Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
worried1

Council 'emergency' Rehoming

Recommended Posts

Just been chatting to someone whose landlord has suddenly decided to sell their rented flat and given them two months notice to move out.

Apparently, the council is required to house anyone in this situation on an 'emergency' basis. They are moving into a 2 bed house (a bit bigger than their previous flat) next month. The rent will also be less!

Is this right? Surely it would benefit anyone on lower incomes to be evicted by their landlords and be re-housed under this scheme. Presumably, this means that they overtake all of the higher priority single mothers etc on the waiting list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been chatting to someone whose landlord has suddenly decided to sell their rented flat and given them two months notice to move out.

Apparently, the council is required to house anyone in this situation on an 'emergency' basis. They are moving into a 2 bed house (a bit bigger than their previous flat) next month. The rent will also be less!

Is this right? Surely it would benefit anyone on lower incomes to be evicted by their landlords and be re-housed under this scheme. Presumably, this means that they overtake all of the higher priority single mothers etc on the waiting list.

It must be true. Of course who gets to pay for these daft rules? Mug taxpayer of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been chatting to someone whose landlord has suddenly decided to sell their rented flat and given them two months notice to move out.

Apparently, the council is required to house anyone in this situation on an 'emergency' basis. They are moving into a 2 bed house (a bit bigger than their previous flat) next month. The rent will also be less!

Is this right? Surely it would benefit anyone on lower incomes to be evicted by their landlords and be re-housed under this scheme. Presumably, this means that they overtake all of the higher priority single mothers etc on the waiting list.

If you're thrown out by your landlord, the council will make an assessment to decide whether you're unintentionally homeless and whether it's obliged to find you a temporary place to live. There's an explanation of the criteria here http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Housing/HousingOptions/FindAHome/Homelessness/WhoIsEligibleForHelp.htm

If the council decides it's obliged to help you, it will offer you temporary accommodation. You might well not like it or where it is, though. If you don't, and you turn the council's offer down, you will then have to make your own arrangements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're thrown out by your landlord, the council will make an assessment to decide whether you're unintentionally homeless and whether it's obliged to find you a temporary place to live. There's an explanation of the criteria here http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Housing/HousingOptions/FindAHome/Homelessness/WhoIsEligibleForHelp.htm

If the council decides it's obliged to help you, it will offer you temporary accommodation. You might well not like it or where it is, though. If you don't, and you turn the council's offer down, you will then have to make your own arrangements.

Thanks. In this case they must have been quite lucky as they have got a house in an ok area and no mention of it being temporary. This is for a couple with no kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. In this case they must have been quite lucky as they have got a house in an ok area and no mention of it being temporary. This is for a couple with no kids.

If they've no kids I'm surprised they got a two bed house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they've no kids I'm surprised they got a two bed house.

If they are white and have no kids I'm surprised they got anything at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were in the place they got Section 21ed out of on an AST, I'm surprised that the council didn't take the view that they made themselves intentionally homeless. After all, they knew when they signed the contract to move in that they wouldn't be able to stay there permanently.

If every tenant who is refused a renewal or extension at the end of an AST qualifies as unintentionally homeless under the law and goes to their council for help, councils would be absolutely swamped, I'd have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were in the place they got Section 21ed out of on an AST, I'm surprised that the council didn't take the view that they made themselves intentionally homeless.

Crap. Try finding Long Term Lets these days.

You only intentionally make yourself homeless if you spend the rent on fags and booze or get evicted for antisocial behaviour etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get nothing if you don't try.

Whilst waiting lists are high if you ring shelter and your landlord is evicting you (not for rent arrears) then they may just find you somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some figures for homelessness and ASTs dated 18th March this year:

"Figures published last week reveal the number of households accepted as homeless by councils because their assured shorthold tenancies ended rose 34 per cent, from 4,580 in 2009 to 6,150 in 2010. The 1,620 families which became homeless in the fourth quarter of 2010 represent a 54 per cent increase on the same period in 2009."

Termination of an assured shorthold tenancy is recognised as a reason for accepting that a person or family is homeless.

Also a comment from 2005 "The ending of Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) accounts for 20% of all homelessness acceptances and is the third most common reason for homelessness presentations nationally."

In 2005 ASTs accounted for two thirds of private rented accommodation. I can't find more recent figures for the moment.

Edit to add:

The latest data for 2006/07 estimates that there are around 1.8 million private households in England who rent property ASTs representing around 64% of all private tenancies. Around 310,000 private rented tenancies were let on Assured Tenancies, 11% of all private tenancies. Around 140,000 tenants have Regulated and Protected Tenancies, representing 5% of the privately rented sector. These tenants [on RPT] are mainly elderly, and the number is diminishing year by year as tenants die. All figures are from CLG, Survey of English Housing 2007/08

I make this a total of 80%, so what form of tenancy the other 20% were, I don't know.

Edited by Snugglybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been chatting to someone whose landlord has suddenly decided to sell their rented flat and given them two months notice to move out.

Apparently, the council is required to house anyone in this situation on an 'emergency' basis. They are moving into a 2 bed house (a bit bigger than their previous flat) next month. The rent will also be less!

Is this right? Surely it would benefit anyone on lower incomes to be evicted by their landlords and be re-housed under this scheme. Presumably, this means that they overtake all of the higher priority single mothers etc on the waiting list.

You didn't know about this already?! I've had a couple of landlords who had to evict scum who were playing this game. Stopped paying rent then were evicted into (relative) luxury, whilst the LL loses 6 months rent and solicitor's fees etc.

It almost makes you have some sympathy for BTL scumlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't know about this already?! I've had a couple of landlords who had to evict scum who were playing this game. Stopped paying rent then were evicted into (relative) luxury, whilst the LL loses 6 months rent and solicitor's fees etc.

