Single young mum with 2 kids about to be evicted - plse help

[TheRhubarb]

My neighbour is a single mum with 2 pre-school kids, one just 8 months old. She's been living where she is now for more than a year and her contract is a rolling one with both owners of the house who are renting it out because they've split up.

The contract is signed by both parties and she pays her rent to a bank account in the wife's name.

He now has a new girlfriend and wants to move back into the property, giving her 2 months notice. But she didn't pay him a deposit which means she has no deposit to take to another house. 2 months doesn't give her time to find a new place or save up for the deposit she would need.

She's currently on maternity leave but will be a full time student in Sept and is receiving housing benefit, child tax credit etc.

He hasn't given her formal notice yet, he's coming at 12noon to tell her whether or not he wants to move back in and I'm going to be with her for support. My question is; obv he will have to give written notice but will his wife need to sign the eviction notice too?

Should she tell him that he'll have to evict her forcibly? Which he will need to do because otherwise she'll have made herself voluntarily homeless.

Any other advice before he comes round gratefully appreciated.

Cheers guys

Oh don't worry I know it to be true - I dislike the triumphant tone.

Speaking as a LL.........

Hmmm triumphant? Guess that's how you're hearing it from your perspective, it's certainly not how I was meaning it

Rhubarb, are you the same Rhubarb as the old Rhubarb? You seem terribly, terribly intemperate.

she isnt really a single mother if she is involved with the father of the children and they plannig to move (back?) in together....

and it does seem a little bonkers that she has/had access potentially to a fund to fund her studies etc yet is claiming HB etc. unless there strict requirements on use of the money.

i wonder how much of any of this is true?

unless you seen paperwork evidence of this trust fund then i would take it with a pinch of salt - and the father of the chidlren lives in a bed sit? why? if he works - why isnt he supporting her now?
have you met him?

unless you seen it all with your own eyes dont take her word for it.... she may indeed be lovely but you cant always trust people... dont get too involved in money stuff... other than pointing her towards shelter etc.

the LL probably did want to take on long term tenant and encouraged her - but at end of day he changed his mind/circumstances happen etc. tho yes it could be a while anyway before eviction happens.

And as that thread will be deleted.......

I don't know how her trust fund works so don't know what happens with that but she is planning to use it as a deposit for a house. If it's not in her name then she may not have to declare it. Back in the 80s many parents took out trust funds in their names for their children to give them when they hit either 18 or 21. She's 23 so has perhaps asked her mum not to release the funds to her yet - I honestly don't know and don't wish to delve deeper into her finances as I'm helping as a friend who has a little bit of legal knowledge.

Her bf isn't living with her so she is a single mum yes, I'm not one to judge her bf but apparently he doesn't want to move in with her. Which means he gets to have his cake and eat it, but there you go, I haven't actually met him yet.

Hully - feel free to comment mate!

Oh you know, GB has annoyed me immensely with her condescending, judgemental and patronising tone. Pity this thread is only virtual, I've got PMT so could do with a convenient outlet, she would have been perfect.

My friend was refused housing after a notice to quit and told theyw ere not interested without a 21.

LAs vary: you need to find out the procedure where you are.

But are you Rhubarb, Rhubarb?

cestlavie no I haven't met her bf but he lives in a flat that he owns outright in a town that is convenient for his work. He probably doesn't want to give up his flat, I don't know it's not something you ask is it?

I have no idea about trust funds either.

I offered to help because, like I said I have a bit of legal knowledge. I've met her a few times, once she came round with cakes and she does seem to be the loveliest person. Her kids are adorable.

I came on here to ask for a little bit more advice for her predicament. She didn't want to get on the wrong side of her LL but also she didn't really want to be thrown out. I can sympathise with her situation.

I don't agree with this SHE'S A SPONGER SHE DESERVES WHATEVER SHE GETS attitude because it's just comes across as a little bit spiteful when actually what I see is a young mum willing to work and go to college who wants to be a midwife and provide a decent life for her kids. She's not on income support as she worked before she gave birth, but is giving it up to go to college full time in Sept.

I'll point her to the LA to get more advice just in case she is faced with eviction again, however when we were looking at renting here I did look into council houses and was told that because dh and I were both working and had a house, we wouldn't even be put on the list. They told me then that the waiting list was around 5 years and they even had young mums in B&Bs waiting to be housed. So I doubt she'll get any joy.

Hully, what does it matter? If I said I either was or wasn't would it make a difference to how you judged my posts? This isn't about me it's about a neighbour that I like and wanted to help. I've helped a little bit, but not much and now the situation is kind of resolved for the time being. This thread meanwhile is turning into a debate about what defines a single mum and how they are responsible for the council's flawed plans on allocating houses.

No, I don't care about the posts! Just wondered if you (if you are you) had returned...don't answer if you prefer not.

Wow! Didn't realise that being evicted as a Tenant meant you had all the power and LL none . Good analysis GB NOT.

It iosn't fair or right for EITHER of them. Not the tenant with two small children effectively being made homeless when it was initially agrred as a long term let. Things DO change though and it's not HIS fault that the system is run in the way it is.

This tenant has no choice but to go with a crap system, the LL unfortunately has to work within the same. It's not fair, it's not right by=ut condemning her as a freeloader getting everything paid is hardly helpful to the situation either.

'I don't agree with this SHE'S A SPONGER SHE DESERVES WHATEVER SHE GETS attitude because it's just comes across as a little bit spiteful when actually what I see is a young mum willing to work and go to college who wants to be a midwife and provide a decent life for her kids. She's not on income support as she worked before she gave birth, but is giving it up to go to college full time in Sept.

Hear hear

but it figures these days that was what you got ehre Rhubs- you should see some threads now, feel free to contribute on site stuff disability one for a start.

