Local Authority Eviction Question

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

    #61
    Billy Whizz, we're passed caring seriously... You keep giving arguments, we keep disagreeing, it's going in circles and nothing's going to come out of this.

    Go pay for a proper solicitor !

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Jennifer_M
      Billy Whizz, we're passed caring seriously... You keep giving arguments, we keep disagreeing, it's going in circles and nothing's going to come out of this.

      Go pay for a proper solicitor !
      He doesn't need a solicitor, He needs a bloody miricale

      Section 196 Law of Property Act 1925: Any notice required or authorised to be served by this Act shall be sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter … at the last known place of abode or business and if that letter is not returned through the post undelivered and service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

      Section 23 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927: Any notice under this Act shall be in writing and may be served on the person by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to the last known place of abode in England and Wales.

      Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then unless the contrary indication appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

      Read this Billy I think you are now well and truly f'ed
      Last edited by pms; 03-06-2006, 00:41 AM.
      Disclaimer:I have over 30 years experience in housing(both social and private) as an EHO and Building Surveyor.I am also a certified expert witness having spent the last 15years working in housing litigation.The advice I give is from experience in working for various Local Authorities and how the law is interpretated.Housing Law is a minefield and is continually being amended if in any doubt you should consult a solicitor or someone of equal legal standing.

      Comment


        #63
        Billy .... seems all posters here are supportive of the Council in their efforts to deal with your contraventions of the law applying to both Planning and Building Regulations requirements.

        I would suggest you need to look at the legal definition of "demolition". From the descriptions you have provided it seems that the primary objective of the Council was to make the place non-inhabitable. This position is absolutely correct. As you did not make a building regulation application the Council have no way of knowing whether the building was constructed or the building was altered in a safe manner or the tenant was seriously at risk from the danger of a collapsing structure.
        Vic - wicked landlord
        Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
        Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Jennifer_M
          Billy Whizz, we're passed caring seriously... You keep giving arguments, we keep disagreeing, it's going in circles and nothing's going to come out of this.

          Go pay for a proper solicitor !

          Listen, I'm hoping someone on here maybe able to just reply something that may help me - PMS has defo told me something that im going to look into!

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by pms
            He doesn't need a solicitor, He needs a bloody miricale

            Section 196 Law of Property Act 1925: Any notice required or authorised to be served by this Act shall be sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter … at the last known place of abode or business and if that letter is not returned through the post undelivered and service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

            Section 23 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927: Any notice under this Act shall be in writing and may be served on the person by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to the last known place of abode in England and Wales.

            Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then unless the contrary indication appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

            Read this Billy I think you are now well and truly f'ed
            Miricale's do happen!

            I've not seen sight of ANY risk assessment,H/S Plan etc - your the 1st person to tell me they need all this! - Considering all the services (Electric etc) are all still LIVE they have done NONE of the above! So if they havent done this there in trouble right? - so aswell as demolishing the building on a Sunday and not having all the right paperwork (risk assesment etc) Ive got a case!? (a serious one @ that?)

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by Worldlife
              Billy .... seems all posters here are supportive of the Council in their efforts to deal with your contraventions of the law applying to both Planning and Building Regulations requirements.

              I would suggest you need to look at the legal definition of "demolition". From the descriptions you have provided it seems that the primary objective of the Council was to make the place non-inhabitable. This position is absolutely correct. As you did not make a building regulation application the Council have no way of knowing whether the building was constructed or the building was altered in a safe manner or the tenant was seriously at risk from the danger of a collapsing structure.
              I understand that Worldlife - but the law says you cant carry out demolition work of a Sunday (they did this twice, and its looking like no risk assesment "what PMS said they should have" they dont)

              There has been 3 contracts for the building so over that time period they NEVER once wrote to the tenants to inform them! If they were worried about the structure/tenant why didnt they write to any of them I've had a letter from the Enviornmental health about the demolition work (they thought I was doing on Sunday) when infact it was there ENFORCEMENT team making the noise (and thats on record) I now have the council wanting to my tenant (remember now the council said there was NO tenant) rate the building for Council Tax - BUT there enforcement team made it un-inhabitable - this again is proving they didnt contact eachother within the council to find xyz out - they simply just stormed in on the chance nobody was there. If a tenant has the keys to a property he/she has a good tenancy - just because someone isnt there does not mean you can make them homeless!