It almost makes you have some sympathy for BTL scumlords.

Well, if the landlords had contacted the council housing office with the names of the tenants and evidence that said tenants hadn't been paying the rent, the council would have been able to adjudge them intentionally homeless and not been obliged to find them accommodation.

There's no point in the landlords just moaning, they have to do something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't have to move out, the landlord needs to evict them via a possession order, only a court can do this.

They have been given notice to leave.

http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/section-21-notice-to-quit.htm

A 'Section 21 Notice to Quit', so called because it operates under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, is the notice a landlord can give to a tenant to regain possession of a property at the end of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST). The landlord is able to issue the tenant with a section 21 notice without giving any reason for ending the tenancy agreement.

A landlord has the legal right to retain possession at the end of a tenancy but must follow the correct legal procedure, which includes serving a section 21 notice. The Housing Act 1996 amended the section 21 of the 1988 Act by requiring this notice to be given in writing.

Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 is divided into subsections with different procedures to be followed depending on whether the Section 21 notice is served before the fixed term has come to an end or after, when the tenancy has become a periodic tenancy.

At the end of the 2 month period which is at least 2 rental payments the landlord can apply to the court to get them evicted.

If they leave before a court orders them to, the council does not have to rehouse them.

If they've seen the council they should have advised them of this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the landlords had contacted the council housing office with the names of the tenants and evidence that said tenants hadn't been paying the rent, the council would have been able to adjudge them intentionally homeless and not been obliged to find them accommodation.

There's no point in the landlords just moaning, they have to do something about it.

If only the world was so fair and simple. There is always a sob story. At our last place the resident claimed all sorts of financial hardship, hence not paying the rent and thus deserving of council housing for her and her children. It turned out she was employed at a school earning quite a decent wage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I.

Maybe it was the only place available at short notice? I know a single mum with only 1 child who was living in large 3 bed house with descent sized gardens and drive all on her own despite not owning a car. Only reason she had to move out was cause the landlord decided to sell up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When our last landlord served us 2 months notice, the advice from the council was to ignore this continue paying rent and await a court to order the eviction. Only at this point would you be considered in housing need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be true. Of course who gets to pay for these daft rules? Mug taxpayer of course.

well this will make you angry then - I know someone selling their flat. They could not get the asking price, until some council tenants bought it. Turns out the council wants them out so they can rehouse people more in need. But they would not budge. So they bribed them with 100k to move out, which they are using towards buying my friends flat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well this will make you angry then - I know someone selling their flat. They could not get the asking price, until some council tenants bought it. Turns out the council wants them out so they can rehouse people more in need. But they would not budge. So they bribed them with 100k to move out, which they are using towards buying my friends flat...

What what WHAT??!! :blink: I would think 90% of council tenants would be tempted by a similar bribe. I know I would be tempted if I was offered one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />When our last landlord served us 2 months notice, the advice from the council was to ignore this continue paying rent and await a court to order the eviction. Only at this point would you be considered in housing need.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I'm interested in all of this. What I would like to know however is whether or not the tenant following this advice would:

1. Incur any legal or court fees/fines with regards to the order for eviction and/or

2. End up with any sort of criminal conviction or record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

I'm interested in all of this. What I would like to know however is whether or not the tenant following this advice would:

1. Incur any legal or court fees/fines with regards to the order for eviction and/or

2. End up with any sort of criminal conviction or record?

No, they wouldn't. The landlord has to pay the court fees and it's a civil matter so no conviction involved.

It appears from my researches that different councils have different ways of looking at their responsibilities under the 1996 Act. If approached by a tenant flourishing a notice to quit, some will ask the landlord why this is happening and try to stop the tenant being thrown out (difficult if the LL is putting the property on the market, but does mean they can find out about rent arrears), some will accept this as "risk of being made homeless" and look at the tenant's other circumstances in order to decide what to do, some will wait until the court has ruled in the landlord's favour being taking this step, and some will refuse to accept a tenant as homeless until the court has awarded possession to the LL and bailiffs have thrown the tenant and their family and belongings onto the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been chatting to someone whose landlord has suddenly decided to sell their rented flat and given them two months notice to move out.

Apparently, the council is required to house anyone in this situation on an 'emergency' basis. They are moving into a 2 bed house (a bit bigger than their previous flat) next month. The rent will also be less!

Is this right? Surely it would benefit anyone on lower incomes to be evicted by their landlords and be re-housed under this scheme. Presumably, this means that they overtake all of the higher priority single mothers etc on the waiting list.

Heh.

Why does nothing like that happen to me, like in 2005 when my landlady gave me the boot (sold the flat) and I applied to the council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />No, they wouldn't.  The landlord has to pay the court fees and it's a civil matter so no conviction involved.<br /><br />It appears from my researches that different councils have d ......

SNIP

<br /><br /><br />

Thanks Snugglybear.

I guess the council only push it all the way to the eviction in order to ascertain that it's a genuine repossession and not a collusion between a landlord/tenant to get a council flat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

Thanks Snugglybear.

I guess the council only push it all the way to the eviction in order to ascertain that it's a genuine repossession and not a collusion between a landlord/tenant to get a council flat?

Even those that don't push it as far as physical eviction say things like "If the Council discovers that you have colluded with your landlord or a member of your family or friends to get your current accommodation taken away from you, so that you can apply for housing under the homelessness legislation, you may be regarded as intentionally homeless."

That could be a big "if", though. It would take time to investigate and the council would have to obtain convincing evidence. So you can see that it would be to a council's advantage to let the courts do the deciding for it.

Edit for missing word

Edited by Snugglybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 338 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.