Can T claim harrassment/illegal eviction in circumstances?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by mjbfire View Post
    I don't know if a default judgement has been made, I assume they made one out straight away after the time limit has expired.
    It doesn't happen automatically. The claimant has to apply for it.

    Has the cheque you sent been cashed?

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    Our Lawyer sent a fax on our behalf to the other lawyer, as we only had 36hours to respond as the letter was held up by the snow and we sent the cheque to "his" lawyer. We have not had anything back.( that why I been chasing "his" Lawyer, and checked with the court.

    I don't know if a default judgement has been made, I assume they made one out straight away after the time limit has expired.

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by mjbfire View Post
    I been told the court can set aside a default judgement, how do we go about this.
    Was the settlement signed by both parties and submitted to the court? Are you sure there has been a default judgment?

    But yes, if that's what's happened, you can apply to have the judgment set aside. I don't which form it is (ask the court/your lawyer), but I do know you have to give your reasons and provide evidence.

    Read the CPR on default judgments and setting them aside.
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...rts/part12.htm
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...rts/part13.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • intelligence69
    replied
    key thing he has left the property - could have been a lot worse if stayed and then made the allegations.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    A follow up to my above posts, as the T in our views not been playing fair, we got his and our lawers to draw up, an agreement basicily for all of us to go our own ways. And paid in the full amount in full to his lawyer.

    He is not cancelled the small court claim, and the lawyer will not return our calls, three days now.

    The defence date has now passed as we extented by 14 days, to give us time to settle the matter as he started the claim on the 23rd Dec 2009.

    Has he suckered us again, by making us think we settled, and then trying to get a default judgement against us and then keep hassling us for more money.

    I been told the court can set aside a default judgement, how do we go about this.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by mjbfire View Post
    JeffREy,

    You said yes, are you saying "yes" to harrasment or illegal eviction or another point, just so i don't do it again, why is it against the law, as he entered the agreement of his own free will.

    Many thanks
    I said 'yes' to post #9 only (and subject to the qualification shown, re it being a statutory continuation and not a contractual continuation).

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    Jeffery,

    You said yes, are you saying "yes" to harrasment or illegal eviction or another point, just so i don't do it again, why is it against the law, as he entered the agreement of his own free will.

    Many thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by mjbfire View Post
    Periodic Tenancy, ie one month for him, two for us
    Yes, but only if it's a statutory periodic tenancy under s.5 of 1988 Act (i.e. not one granted an a contractual periodic).

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    Periodic Tenancy, ie one month for him, two for us

    Leave a comment:


  • Telometer
    replied
    Was T on an AST or was it a protected T?

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    I didn't answer Bels point 3.

    3) Thats up to you. But maybe you were also motivated that you would still recieve some rent until it was convenient for you to make a start


    Yes, that extra month rent we got has come in handy for us to use to cover all the money we settled for. But the main reason was why should the P be empty, he needed a place to stay, we had a place, and save having swatters.
    As with any agreements, there is always benefits and downsides for both parties. But its seems he wants all the benefits(being 10 weeks Rent Free, utilitys paid for him, and somewhere to live until he completed his house purchase) and no downside.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    On the final point: some solicitors are unscrupulous, but it's more often the case that the client is seeking a lawful way to do something unlawful.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    His arguement is that we bullied/haressed into him agreeing to rent increase and to giving permission to do the works, and we didn't go as far as getting it witnessed and/or with text saying that he was doing it under his free will and that we didn't give him a explicited option for him to dissagree.

    We have settled with him, not because we think we did anything wrong or that we harressed or bullied him or that we may lose the case. But just because unless we settle, it would be endless and in the end we would spend loads of money on lawyers and time, than we hope gain, and that it's hard to prove a negative, so it would come done to who the judge believes and they tend to make the L prove their case rather than the T prove theirs.
    And of course if he prepared to make these claims, I guess he would stop at nothing. So the only reason we be fighting is to prove to myself and my family that I was right, which is never a good reason to go to court.

    Generally(Not about this case)

    Ts need protecting against bad Ls, and I fully support the setting up of the DPS, But I do wonder if it to easy for Ts to claim harressment and illegal eviction!

    People complain about young people not having any morals, but I think that middle aged people nowdays may have the same problem or is it the lawyers?

    Leave a comment:


  • westminster
    replied
    Originally posted by mjbfire View Post
    Many thanks for the response,

    Everything was done by letter, thats why he's not disputing he agreed.
    The questions about premises was because he's lawyer, mentions works next to his premises, not on his premises.

    I think it's the old case of once he had or knew he was going to sign the contract, and he knew he was moving, as when you get a new job, he just wanted out with as much money as possible.

    If it was just the case of the rent and lawyer fees, we would go to court.
    It's the haressment and illegal eviction as these do carry very high risks.
    Read the statute on illegal eviction - Protection from Eviction Act 1977

    (3A) Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
    (a)
    he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
    (b)
    he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
    and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
    (3B) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question.
    Note the importance of the underlined "and". Your actions were not carried out with this intent, i.e. to cause the T to give up occupation. He told you himself that he was planning to buy a place and move out. T consented to the works. You have everything in writing. I don't think T has a case.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjbfire
    replied
    Many thanks for the response,

    Everything was done by letter, thats why he's not disputing he agreed.
    The questions about premises was because he's lawyer, mentions works next to his premises, not on his premises.

    I think it's the old case of once he had or knew he was going to sign the contract, and he knew he was moving, as when you get a new job, he just wanted out with as much money as possible.

    If it was just the case of the rent and lawyer fees, we would go to court.
    It's the haressment and illegal eviction as these do carry very high risks.



    Reading through the forum about access to premises, the view I take is that a landlord never have the right to entry the premisies without premission,
    unless you are sure that you could just the reason to a judge, which would be an emergency which you could argue in front of a judge.

    I think people get confused, that because you give 24/48 hours notice you have the right to enter. My view is that this is just evidence that you are being responsible and a judge would always give you access and the tennant would bare the cost. So the tennant would be silly not to agree.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X