Ok fair enough, but if he wants them out he has to return any overpaid rent at the point at which they leave.

I believe there is a formula to calculate it within the housing act.

I wonder if the landlord has been declaring the rent to HMRC. On the face of it he may not. Would be an interesting question to ask.

May put a whole new spin on things!

Already thought of that should it go any further

I assume they have informed the Council of the Eviction if not they need to do so.

Next is really something to consider as the court action is more important at the moment.

What you could also do with the Council is check if Private Landlords need to be registered with them (most do now) and if they are.

As well as looking for other Private Housing this does not stop them getting applications forms from any council/housing association in there area. (remember at least this gets them added to the housing list which most recheck annual to see if you want to stay on list so always ensure to give them an up to date address)

Thanks stu,

they are on the rehousing list but having so many little nippers means they are only entitled to minimum 4 bed properties and they are as rare as rocking horse poop.

They cannot even bid on anything smaller as the bids get rejected,

this means that for them the waiting time is upto 7 yrs in this area,

they have been on the list now for around 4 yrs and counting.

The council have informed them that until they actually evicted they can do nothing, they must first present themselves as homeless, very daunting with children in tow.

It is hoped that we can buy enough time for them to rent privately with a respectable agent so time is the key, the longer the orocess takes the more they can save for deposits/ advance rent etc.

Set Aside hearing date set for 25th jan

councils always misrepresent what homeless is as it saves them the trouble of finding non-existent properties.

T

It is hoped that we can buy enough time for them to rent privately with a respectable agent so time is the key, the longer the orocess takes the more they can save for deposits/ advance rent etc.

 

if it doesn't happen to be set aside, sit tight, and the lord then goes for a warrant, as mentioned before put in an app'n for suspension of. that will give some more time if needed. though there is the app'n fee cost to consider re, unless fee exempt

Need to be on guard encase LL speeds things up and apply for HCEO to carry out a warrant for possession.

Hope not.

fair point.

if that happens the council would have to then immediately house, albeit at least temp?

Need to be on guard encase LL speeds things up and apply for HCEO to carry out a warrant for possession.

 

Hope not.

LL hasnt done, or at least no notification of from the court. Set Aside hearing set for 25th Jan

You don't get notice if LL's applies to go HCEO route to enforce a Warrant .

if an app'n to suspend such a warant was put in, wldn't that suspend any poss action incl.

HCEO once its on the record?

On 7th december, there was a possession order granted giving her until 21/12/2017

ok, so the LL got the possession without a challenge/hearing.

The title of this thread is

Eviction- possession order granted

Set Aside hearing set for 25th Jan

I can't see what could stop LL after 21/12/2017 applying for warrant and permission at the same time to enforce via HCEO, if LL choose that route or stick with CC bailiffs.

IMHO

i see what you mean.

but, now that a set aside hearing is in place on the record, wouldn't that stop any current enforcement. and would be deemed unreasonable as the lord would now know of the hearing?

Set aside hearing was on thursday 25th.

LL took no further action re HCEO/CC Bailiffs.

The 15 min hearing went ahead.

Set Aside was granted

Defendant to serve and file full defence by 1/2/18

Claimant to serve and file any further response by 8/2/18

Full hearing to be set for first available date after 9/2/18

DJ ordered that he personally deal with new hearing himself if available on allocated date.

A good result so far, round 1 to the defendant.

So, as ordered by the court, the defendant file and served on time by 4pm 1/2/18.

The claimant had not filed by 4pm on 8/2/18 but has filed upon checking with the court today, however he has not served a copy on the defendant.

What are the options if any, or can the claimant simply not serve on the defendant and get away with it?

Any party that fails to comply with court orders can have sanctions imposed...you must bring it to the courts attentions and suggest that the evidence is denied or restricted.

It is up to the Judge’s discretion whether to allow evidence relied upon in breach of the terms of an order or where there has been non compliance with the court rules. Some Judges will stick to the court rules whereas others may be much more forgiving and flexible. It is likely the Judge will balance whether the evidence will help him decide the claim, against the harm it causes to the party who has received the evidence late.

In making such a decision the court should apply court rule 27.8 which states:

(1) The court may adopt any method of proceeding at a hearing that it considers to be fair.

(2) Hearings will be informal.

(3) The strict rules of evidence do not apply.

(4) The court need not take evidence on oath.

(5) The court may limit cross-examination.

(6) The court must give reasons for its decision.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-204-3083?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Thanks Andy, much appreciated

The hearing was scheduled today and i have to say, justice was most definately not served.

At the previous set aside hearing the set aside was granted and the issues for today were to determine if a deposit was paid or not.

Despite not being served any paperwork as per the order of 25th jan and despite raising a complaint of the same to the judge, it fell on deaf ears, wasnt even raised as to why the claimant had failed to serve as ordered.

The judge was only interested in whether the set aside should be granted or not, even thi it had already been granted last time.

The claimant began to shout in court at the defendant but was allowed to do so without any intervention from the judge.

The net result was that the previous order was overruled and the original possession order was upheld. My friend the defendant has been given 42 hrs to vacate the property. It was ruled that on the balance of probability that no deposit was paid even tho the claimant admitted in court that there was.

The defendants mother gave oral evidence to substantiate that she in fact paid the deposit on the defendants behalf.

All in all, a very sad day for british justice.

I'm very sorry to hear that, Martin, sounds very one-sided.

HB