - I’m a landlord but also give housing advice to people in the OP’s friend’s situation. I certainly went in to the letting business with eyes wide open! In my opinion the biggest hurdle is the NIMBYs that oppose development of even scrubby bits of unused land relying on outdated notions of green belt and loss of “amenities”. This happens all the time in my area and the only reason is to protect property values.

I think the process councils put in place to determine who is eligible for housing should be allowed to waste court time and make tenants go through the court and baliff process who would happily just leave but have to wait until eviction because otherwise they will be considered voluntarily homeless.

I also think there should be a far more tenant friendly system that means that cases don't get pushed to court. Absolutely there should be checks and balances in place but rather than say it's two months notice and the tenant can they stay until the baliff is at their door (meaning they don't actually know the day), say landlords have to give six months notice and have a process where tenants are properly supported with how to challenge unlawful notices.

There will still need to be a process for tenants who refuse to leave of course (I'm not suggesting the landlord should be able to send in the heavies) but that process shouldn't be used for tenants who want to comply but can't because the council won't let them.

Should not be allowed to waste court time 🤣

I suggest that you read the Protection from Eviction act 1977.

Could you clarify, are you saying that because it's illegal for landlords to harass tenants to move out, it's completely fine to set up a process that drags tenants who would like to move on through the courts and a baliff process because otherwise they will be considered intentionally homeless?

I'm not following the relevance of the law reference. I'm not saying the current process doesn't mean that a tenant can stay until eviction, I'm saying that it is rediculous that the courts' time is being wasted because councils want to delay the point their responsibility starts. Courts are also paid for from our taxes! Plus the stress on the tenant. Does an eviction order also impact references for future (private) tenancies?

How is it not better in that situation for the landlord to have to pay for the tenant to get independent legal advice on whether the notice is valid and then the council relies on that to have its obligation start from the date of the notice. Even without changing anything in the current laws, that would mean tenants are formally told (1) if the notice isn't valid and they have grounds to insist on longer, and (2) that they can't be forced to leave before formal eviction so they know they have that option.

Because any tenant is entitled to due process of law. I have dealt with many tenants where the landlord hasn't issued a correct notice, doesn't think he needs to and thinks he can just tell the tenant to leave I've met landlords who issue notice 'just in case' they might want to repossess the property; issue the notice on the day the tenancy starts or issue a notice that ends before the end of the tenancy. As I said earlier tenants are entitled to due process, would you think that a tenant of a registered social landlord should be evicted without. The law either covers ALL tenants or none. The fact that a particular government decided to do away with protected tenancies and start assured shortholds doesn't do away with the due process in respect of evictions.
The 1977 Act states that;
'it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.'
Which is why landlords have to get a PO and then a bailiff.

Where have I suggested tenants aren't entitled to due process? I am talking about eligibility for council support. That should not require a tenant to have had to go through the full eviction process. That's not fair on the tenant or the court system.

More generally, there will always have to be checks and balances to protect tenants. One major underlying issue is that private tenants should have more security. My tenants have been in my property for five years. It is rediculous that (until Covid) I only had to give them two months' notice. 4 months also isn't long enough - it should be 6. The solution to that not being long enough shouldn't be that they desperately hang on to the absolute last not knowing from court hearing to court hearing how long they have. It should be that the landlord has to give a long enough notice period that the tenant can realistically find another option in that time.

Practically, there will always have to be a court process involved if tenants refuse to leave (again - landlords should not be able to send someone in to drag people out) but the number of tenancies going through that process should be reduced as much as possible by making the actual law more tenant friendly.

Because, usually, an applicant has to be threatened with homelessness with 28 days, legally they are only threatened when the court issues the PO as per my previous comments.

@clarkkentsglasses

Just out of interest, what happens if LL doesn't pay the mortgage? Who then evicts the tenant?

If the LL stopped paying the mortgage, I bet the tenants would be evicted far sooner than if they LL continued to lay the mortgage….

pay

@LoislovesStewie

Because, usually, an applicant has to be threatened with homelessness with 28 days, legally they are only threatened when the court issues the PO as per my previous comments.

And that is what I'm saying is wrong. Plus the fact that leaving before that date (but after the notice date) is considered making yourself 'intentionally homeless' which means you're completely screwed if you didn't know that and just follow what the notice says.

We need to fund councils better so that they are able to provide support earlier. The current system is to no one's advantage (except I suppose lawyers!). Tax landlords. I'm an overseas landlord and I currently pay no tax at all (annual rent is too low to trigger any tax). That is wrong.

And the tenancy only ends when a PO is issued; why should private tenants be treated worse than other tenants?