I've heard on the grapevine that some people have had success in getting a Local Authority who have advised the tenant to remain in their accommodation despite a valid sec 21 joined as a party to the costs of the possession proceedings.
If anyone knows of any such cases I would be grateful. I have some guidance on how to attempt it and am hoping to try and convince a solicitor to give it a go in the future!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have not heard of this before but would be very interested in giving it a go in the future.
I have always thought that it was unfair that local authorities were able to require applicants to incur the costs of possession proceedings where there was no defence before being obliged to assist them. More recently I have noticed that many authorities are expecting people to wait until they have received notice of an eviction date before assisting them and even refusing to provide accommodation until they have been evicted.
Liability to pay costs might encourage authorities to treat people as homeless sooner. However isn't the problem still that until they are threatened with homelessness within 28 days the authority are not obgliged/entitled to treat them as homeless and that without a Possession Order they are not threatened with homelessness? I suppose they could treat the accommodation as unreasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy if doing so would only lead to the applicant or the authority have to pay legal costs.
Hi William
I'll try and do a proper post about this next week when I find the email from the barrister i contacted about this.
In the meantime I would say that 8.32 of the Code Of Guidance suggests that it's usually not reasonable to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid sec 21 if the landlord is going to take action. Ultimately if there is no defence and the LL is taking action then tenants shouldn't have to sit out the ineviatable which costs them, the courts and the LL so much money and energy.
Also I know the Code is not binding but it's rather handy if the LA completely ignore it for no reason.
Hmm, very interesting. I look forward to the gist of the advice. I would be worried if simply advising someone that they did not have to leave at the expiry of a s.21 meant potential costs liability.
It might require establishing that the LA had needlessly required the tenant to incur the costs, which means a clear finding that 'threatened with homelessness' means during the s.21 period. Also, I presume, that there would be a prima facie duty under s.183.
Cheers Nearly,
I'll respond in full when I've got the advice to hand. You're pretty spot on about the need to establish the LA's wrong doing first though from what I remember.
Will try and update this topic soon but as it's spanish class tommorrow and football on wednesday then not sure when I'll get around to it :)
Post a Comment