Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Council House Waiting List


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4877 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello hope I'm in the right section for my question.

 

 

If you put your name on a council house waiting list they sometimes ask if you want to be put on private housing associations lists as well.

 

If you are offered say two council houses or flats and you refuse as unsuitable you may have your application suspended for a year.

I've heard this rule is common amongst many councils.

 

When you go back on after a year are you back at the beginning or is the fact that you were on for perhaps a couple years taken into account when you go back after your years suspension ?

 

If you don't get offered any council properties but you are contacted by a private housing association after being referred by the council and have been offered say a couple of properties over say a two year period and you refuse as unsuitable does this affect your place on the council waiting list ?

 

When you first sign up for council housing do you get a booklet with all the rules regarding accepting and refusing properties ?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are a bit behind the times then I believe by the end of 2010 they should have the bidding system in place. This takes away the old fashioned points sytem, puts each applicant into a colour band, ie., red, amber, green, red being lowest priority. They then advertise every social housing vacancy within their area (HA and Council) You are then required to "register your interest" in any property you like (although some will be restricted to the highest band), with the idea being that you will only bid for a property in an area you will accept, rather than the Council forcing you into an unsuitable property (hence choice based lettings). You;ll know when this is about to start because they have to inform every WL applicant of the banding and provide them with the means to bid for properties.

 

Your council operates a policy which is common, three strikes and out. So, after turning down three properties which THEY deem suitable, they believe your need for housing cannot be quite so urgent, therefore it won't hurt you to wait one year, AND THEN RESUME your place on the WL. They cannot or should not bar you completely, the suspension is usually 12 months only, and during that time no offer will be made to you.

 

It is standard practice for the council to ask you to consider HA properties as well. You will find they are responsible for ALL the social housing, they have nomination rights to the private HA properties as well. This is now how most local authorities work. Its not a bad thing to take a HA property, the only difference being is, provided they bypass the introductory tenancy, which is becoming very common place these days, you would have an ASSURED tenancy as opposed to a SECURE one with the LA's own stock.

 

Now, I've just noticed you are in Scotland, and much as I'd give my eye teeth to visit your part of the country, I'm not very up on their Housing Law, and there can be quite vast diffrences between you and England and Wales. So, whilst what I am saying is basically right, they may have longer to introduce the Choice based lettings scheme, if they are required to do it at all. But this is something your LA can confirm for you.

 

In any case, the general rule is three offers, no take up, suspended for twelve months. And since the Council obviously do work with the local HA's in your area I say that the offers of HA accommodation are going to count towards the three strikes.

 

I hope this helps, but do just check on the law where you are for peace of mind, and good luck, hang on in there and you will get what you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info.

 

Yes I agree Scottish law maybe slightly different to English regarding councils.

 

Can someone request a copy of the form they filled in when applying for council housing to check what the rules and requirements are ?

 

 

My local council says two strikes and you are barred for a year.

This is after being offered two properties within 18 months of registering with the council but not by the council themselves but a housing association.

 

I'm assuming then an offer for a council property and an offer for an HA property is the same then ?

I naively assumed that an offer for an HA property didn't apply to the two strikes and out otherwise the applicant might have stated council property offers only.

 

 

The applicant requested a property with gas CH but was offered two properties with concrete floors and an electrical hot air type unit fixed into the wall in each room.

 

Also one of the properties faced onto a lane where kids go up and down all the time and the property and the one next door according to the next door neighbour has had windows broken by the kids a couple of years before and as the applicant was over 50 and had trouble with kids and vandalism in a previous property felt unable to take this second property offered by the housing association.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The applicant requested a property with gas CH but was offered two properties with concrete floors and an electrical hot air type unit fixed into the wall in each room.

Is there a medical reason for this? Electric storage makes for very dry air so if a person had breathing problems such as asthma, then this sort of heating might be unsuitable, also for some skin conditions too. I would think that all that is needed is conf from the GP to this effect, point out the original request that was made, and that should remove one strike.

 

Also one of the properties faced onto a lane where kids go up and down all the time and the property and the one next door according to the next door neighbour has had windows broken by the kids a couple of years before and as the applicant was over 50 and had trouble with kids and vandalism in a previous property felt unable to take this second property offered by the housing association.

 

When the applicant had the trouble was it recorded with the local police? If so, get your beat officer to do a letter to confirm what happened and then the applicant has a good reason to refuse the second property. They have to consider people's perception of what will cause them fear, alrm and distress these days. They will also be very cross with the tenant who told the applicant about the damage to the neighbouring property, if they find out who it is!

 

You can also go to Shelter, and get them to write and point this out to the Council in case they have difficulty grasping these facts.

 

So, its two strikes in your Council then? Well, thats seems a bit tight to me, but there you go.

 

And yes, sounds like your LA has the nomination rights for ALL social housing - this is quite normal these days, they cannot stand the thought that anyone can get a property which is outside their remit in the first place! Although actually, its really to ensure that those that need the available social housing get it.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.

 

 

They will also be very cross with the tenant who told the applicant about the damage to the neighbouring property, if they find out who it is!

 

 

That's a pity as people will sometimes ask neighbours what an area is like.

 

 

 

The applicant has and I believe may have stated in their application to the council that they had asthma.

 

The applicant asked a neighbour of the property she was about to view later that day about the area and the neigbour told her about the problems with the house she was being offered and that a couple of years before kids smashed the window in the house she was being offered and a few others including the neighbours.

There is a lane at the side of this house where the front door is and another lane that overlooks the livingroom and the bedroom.

The applicant didn't want to say to the housing officer who showed her the property that she'd found out from the neighbour in the house at the other side of the lane about the window smashing incase the housing officer said anything to the neighbour.

If she'd mentioned it the housing officer would have wanted to know who told her.

 

With her having problems a number of years before with kids and vandalism she felt unconfortable accepting the house and possibly encountering more problems.

 

Can an appeal be made if someone is put off the list for a year ?

 

 

The previous problem with kids and vandalism did have the police involved but the applicant may have trouble remembering the dates of the incidents as this was about 2001.

Not sure how much info the police need to check back into the incidents.

I wonder if the name address and year is enough to bring up the vandalism reports on the police computer.

Edited by EleanorRigby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, definitely one strike gone for the asthma if you do like i said with a confirmation of it. You should have no problem viewing the original application form, just pop down and ask firstly, failing that there is the SAR route. Get your friend to ring up and say she keeps a copy of all her documents, and that this one is missing and she worries about things like that, you never know, they might be happy just to send a copy.

 

The problems she encountered in 2001 are some time ago, but then it depends what happened and how it affected her, did she see the GP, did it affect her mental health etc etc., is there a record of all this, so on and so forth. I expect a record at the cop shop could eventually be traced.

 

But also, try and look at this the other way, this worry about ASB in a new area, so the neighbour said a window was smashed 2 years ago. This happens every where from time to time, and note the neighbour did not say it was a frequent occurence. The kids that did it have grown up a little (or more likely progressed onto armed robbery;)) and there is no way to say what will or won;t happen in ANY area in this respect. Try and see how much of your friend's refusal is to how she perceives ASB, as opposed to what actually goes on in any area.

 

But anyway, I think you'll find we've got rid of one strike, and you can always putin a written appeal to the head of the Housing Dept, local councillor, member of Housing Committee etc.

 

Goodluck, I'm sure it will all work out in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...