S.21 served, now letter from Local Authority regarding homelessness

[westminster]

By mistake do you mean them no signing AST? The fact that they didn't actually sign it doesn't mean an AST didn't exist as they can be verbal in England, apparently.

Yes, a verbal/oral AST for 3 years or less is as valid as a written contract.

[westminster]

However, i was wondering if even if they wait to be forceably removed by the baliffs the LA may not have a duty to house them if i can show that they are homeless intentionally i.e. because they didn't pay the rent.

It is pointless to wonder.

All that is relevant to you is obtaining and executing a possession order.

[westminster]

I served a s21 on my tenant becasue they have been poor tenants throughout the 12 month fixed period. The tricked me when they moved in so that they were in before they had actually signed the AST.

However they 'tricked you', it's your fault for letting it happen. To limit risk/problems: 1) get satisfactory credit/reference checks/deed of guarantee, 2) demand a month's rent and a deposit in advance in cleared funds before signing any agreement or handing over keys.

Afterwards they refused to sign. They witheld some rent for little things, caused damge to the property, created problems and then claimed the proeprty was in disrepair. As soon as i was able i served a s21.

You can serve a s.21 notice as soon as: 1) the tenancy has begun (i.e. T has moved in) and 2) you've complied with deposit protection.

What disrepair is T alleging? Have you dealt with any genuine problems?

They immediately witheld all rent and they are hopefully due to leave in three weeks time.

They are not due to leave. A s.21 notice is not a notice to quit. it does not end the tenancy nor oblige the tenant to vacate. It merely entitles the LL to apply for possession after notice expiry.

I now have received a questionairre from my Local Authority regarding homelessness. This is a joke as they live a lavish lifestyle and whenever i go round there i see stacks of drunk champagne bottles, they have a new car etc. Apparently teh local authority doesn't have to re-house them if they are intentionally homeless. This may mean waiting until they get physically evicted by the courts but i see no point in them doing this as far as i can tell they can't claim homelessness as they are intentionally so due to non compliance with the AST including signing it, damage, witholding rent etc.

Any thoughts please?

Last paragraph is irrelevant, unless the new car the T has bought is on hire purchase. If so, the bailiff can't seize it when you are (ultimately) enforcing a CCJ against the ex-T.

[jackboy]

That's what I was hoping. The LA said is there anything they can do to aavoid eviction. If I say pay off their arrears then if they do I get my money, if they don't then the LA will say they are intentionally homeless as it is through their actions they are being kicked out

[justaboutsane]

Tell the Local Authority why you are evicting them and they will not jump up the housing list if that is their plan!

Works wonders! They may be more likely to move on if the LA Tell them they have no chance of housing due to their behaviour!

[rajeshk4u]

Yes, but an S21 was served, not S8. With S21 all the landlord is saying he/she wants his/her property back. Not sure what would happen with an S8, as they will have a defense e.g. disrepair.

You have to watch for housing benefit tenants, as they can damage your property to force you to evict them. This way they can jump any housing waiting lists.

It might take a few months. Because even if you get a possesion order. It still takes time to get a baillif appointment. Nothing will happen until the baillifs attend.


Bring some identification when you meet the baillif.

[PaulF]

..........the LA may not have a duty to house them if I can show that they are homeless intentionally i.e. because they didn't pay the rent.

I wouldn't concern yourself with this point as it will just complicate matters and might even delay your obtaining possession.

[jackboy]

Sorry! I don't follow what you're trying to say.

It was my understanding that the LA would advise the tenants to remain until the baliff's arrive otherwise they would be intentionally homeless. However, i was wondering if even if they wait to be forceably removed by the baliffs the LA may not have a duty to house them if i can show that they are homeless intentionally i.e. because they didn't pay the rent. Therefore if they are classed as intentionally homeless whatever happens, then there is no point in the LA advising them to remain until the baliff's arrive

[Kel1]

Jackboy

As Paul_f mentions, the LA will advise the tenants to stay in the property until the very last moment, usually the day before the bailiff is due to turn up to evict them. You may even find them still there when the bailiff attends.

The form you have is to help the LA decide if the tenants have made themselves intentionally homeless. If they decide this is the case, they are only obliged to provide the evicted tenants with temporary housing to give them time to find their own alternative. Regardless of the LAs decision on this it will have no bearing on the speed with which your tenants will leave. You will still need a bailiff appointment through the court.

[PaulF]

Sorry! I don't follow what you're trying to say.

[jackboy]

I am thinking that if the LA is made aware that they are intentionally homeless due to non complaince with teh AST then there would be no point the LA advicing them to stay until the baliffs come calling. Yes, they have been physically evicted by the baliff's, but its still intentional homelessness as they didn't stick to teh AST and didn't pay the rent. By mistake do you mean them no signing AST? The fact that they didn't actually sign it doesn't mean an AST didn't exist as they can be verbal in England, apparently.

[PaulF]

You're obviously not familiar with your tenants application for LAH. Your tenants will be told to hang on until evicted by bailiffs following a Court Order for Possession in order for the LA to rehouse them They know the system well I can assure you and they have taken every advantage of your 'mistake'.

[jackboy]

I served a s21 on my tenant becasue they have been poor tenants throughout the 12 month fixed period. The tricked me when they moved in so that they were in before they had actually signed the AST. Afterwards they refused to sign. They witheld some rent for little things, caused damge to the property, created problems and then claimed the proeprty was in disrepair. As soon as i was able i served a s21. They immediately witheld all rent and they are hopefully due to leave in three weeks time. I now have received a questionairre from my Local Authority regarding homelessness. This is a joke as they live a lavish lifestyle and whenever i go round there i see stacks of drunk champagne bottles, they have a new car etc. Apparently teh local authority doesn't have to re-house them if they are intentionally homeless. This may mean waiting until they get physically evicted by the courts but i see no point in them doing this as far as i can tell they can't claim homelessness as they are intentionally so due to non compliance with the AST including signing it, damage, witholding rent etc.

Any thoughts please?