To refuse to leave rented property

[Boymamabee]

I’m having an ethical dilemma thanks to my husband…

I’m heavily pregnant (due a c-section next month) and we’ve been served a two month no-fault notice by our landlord (it’s all valid).

We’re struggling to find rented properties within our price range and although we’re at risk of homelessness, the council can’t guarantee temp accommodation before our notice expires. This makes my husband anxious as he says we have no right to stay in a house we don’t own and it’s unfair on the LL whose sale might fall through.

Places for the same amount of rent, or less, than we currently pay are more rural and would cost more fuel. Many of the local schools don’t have specialised facilities for kids with ASD (think rural schools with 20 students and 2 LSAs) and DS LOVES his school!

This is where it gets tricky…

We’ve been advised that if we stay with family or friends before the LL enacts a court possession order, we could be seen as making ourselves “intentionally homeless”. Likewise if we get ourselves into debt/arrears living somewhere we can’t afford.

I’ve proposed we listen to
their advice and stay put for now, but DH thinks it’s selfish and we’ll naturally find another way to make ends meet. He wants to be out before our contract ends and he feels sorry for the LL who’s going through a divorce.

AIBU?

What difference does priority make if they procure a one bedroom private rental? And it sounds like OP can probably afford the cost of a private one-bed in the location she’s targeting if slightly more rural two bedrooms and local two bedrooms during the winter were affordable.

Avoid weeks or months of stress, OP, and the possibility of bringing your newborn home to a grimy BnB and just modify your search parameters for something you can afford and will put a roof over your head and four walls around you within the boundaries of where your DS can stay at his school.

If she then applies on the housing register from the 1 bed, the policy might state that, having deliberately worsened her circumstances by moving to an inadequate property, she will not receive any additional priority for rehousing. I worked in social housing for over 30 years and that is the policy generally. Choosing to move to a too small property is worsening their circumstances, it's not a good idea to to do that. She really needs to discuss the situation with her housing officer who can give advice and explain what her best options are. I would never encourage an applicant to take a too small property in the hopes of being housed.

A proper landlord runs a tenancy like a business, as well as an investment. With that investment comes risk, potential costs and paying for insurance for these scenarios.

The tenant's market is FUCKED. You can point fingers at whoever you feel is responsible. But staying until eviction is the process for emergency housing is she is unable to find a suitable new home. A good landlord will always be aware of these risks.

Its also not stealing, dont be so fucking ridiculous.

If you have the chance to stay with family or friends for three months you can save all your rent and bill money, then you'll be in a very strong position to move into a rental in the area you want - the savings will cover the extra rent for a year.
At the end of the year, you might well be ready to get back to work, making the most of family offers to help out with the children, or start a bit of childminding if no one is there to help.
I'd also suggest this might not be a great situation to be in to consider extending family further after this baby arrives - one thing at a time xx

If OP stays until eviction she will end up in awful temporary accommodation with no control over where it is... This would be the worst option. Her DH is trying to maintain some control of their situation for her benefit.
OP alludes to the portion of staying with family from the point of view of this disadvantaging her chances of emergency housing - I encourage her to look at that option as a way of maintaining control - saving all her rent and bill money for a few months then moving into a new rental with the savings to afford it. By the time the savings run out she'll be ready to tackle it.
Let's help the OP with some useful suggestions and acknowledgement of the fact there are ways to get what she ultimately wants without resorting to destroying her rental chances with court ordered eviction and poor references.

Really interesting feedback. My husband’s still insisting it’s wrong to stay, regardless.

I’ve put in an application for a 2-bed flat in the area. It’s around the same price as a house in a more rural area but it’s by the school and will save us fuel, etc. We can just about afford it.

It went up yesterday afternoon and the estate agents said they’ve already had a high amount of interest. We have a viewing at the end of next week. Fingers crossed because they offer long-term tenancy.

It's all so unsettling.

@Boymamabee good luck - I do feel for you. I can see practically why finding somewhere else is more sensible and looks better on your record, but can also see that if it's not going to be possible and you need to be considered for council/HA that you kind of 'have' to be made homeless. It's the system that is totally screwed.

It's the landlords property. Not yours
Yes the landlord is the owner of the property but the tenant is the owner of a lease which gives then the right to live in the property in return for payment of rent.

Well when people complain that they can't find a property to rent think about threads like this. There's already a person going travelling for a year who is not considering renting her property because of issues it will cause. Imagine if she'd rented it for a year - and could give someone a nice place to live for a year, or alternatively get people not willing to move out! What a waste, for her and for some tenants that might have got a good deal. Fewer landlords will result in fewer rental properties and thus drive up rental prices further. Landlords will pick and choose tenants and this will make it much harder for some people to rent. Some people want to rent - it provides flexibility, maybe you are separating and need a house for 6 months or are saving for a house, or are new to an area, etc.

It doesn't strike me as a good system for individual landlords with a lot to lose if their tennant can't move on when needed.

What's it like in countries where it's more "the norm"? Are there more business landlords who can manage this better?