Well done you for helping her, and good luck to her at uni

Every bit of the whole system sucks for everybody.

Cheers Peachy.
Yes Hully - hello!

pretentious, yes I think everyone is agreed that the system is flawed, but GB seems to think that this is somehow her fault. She has no choice but to oppose eviction otherwise the council won't house her as quickly and if he wants to live there of course he has every right to.

The situation for the moment is on hold, but what I was going to suggest, when he came round, was that they all agree on a plan of action. He gives her 6 months to look around and find somewhere else, if she couldn't then he issues her with an eviction notice just to give the council to prove that she was being made homeless. The hope would have been that this 5wk relationship he is in (which is not the first apparently since he left his wife) would fizzle out and he would change his mind about wanting to move in since he cannot afford the mortgage repayments on his own.

She is paying £600pcm and there are no agency fees with that, so I'm sure that not only pays their mortgage but gives them a bit of a profit at the end of it too. Another option could have been to have £100 of that put to one side for 6 months so that she could have a deposit saved for a new tenancy - if he agreed to it.

I think she'll do well at Uni. She's going to college to do a foundation course and then will apply for a place at Uni. She's committed to being a midwife which is pretty impressive, I never had a clue what I wanted to do at 23 other than go out and party! And she obviously dotes on her kids which is just lovely to see

"her predicament"

of which she is the author.

She was a mother and pregnant a year ago and instead of having access to a 50k trust fund she chose to use public funds. She didn't even offer a deposit on her home. She could have had a more secure home by living with the father or choosing to access 50K.

Good luck if you want to help her - you're obviously the next lined up after the boyfriend (no luck there) the state (whoops doesn't cover everything) and the landlord (goodness me he wants to live in his own house?).

Peachy - don't bring disability into this. It defies belief that people don't even know what a scrounger is any more.

If this is not the definition of one I don't know what is.

"Cheers Peachy" - yes for somehow equating this with people who really need the money and have no choice at all. Somehow you managed that.

huh? I was adking her to comment on an open theread not suggesting this is in any way related

massive difference

Rhubs has been around on MN for many years

And unless her trust fund can be released it is irrelevant. it depends entirely on trust fund.

And no i don;t think someone retraining and who has been working (hence maternity leave) is a scrounger.

midwifery gices a bursary, she won;t be living off benefits whilst on the training.

Fuck off Goose

That wasn't what I said at all

As this is posted on legal, I'll put my legal penny in:

If one of the landlords serves notice to quit, it is effective. She would be better off moving out on the due date because if he has to get an order for eviction she'll not only get a crap reference but she may also have to pay the court costs. She can of course delay things by not moving out on the due date, but not for long, and she'll still owe the rent.

As for her trust fund, as she has already turned down the chance to have it paid to her she is fraudlently claiming housing benefit. This will fall under the heading of deliberate deprivation of capital. This is the DWP guidance:

Beneficial and legal ownership of capital
17101 Capital, in whatever form, always belongs to the beneficial owner, that is the person who stands to gain. The person in whose name the capital is held is known as the legal owner. Usually, the beneficial owner and the legal owner are the same person, but this is not always the case. Examples of when the legal owner is not the beneficial owner are when

1. a solicitor holds money on behalf of a claimant1
2. professional trustees hold property on trust for beneficiaries, under a trust created by a will or by deed of settlement
3. a trust arises as a matter of law. 1 R(SB) 17/87 17102 In all these cases, it is clear that the legal owner is not the beneficial owner. The legal owner holds the capital in their name and can deal with it, for example, by withdrawing money from a bank account or selling property, but they do not own the capital, and the law will hold them responsible to the beneficial owner for the way in which they deal with it1. 1 R(SB) 23/85 17103 A person?s capital resources are represented by the amount that they beneficially own. Special rules apply for capital which
4. is owned by two or more people (see HB DMG 17380 et seq)
5. the claimant has not got, but is treated as having (see HB DMG 17680 et seq). 17104 In the absence of a declaration of trust, any capital which is held in the claimant?s name but is said to be for the benefit of another person should be
6. regarded as beneficially owned by the claimant and
7. treated in the same way as other types of personal capital.

Interest in a trust
17130 Include a person?s rights to capital under a trust when working out the person?s capital.

If she was offered the chance to take the money last year but didn't take it, it seems that the interest in the trust has vested. Perhaps the money was invested in something that she cannot get out for a year, but it will still be capital that they take into account.

This is further guidance:

Absolute entitlement to capital
17136 A sole beneficiary with an absolute, ie unconditional interest under a trust capital which is established (vested) has an actual resource. The beneficiary could call for the entire trust capital and trust income to be transferred to them at any time.
17137 If the beneficiary is incapable of managing their affairs, any controller appointed by the Office of Care and Protection could call for the transfer on their behalf. Even if a person has not yet reached the age of 18 years, if they have an absolute share in a trust fund, treat them as having an actual resource.
17138 The value of any capital to which a beneficiary is absolutely entitled should be taken into account in the normal way, whether or not it is paid over by the trustees.
Contingent interest
17139 A person who will become absolutely entitled to the money in a trust when some specified event occurs is said to be contingently entitled or to have a contingent interest. For example, if the terms of the trust say a person can have £10,000 if the person lives to the age of 21, the interest is a contingent interest. If the person lives to the age of 21 they get £10,000. If the person does not live to the age of 21 they get nothing.
17140 For benefit purposes, the value of any contingent interest is completely disregarded until the contingent event occurs, when the value of the trust will be taken into account as the claimant?s capital unless the funds are derived from a personal injury payment (see HB DMG 17206 et seq).

Why is it necessary to throw personal insults hither and thither just because there is disagreement on an issue?

I agree. There's just no need here.