Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Leonard Hatred

200 Families Facing Possible Eviction

Recommended Posts

sentinel_sfp.gif

DOZENS of families fear being evicted from their rented homes after their landlords are said to have got into financial difficulty.

Some have been given only two weeks to get out before bailiffs take possession of their houses.

The homes are believed to be owned by a number of companies linked to North Wales-based directors Sheila Whalley and Anthony Huws.

Officials fear tenants not eligible for emergency re-homing by Stoke-on-Trent City Council could end up on the streets.

Welfare experts today described the situation as 'unprecedented' and fear it will put pressure on the council's housing stock.

Click here!

It is thought up to 200 houses could be affected .

Steve Tomkinson, housing supervisor at Stoke-on-Trent Citizen's Advice Bureau, said: “The first the tenants will know about it is when they get a warrant through the door.

“We are getting increasing numbers of people coming to see us about this and expect more as more court orders come through.

“Families are very indignant and upset, but tenants have very few rights in this situation.

“I have come across a similar case involving a handful of houses, but nothing on this scale – it's unprecedented.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/...il/article.html

Are the Wilsons next?

Edit: Oh fudge, copied link from wrong tab!

Edited by Sir Talbot Avenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crock. In the past I've been castigated for describing BTLing as a parasitic blood-sucking immoral activity, on the grounds that a private rented sector is good because it provides housing for groups of people who can't/won't/shouldn't buy housing. And we'd hardly want all rentals provided by a government agency as they seem to screw up everything they touch.

But what's the alternative? People being thrown out on the streets at very short notice if their dodgy, unscrupulous sh!tlord goes bust. Those 200 properties will sit empty while the courts and the insolvency practitioners and so on sort out the mess. Those who've gone bust will stay in their own homes. If there really is [sarcasm]a shortage of supply[/sarcasm] then where are 200 households going to go while this is sorted out?

If BTL is a proper professional business then we need a fair, equal, proper system of contract law to regulate it, in which each party to a rental agreement is on an equal footing, not the present system of you're a tenant ergo you are scum so accept whatever you're offered and be grateful. And remember to tug your forelock every time your slumlord passes by. And if said slumlord does get into difficulties, throw your worldly goods into an old suitcase and s*d off, as you don't deserve any better.

Phuquing NuLabour gits. I hope they rot in hell.

Phuquing NuLabour gits. I hope they rot in hell.

Phuquing NuLabour gits. I hope they rot in hell.

Phuquing NuLabour gits. I hope they rot in hell.

............................................

Rant over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This raises an interesting question about tenants rights in the UK, which I imagine is going to become a lot more important in the coming year. What protections do we have when our fly-by-night landlords go bust and the banks reposses their properties?

The newspapers are so busy wringing their hands over the plight of the poor property owning classes who bought into the BTL get rich quick scam, that they've completely forgotten about the real victims - the tenants who'll be kicked out onto the street and probably be robbed of their security deposits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish!

If the tenants have signed for 6 or 12 months, then the tenancy has to be honoured, regardless of who owns your rented property.

Plus bailiffs will be knocking on the landlord's door, not the tenants'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish!

If the tenants have signed for 6 or 12 months, then the tenancy has to be honoured, regardless of who owns your rented property.

Plus bailiffs will be knocking on the landlord's door, not the tenants'.

What is your basis for this? A rental agreement is between tenant and landlord. If the landlord goes bust and their properties are repossessed, the title in the properties passes to the lender. The rental agreement I have has no clauses covering this event; as far as I am aware my claim would be against the landlord for the housing services I've contracted for, not with the owner of the property. And since the landlord has "evaporated" I have an unenforceable contract. I have no contract with the owner of the property, so presumably in these circumstances a tenant would be trespassing and would be required by law to leave, irrespective of whether they have anywhere to go.

As for honoring contracts, Jeez, that's so last millenium. You try getting a contract enforced in civil law and see how far you get; the only people who get any joy out of civil law are the rich, who use it to threaten and intimidate, and the poor, because they have nothing to lose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has evidently never experienced the workings of the civil law system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your basis for this? A rental agreement is between tenant and landlord. If the landlord goes bust and their properties are repossessed, the title in the properties passes to the lender. The rental agreement I have has no clauses covering this event; as far as I am aware my claim would be against the landlord for the housing services I've contracted for, not with the owner of the property. And since the landlord has "evaporated" I have an unenforceable contract. I have no contract with the owner of the property, so presumably in these circumstances a tenant would be trespassing and would be required by law to leave, irrespective of whether they have anywhere to go.

As for honoring contracts, Jeez, that's so last millenium. You try getting a contract enforced in civil law and see how far you get; the only people who get any joy out of civil law are the rich, who use it to threaten and intimidate, and the poor, because they have nothing to lose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has evidently never experienced the workings of the civil law system.

They repossess the landlords assets. If those assets contain tenants then the rental contract must be allowed to run its course. Or the new owners could offer you incentives to leave.

People need to know their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish!

If the tenants have signed for 6 or 12 months, then the tenancy has to be honoured, regardless of who owns your rented property.

Plus bailiffs will be knocking on the landlord's door, not the tenants'.

I wish it were so, but the law is clear enough. If the property is possessed by the lender, the AST becomes invalid and the tenant can be evicted on a few weeks notice from the court. Having said that, I think BTL mortgages tend to include a proviso for the lender to allow any existing AST to run until the end of its term up to some limit (probably only 6 months for the most part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They repossess the landlords assets. If those assets contain tenants then the rental contract must be allowed to run its course. Or the new owners could offer you incentives to leave.