              Comment


                #67
                Are you trying to convince us or yourself?? You've heard everything everyone has to say on the subject and you're beginning to sound like a stuck record.

                If you feel you have a case - go sue the council.

                Just because the tenant has keys to a property doesn't mean that it negates your requirements and obligation to follow the law - nor does it make the tenancy a "good one". The Councils action does not overide the Tenants right to enjoy without interruption as a result of the agreement he entered with you (not with the Council). As a result of your negligence in failing to comply with PP and Building regs, you will find that the tenant's recourse is to sue YOU personally for the interruption of enjoyment of the tenancy - NOT the Council.

                The Council acted directly as a result of your failure to comply with legislation at the appropriate time. The legal onus is on YOU to make application not on the Council to ensure that you do.

                It is YOUR responsibility and legal requirement to ensure the Tenant/s was living in a property that was structurally sound and the ONLY yardstick for this ensuring this is by seeking approval by way of PP and Building Regs.

                Laws are in place for a reason and this includes YOU !!! Or would you have us believe that, for some reason, you're above the law and you don't have to follow it??

                Two wrongs don't make a right - so even if the Council were negligent (as you allege but which I very much doubt) in carrying out the legal procedures, it doesn't make you right in not having applied for the relevant permits in the first place.

                You made the tenants homeless by your negligence in not applying for the relevant permits and if I were the Tenant I would take you to the cleaners !!!

                Not once throughout all these posts have you ever accepted that responsibility for this lies very firmly at your door. We would have more respect for you if you had and if your efforts were directed at recompensing the Tenant instead of pursuing this laughable and extremely tenuous course of action against the Council.

                Now please go away and sue the council - but let us know when it comes to court - I think Little Britain are looking for new ideas !!!



                Originally posted by Billy Whizz
                I understand that Worldlife - but the law says you cant carry out demolition work of a Sunday (they did this twice, and its looking like no risk assesment "what PMS said they should have" they dont)

                There has been 3 contracts for the building so over that time period they NEVER once wrote to the tenants to inform them! If they were worried about the structure/tenant why didnt they write to any of them I've had a letter from the Enviornmental health about the demolition work (they thought I was doing on Sunday) when infact it was there ENFORCEMENT team making the noise (and thats on record) I now have the council wanting to my tenant (remember now the council said there was NO tenant) rate the building for Council Tax - BUT there enforcement team made it un-inhabitable - this again is proving they didnt contact eachother within the council to find xyz out - they simply just stormed in on the chance nobody was there. If a tenant has the keys to a property he/she has a good tenancy - just because someone isnt there does not mean you can make them homeless!
                Any information or opinion given in this post is based only on my personal experience, what I have learned from this, other boards and elsewhere. It is not to be relied on. Definitive advice is only available from a Solicitor or other appropriately qualified person. E&OE

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Billy Whizz
                  Listen, I'm hoping someone on here maybe able to just reply something that may help me - PMS has defo told me something that im going to look into!

                  To be honest I don't think anyone on here can help you, you are asking for legal guidance on a landlord's forum (albeit an excellent one). I feel as a responsible landlord and member of my community that if the council have acted in this way then surely it was because you have ignored the correct legal channels. Personally I'm sick of this thread, you come up with certain points you believe are in your favour but in reality this all boils down to the fact that YOU behaved outside of the law in constructing the dwelling. In my opinion you have tried to circumvent that by keeping tenants in a property you know to be under threat of enforcement. If you behaved in such an irresponsible manner in my neighbourhood (and the weather was nice that Sunday) I would have felt quite tempted to get out my bar-b-que and watch the proceedings.

                  You are lucky your tenant has accepted alternative accommodation from you otherwise you could have been facing legal action on both side.....that said it assumes the tenant actually existed and wasn't just a smoke screen on your part to try to ensure the council did not demolish a building you knew they were in their rights to.

                  Go pay for a solicitor that specialises in these things, and if you are in the right as you assume you are feel free to come back and crow about it afterwards.

                  I do not believe this forum is about helping people circumvent the planning process and as such don't really think this thread belongs here. Had you been focussed more on the impact this had had on your tenant I may think differently. As it is you strike me as an irresponsible developer trying to wriggle off the hook.