What strikes me is that there is a huge 'conflict of interest' here; in the main tenants need a stable affordable and secure home. This isn't just a nice extra to have in your life, it's a basic necessity.
If the landlord can turf you out on a whim, increase the rent to squeeze as much profit out of you as possible so that you can barely afford to live, how are you supposed to have stable life 🤷

Fewer landlords will result in fewer rental properties and thus drive up rental prices further
Landlords exiting the industry will have to sell to owner occupiers for whatever they can get, some of those owner occupies will be people who otherwise would have had to rent.
Landlords selling up will help to drive prices down so that more people can be owner occupiers... can invest in their own futures rather than lining the pockets of the parasitical rentier class

@Thesharkradar It’s not working out well for the OP’s family, though, is it? The property’s being sold to an owner occupier and they have nowhere to go.

Rental properties will always be needed, many people rent at some point in their lives, don’t they? I did for years.

I'm not disputing that there is a need for rental properties!
My main point is that a secure stable and affordable home is a basic necessity in life comparable with things like education, health care, electricity, internet access clean water etc.
In a modern technologically advanced society everyone should have access to these things in order to live a functional modern life.
Ultimately the government have failed to properly manage and regulate the housing market, it should function to the benefit of people who need homes to live in.
Instead the government (in no small part because many of them are members of the parasitical rentier class) have made it just another way for the wealthy to get even wealthier 🤬

@Thesharkradar As enough of these secure rental properties don’t exist though, private landlords fill the gap. Plus not everyone wants to rent the same property for years.

Anyway, I hope the OP is able to find a new home soon. 🤞

Is that you acknowledging that rental properties provided by landlords are not secure and affordable?
Or in other words, not fit for purpose.

All very well for people who can afford to buy - and people who want to buy. Not everyone falls into these categories. As for your comment that “Landlords will have to sell to owner occupiers” - they’re just as if not more likely to sell to those landlords who are remaining in the market, and therefore will have an even greater level of control of the rental market in that area.

I also wonder how these people expressing delight at the idea of significantly fewer landlords in the market will feel when they come to sell their first house/flat and move up the ladder. Suddenly there will be less potential purchasers around to fund their next move…

@WhatNoRaisins I know the systems better in Germany and Denmark- still daft more state owned rentals (they just don't always look like it) and a lot more insurance companies, pension funds etc- so it happens far less, as they don't sell. Common for long leases too even when in private hands, 3 and 5 years are quite common. They do have built in clauses though that if you end up with a dud provided you have paid the rent for a fixed amount of time(I think ours was 10 months and after that we had to give 2 months notice) so the security is more on the renters side if I'm honest.

Of course not. I’ve lived in some good properties with nice landlords. Only had one not-so-good, but even he wasn’t that bad, just slow to respond.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’d like to see secure, longterm, low-rent tenancies owned outright and managed by large organizations such as councils or HA’s? No S21’s, few rent increases, etc. Similar to the old council house system?

Unfortunately, they don’t exist in great numbers so private landlords have stepped in and just like any business owner, they’re exposed to economic downturns, mortgage rate increases, life changes such as divorces, etc. They can’t run their business like a government or non profit organization.
In the OP’s case, presumably the property is owned 50/50 by the divorcing couple and has to be sold as part of their financial agreement.

So until councils or HA’s start providing more accommodation, that’s where we are. It doesn’t mean that privately-run rentals are inherently bad, they simply can’t be run like non-profit organizations.

I’ve read the first two pages and had to stop as it was getting upsetting seeing people who simply can’t afford to move onto another rented property being demonised
Except in this case, OP can afford to rehouse herself and family, but believe that she is entitled to demand she stays locally, in a similar type property at mo higher cost, despite it being below market value currently.

That is the issue, this belief that they should be entitled to what they want rather than what they need. Their child could stay in the current school but OP doesn't want the travel and the cost, so instead, is making it a landlord problem, which her OH isn't happy with.

Agree it's not a good system for housing. It's one thing to rely on a small business that could sell up at any time for say getting your hair or nails done. Not great for something as fundamental as a roof over your head.

@HamBone
I would like to see the property market properly regulated so that private landlords have to behave in a responsible way and cannot mess people around, if they can't provide affordable secure stable housing then they are not fit for purpose.

I'd say if you can find somewhere else suitable to rent then to take it while it's available (higher rent is almost inevitable unfortunately). You will have to move eventually, and the extra stress of moving with a newborn and possibly still recovering from a c section would be something to avoid.

But if there really isn't any other suitable properties to apply for then you have to stay put until the LA accept you as being homeless. Communicate that to your LL, to explain that you're not just being difficult, but you have nowhere else to go and have been advised not to vacate.

Round here the rental market is dire, hardly anything suitable for families ever comes up, and when it does the competition for it is epic. To make things worse, our LA won't accept tenants as homeless until the enforcement officers arrive to remove them!

@Thesharkradar, so using that case, are you suggesting landlords can never sale their property, potentially leaving themselves in need for rehousing, except ...well they couldn't because they already own a property.