So a client comes to see me. The client has had a section 21 4a and it's expired. The Court has issued the Landlord's claim for possession. The Local Authority have been aware of the notice for months and are aware that a claim has been made but haven't taken an approach by the sounds of it, nor as 8.32 written to the client to say why they think she's not homeless. Now the LA as per their usually unlawful advice tell client she has to be there till she's evicted. They obviously don't tell client of the costs involved in the possession claim and bailiffs. The client wants advice on whether she should fill in the defence form and whether the advice by the LA is correct.
Now the advice and assistance provided by the LA is not correct in my opinion. However as the LA is not on choice based lettings it often picks clients like mine for nomination to a Housing association property. This is done during the time they should have taken a homeless approach as they can then notch up another homeless prevention statistic.
The crazy thing is if I forced the LA to take an approach and place under 188 then they could in this case find my client intentionally homeless (they could have done this already). Therefore I find myself thinking that it's best to let the LA get away with not taking an approach as they won't look into the client's intentionality (because to do so means taking an approach) and that my client will most likely end up with a permanent offer although she would have had to pay for the possession hearing and probably bailiffs. The LA are happy as they chalk up another Homeless prevention statistic and the client is happyish at having queue jumped everyone else (I say happyish as she has the costs of proceedings to pay).
If they don't offer something permanent and end up having to take an approach then from experience they won't find the client Intentionally homeless (which they could have done) because they took the Homeless approach so late they know it opens them up to all sorts of complaints.
It's all wrong on so many levels.
If you think I'm doing the wrong thing by not forcing an approach to be taken then I'd be more than happy to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If it was a s.21, why would the LA find intentional homelessness? How long has she been in that tenancy? Long enough to break causation on a previous intentional homeless?
Client had been the tenant for a number of years.
I find a lot of LL's give 21's because a client is in rent arrears because it's just easier and safer (albeit a longer process) to get possession.
The LA would, in my opinion, be quite entitled to make a finding of intentionally homeless based on their enquiries with the Landlord.
Hmm.
I follow, but I could see an argument that the rent arrears were not the reason that the tenancy was ended - that is arrears were not the reason for the possession order. A s.8 could have been brought, so the landlord did not care about recovery of arrears. The actual rent history could be of use here.
The LA might find intentional, but I'd think it would be worth disputing, and certainly not something the LA was 'entitled' to find.
But agreed it could be in the client's interests to effectively wait and get an HA nomination if that is the likely course of events.
Thanks Nearly,
I agree that I could probably create at least an element of doubt which would hopefully be enough but it's sad that we are forced to play a game of chess where the client being homed is the prize!
Post a Comment