                  Only my opinion which of course I am entitled to.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by pippay
                    Are you trying to convince us or yourself?? You've heard everything everyone has to say on the subject and you're beginning to sound like a stuck record.What ALL 1,00+ members have replied to this thread?

                    If you feel you have a case - go sue the councilThis will hopefully be the end result

                    Just because the tenant has keys to a property doesn't mean that it negates your requirements and obligation to follow the law - nor does it make the tenancy a "good one"I have been told that when the tenant has the keys he/she has a good tenancy untill the keys have been surrenderedThe Councils action does not overide the Tenants right to enjoy without interruption as a result of the agreement he entered with you (not with the Council). As a result of your negligence in failing to comply with PP and Building regs, you will find that the tenant's recourse is to sue YOU personally for the interruption of enjoyment of the tenancy - NOT the Council. You do know It's not an offence to carry out a development without first obtaining planning permission

                    The Council acted directly as a result of your failure to comply with legislation at the appropriate time. The legal onus is on YOU to make application not on the Council to ensure that you do.It's not an offence to carry out a development without first obtaining planning permission - The council came in and measured the building - why didnt they serve me with a STOP notice?

                    It is YOUR responsibility and legal requirement to ensure the Tenant/s was living in a property that was structurally sound and the ONLY yardstick for this ensuring this is by seeking approval by way of PP and Building Regs.I can get building regs thats not a prob. but having them without planning permission is pointless

                    Laws are in place for a reason and this includes YOU !!! Or would you have us believe that, for some reason, you're above the law and you don't have to follow it?? Everyone has to follow the law, ive not broken ANY laws

                    Two wrongs don't make a right - so even if the Council were negligent (as you allege but which I very much doubt) They carried out demolition work TWICE on a Sunday and now the Council are writing to me complaning of the noise coming from the building - that there OWN council was makingin carrying out the legal procedures, it doesn't make you right in not having applied for the relevant permits in the first place. It is not an offence to carry out a development without first obtaining planning permission just remember that

                    You made the tenants homeless by your negligence in not applying for the relevant permits and if I were the Tenant I would take you to the cleaners !!! How did i make the Tenant homeless? was it me who demolished his flat? Did the Council write to the tenant at ANYtime to inform him to move his belongings?? NO

                    Not once throughout all these posts have you ever accepted that responsibility for this lies very firmly at your door. We would have more respect for you if you had and if your efforts were directed at recompensing the Tenant instead of pursuing this laughable and extremely tenuous course of action against the Council. The tenant has been re housed and is more than happy not all tenants are looking to screw over there landlords

                    Now please go away and sue the council - but let us know when it comes to court - I think Little Britain are looking for new ideas !!!
                    It will no doubt be going to court

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Muse
                      To be honest I don't think anyone on here can help you, you are asking for legal guidance on a landlord's forum (albeit an excellent one). I feel as a responsible landlord and member of my community that if the council have acted in this way then surely it was because you have ignored the correct legal channels. Sure im looking for landlords/landlady's views on this - if you dont ask - i'll never knowPersonally I'm sick of this thread, You dont have to read/reply to it thenyou come up with certain points you believe are in your favour but in reality this all boils down to the fact that YOU behaved outside of the law in constructing the dwelling. In my opinion you have tried to circumvent that by keeping tenants in a property you know to be under threat of enforcement. The council were demolishing the building with the tenant inside - when he came out and showed them the Tenancy agreement they leftIf you behaved in such an irresponsible manner in my neighbourhood (and the weather was nice that Sunday) I would have felt quite tempted to get out my bar-b-que and watch the proceedings.Im not sure you could have seen anything from down the bottom as i own most of the houses on this street.

                      You are lucky your tenant has accepted alternative accommodation from you otherwise you could have been facing legal action on both side.....that said it assumes the tenant actually existed and wasn't just a smoke screen on your part to try to ensure the council did not demolish a building you knew they were in their rights to.The council were taking down the building while he was inside on the FIRST occassion

                      Go pay for a solicitor that specialises in these things, and if you are in the right as you assume you are feel free to come back and crow about it afterwards. So if i win, your interested - otherwise no?