People need to know their rights.

No the bank "possesses" the landlords secured assets.

The property possessed still belongs to the landlord. However, a court has given leave to the bank to sell the property and recoup their money.

The problem lies with the court, they have ordered the possession.

The rental contract has no force on the bank. furthermore, the property is not an ASSET from the banks point of view, it is a LIABILITY.

So sadly, tenants have no rights whatsoever when a Court has ordered possession for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No the bank "possesses" the landlords secured assets.

The property possessed still belongs to the landlord. However, a court has given leave to the bank to sell the property and recoup their money.

The problem lies with the court, they have ordered the possession.

The rental contract has no force on the bank. furthermore, the property is not an ASSET from the banks point of view, it is a LIABILITY.

So sadly, tenants have no rights whatsoever when a Court has ordered possession for sale.

I've personally been in this position. They cannot legally turf you out, unless the building is not safe or a health risk etc. Unless your contract gives you one month's notice.

It comes under a particular act, I'll try to find it when I can remember it.

Unless the law has changed in the last five years of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the Assured Shorthold Tenancy has legal protection with it. If it was entered into legally by both parties, then in effect you're a sitting tenant until it expires, even if ownership of the actual property changes during the period it's in force. Can't quote you chapter and verse, but I'm 99% sure this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They repossess the landlords assets. If those assets contain tenants then the rental contract must be allowed to run its course. Or the new owners could offer you incentives to leave.

People need to know their rights.

If only that were true.

Squatters and unemployed council tenants have more rights that anyone on an AST contract!

This is a f%*$ing disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've personally been in this position. They cannot legally turf you out, unless the building is not safe or a health risk etc. Unless your contract gives you one month's notice.

It comes under a particular act, I'll try to find it when I can remember it.

Unless the law has changed in the last five years of course.

Your position is the morally correct one, and I was sure that it was the legal position, but it appears not to be the case any more.

Private Tenants should be protected in law as a council tenant was as housing is a basic requirement, but the law was changed so that BTL would be an attractive proposition for investors who needed to either change tenant, sell up or just pull out.

Its wrong and should be top of the Tories agenda. It wont be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that the Assured Shorthold Tenancy has legal protection with it. If it was entered into legally by both parties, then in effect you're a sitting tenant until it expires, even if ownership of the actual property changes during the period it's in force. Can't quote you chapter and verse, but I'm 99% sure this is the case.

From the Shelter website:

Is my tenancy binding on the landlord's lender?

In very limited circumstances, your tenancy may be binding on the landlord's lender. This means the lender will become your landlord after the repossession and will need a separate court order to evict you. Most tenancies are not binding on the lender, but there are exceptions. You may have a binding tenancy if:

* you were already living in the property at the time the mortgage was granted (eg as a sitting tenant or when the landlord took out a second mortgage), or

* the lender specifically agreed to the tenancy, or

* the landlord's lender has recognised the tenancy in some way (eg by asking you to pay rent direct to them or by accepting rent from you). Most lenders will avoid doing this or will call the payment something other than 'rent'.

If you are unsure about when the landlord's mortgage started, ask your landlord, or get advice to find out whether the tenancy is binding. An adviser may be able to confirm this via the court, the lender, and/or the Land Registry.

So, very rarely, you might be right but not in the general and most common case.

edit:added missing last sentence

Edited by tbatst2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Shelter website:

So, very rarely, you might be right but not in the general and most common case.

edit:added missing last sentence

so if your landlord remortgaged during your current tenancy you'd be OK, but if you renewed after the remortgage youd be turfed out.

Thats how I read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if your landlord remortgaged during your current tenancy you'd be OK, but if you renewed after the remortgage youd be turfed out.

Thats how I read that.

That might depend on whether the remortgage was as BTL or O/O.

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if your landlord remortgaged during your current tenancy you'd be OK, but if you renewed after the remortgage youd be turfed out.

Thats how I read that.

To be fair, I only had 3 months left on my rental when I was given my legal advice. The time it takes to get together eviction orders, administor the legal issues etc etc more often then note the new owner will simply not renew the agreement when it expires. Much cheaper then a potentially illegal forced evicition, a lot less grief as well. This was also based on my landlord being a one man band, not a company holding an extensive property portfolio!

You do have protection, to some degree. I was also told of a minimum notice period, based on how long the tenancy contract has to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the law in Scotland on the subject; don't know abut England

----------------------

If one of the following grounds is established the court must grant the landlord an order for possession.

Ground 2: There is a mortgage over the house and the lender, for example a bank or building society, is entitled to sell the house because the landlords have not abided by conditions of the mortgage.

This ground will apply only if the landlord gave the tenant notice in writing before the beginning of the tenancy that possession might be recovered on this ground unless the Sheriff judges it to be reasonable to dispense with this requirement.

If a landlord serves a notice of proceedings and a notice to quit at the same time a tenant will have 28 days notice since a notice to quit must give at least 28 days notice.

----------------------

It is actually bloody hard to evict tenants in Scotland, they have a lot of rights, for example to stay in the property until a court order is given even if they aren't paying rent and they can stay in the property indefinitely if they keep paying the rent and the landlord hasn't dotted all the 'i's and crossed all the 't's in the legal paperwork.

Landlords can't do anything to tenants, only the courts can.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 401 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.