                      I do not believe this forum is about helping people circumvent the planning process and as such don't really think this thread belongs here Im looking for views on it - its a forum, all sorts gets discussed - its had like 700 viewsHad you been focussed more on the impact this had had on your tenant I may think differently. I have and im still looking into the whole demolishing a building knowing there was a tenancy agreement that the council seen but ignored untill AFTER As it is you strike me as an irresponsible developer trying to wriggle off the hook.The local authority have to follow procedure and like Nick freeman on a case im looking to pick fault with there process

                      Only my opinion which of course I am entitled to.
                      Of course! no problem!

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Ive been looking at the paperwork today (i want to know what you think)

                        I put in for planning 3 weeks ago to retain what I already had built - they cashed the cheque for the planning application (so they recieved my application - no excuses) but 4 days after recieving my application/cashing my cheque there enforcement team came to take down the building??

                        What do you make of that?? To me it says that they made there decision without letting the case go to appeal! (and NO planning application decision is made in 4 days)

                        Comment

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        • Reply to Ending Joint Tenancy & Agency Fees
                          by Darkside
                          Just thought I'd update this and summarise. Thanks for all replies so far and apologies if what I am saying is confusing (some of it doesn't really make sense to me either).
                          Our previous FTA ended on 19-09-2020 between myself and two others (joint tenancy). On the 20-09-2020, one of the others...
                          01-10-2020, 08:06 AM
                        • Ending Joint Tenancy & Agency Fees
                          by Darkside
                          Hi everyone,

                          I've already found a great deal of useful information on this forum so many thanks to all these knowledgable posters!

                          I entered into a joint fixed term tenancy agreement with two others. The fixed term runs for 12 months and the wording in case it helps is 'The...
                          06-09-2020, 08:05 AM
                        • Reply to Boiler repair - tenant checked into hotel
                          by tatemono
                          I think you've done all you can in the situation including what many would not in offering your own facilities. I think, given the T's circumstances she would have been in her right to argue for some reduction in rent due to the inconvenience of not having all that she paid for. Perhaps you could negotiate...
                          01-10-2020, 07:51 AM
                        • Boiler repair - tenant checked into hotel
                          by tedcbe
                          Hi I have a tenant who has checked into a hotel due to the fact that the boiler broke down and says she will reduce the amount in the next month’s rent.
                          I have never agreed for her to check into a hotel in the first place.
                          She reported there is an issue with the heating on Sunday night...
                          30-09-2020, 22:30 PM
                        • Reply to Tenant moves his girlfriend in
                          by tatemono
                          That's the only thing we've ever done when partners move in... based on advice on these forums I should add!...
                          01-10-2020, 07:46 AM
                        • Tenant moves his girlfriend in
                          by Hollywood
                          Hi all, I've searched for similar thread but didn't succeed.
                          My Tenant of 14 months, now on a SPT, has moved his girlfriend in. I'm ok with arrangement, it was mentioned by him when he first moved in but they split and nothing happened until now. He has been a good tenant so far & kindly...
                          30-09-2020, 14:12 PM
                        • Reply to Deposit Protection Rules?
                          by jase222
                          There was a case in Bristol similar where the judge rule that the landlord was right to give the original tenant the pi only and didn't need to for a later tenant but I know there was other info about the case, worth no win no fee tho
                          01-10-2020, 07:12 AM
                        • Deposit Protection Rules?
                          by Nips
                          Hi all ex tenant here, hoping someone can help as I can't find a lot of concrete advice online. Basically, I ended a very stressful tenancy in Aug 2019. There was a lot of back and forth, unclear info, and formal complaints, plus at the end of the tenancy they scalped us with deposit deductions. Just...
                          30-09-2020, 17:43 PM
                        • Reply to Deposit Protection Rules?
                          by MW1985
                          It is worth seeking with a no win no fee firm in this scenario. I would offer my opinion to say that the LA were remiss in not providing you with the deposit information. How were you to know the details contained within the Prescribed Info?
                          It sounds as if some short cuts were taken by the...
                          01-10-2020, 06:05 AM
                        • Reply to Rent arrears recovery from mentally disabled ex-tenant
                          by nukecad
                          LOL, do you not read the news (or do you skip over anything disability/benefit related)?.

                          "Everyones a scrounger" is endemic in the benefits system, from government ministers to jobcentre staff.

                          Here's a particular telling case from last year. - If the DWP employee...
                          01-10-2020, 05:14 AM
                        Working...
                        X