You address the judge as 'sir' or 'madam' - depending on their gender. Despite it being your application, the judge won't always address you first - he/she may decide to ask for the figures from the mortgagee's rep first. Your failure to keep to the court order is your issue here, as you state an SPO was granted in January 2012 and you haven't kept to the court ordered payments since December, despite making some payments. So you are £615 behind on the court order (if the payments you state you made above/missed are accurate). Is there anyway you can bring your payments back into line with the court order? That would obviously go in your favour. Are you able to actually afford the payment you offered? If yes, why haven't you made it over the past 6 months? If you can't afford it and have paid what you can afford, then you should ask the judge to lower the previous order so that you can manage better. You CAN be evicted, but if you have 21 years left on your mortgage and arrears of only £5400, then you could get away with paying as little as £22 per month towards the arrears, and if that is genuinely all you can afford (plus the CMI of course), then most judges will allow you to remain in the property. If you can afford more, by all means offer more, but if you can't, or you think it might be difficult, you are far better off asking the judge to reduce it.

First of all, don't EVER interrupt anyone in court - you will get your turn. It might seem formal, but no judge appreciates you trying to run his court, which is precisely what you'd be doing if you thought you could interrupt someone when you felt like it. Make notes of anything you disagree and refer to them when it's your turn. Secondly, don't make an agreement to pay what you cannot afford (you should NEVER have to 'beg, borrow or steal to keep the roof over your head). The judge will be reasonable within the law - even if it takes you the rest of the life of the mortgage to repay your arrears, if that is all you can afford, that is all the judge will order you to pay. Thirdly, the court won't 'look badly on you' for not approaching prior to getting an eviction order - they are well versed in people leaving it to the last second to try to sort things out. The only time this will reflect badly on you is if you are on your 5/6th stay application and have previously received a civil restraint from a judge ordering you not to leave making a stay application to the last minute (it would likely be worded that you have to make a stay application not less than three days before the eviction date). It is not very usual for a civil restraint to be made, so don't worry about it unless it happens - and even if it did happen, it still won't affect the judge dealing with your case on the facts at the hearing. You should tell the judge that you were told by GE Money that you had to pay the arrears and an amount towards charges if you wanted to stop eviction - they cannot do this and it is underhand and against their code of conduct. My suggestion is that once the warrant is suspended that you get on with attempting to reclaim some of those charges. You've received sterling help from Ell (as always!), so make sure to follow her advice - and bear in mind the advice I've given above regarding court - if there are duty advisers at your court you are better off if you ask them for help with representation.

It would be extremely unlikely that the length of the lease was not mentioned when purchasing, particularly as the price itself would have indicated there was a short lease (longer the lease, higher the price). Ask your solicitor to show you the file, and see if there is any indication in it regarding the lease - if there isn't, then ask them why they did not point this out to you (you will have to raise a formal complaint). To be fair, I doubt that it wasn't mentioned - it's far too obvious a thing to miss given that the price of the property would have been a direct reflection of the length of the lease in comparison to similar properties in the area. It is also possible to extend the mortgage in order to extend the lease (most mortgagees will allow this in order that the property can be sold - so long as the property still has some equity in it in relation to the current mortgage).

There is nothing 'shocking' about this - it's standard business practice. If the contract states rent is payable at £220 per month for the six months, then your mother may find that she has to pay that - though the landlord has to mitigate his losses by finding another tenant as soon as possible. It's a commercial contract, business to business, so there is less protection for the tenant as it is expected that they would know what they are entering into. If your mother paid a bond (and it doesn't matter if it's not mentioned in the contract as the LL is clearly not denying holding it), then the landlord is entitled to hold onto it to help defray some of his losses - i.e. from non-payment of rent and for payment of rent whilst he re-lets the property.

You should stick to one thread if it is about the same property so that people can see the whole story and not just part of it. My comments above stand despite your additional questions.

Any reference the LL provides must be truthful. A LL can also refuse to give a reference. Since the reference is about you as a tenant, it is doubtful whether a new LL would put any weight on the LL's lack of deposit protection. However, I would think that a new LL would think that perhaps a tenant drawing his attention to that negative about the LL might be a tenant that will be trouble in the future and any such LL might take that into consideration when reading anything the old LL has written in the reference. So ultimately it may have a negative impact on you if you make reference to the previous LL's lack of deposit protection in order to try to counteract a bad reference.

Right, that's not so bad then as you had a very specific reason for missing the payment that you did and will almost certainly be able to provide documented proof of this from the hospital/GP. This is better than missing 39 payments of a court order. Make the £390 payment as soon as you can and keep the receipt to show to the judge if you have to make a stay application (on form N244). I can virtually guarantee that you will not lose your home on the basis of owing less than £600. I know it's difficult but try not to worry too much - it was just a blip caused by a specific incident and judges are always going to be sympathetic to the realities of life.

You say there is an SPO already - then say the HA are taking it back to court. They don't need to take it back to court. Have they said they are specifically going to issue proceedings against you, or merely execute the warrant on the SPO they already hold? If the latter, then once you get the notice of eviction, you will need to make a stay application. It is highly unlikely that a judge will not stay any eviction if you can show good reason for falling behind (proof) and evidence that you can make the payments in the future (proof required). If you can bring the agreement back up to date then do so. I am confused however as you state you are £390 in arrears of rent, but surely that is the sum total of your missed payments? If you can pay it now, why didn't you pay it before? (Question a judge will ask.) Also, £390 is equivalent to 39 weeks of missed payments - so I am not surprised the HA are seeking to evict - it's a wanton disregard of a) your obligation to pay rent and b) a court order - the judge won't be happy that you simply ignored what was ordered UNLESS you have a very good reason for it (I doubt your son was in hospital for 39 weeks). But as I said, there are few judges who will award outright possession of social housing on arrears of £1100, particularly if, since the SPO was granted, the arrears have actually come down - even if not by the amount expected. Is the £1100 after you pay the £390 or before? Please do not think I am being harsh with you - the judge will be much harsher and far better for you to read it here and prepare yourself for the type of questioning you may get in court, than think it will all be a breeze. Social housing is in high demand - many judges will tear strips off those who have it but who don't pay their rent.

I don't mind people disagreeing with anything I post. The particular comment above is based on experience of mortgagees across the board, not just sub-prime lenders. There is a difference in the tolerance levels between lenders - this is pretty much standard for any type of business that you could name - not everyone does the same thing, or treats debtors in the same way. Sub prime lenders only have 'toxic' mortgagors (the mortgages themselves are benign if the terms are kept to, same as any other type of mortgage). The teeth come out when the mortgagor fails to pay the mortgagee. Sub prime exists because people who shouldn't borrow money to purchase houses WANT to purchase houses - it is a very English thing to want to own a house (and American), and sub prime lenders exist due to demand. They're not terrified - they have security - the properties the loans are secured on. Unless the loan exceeds the value of the property, their money is secure - it's the mortgagor's security - i.e. their home or investment, that is at risk in the majority of cases. They can't 'get out of the sub prime market' - they ARE the sub prime market and it exists, as I said, due to demand and they make their money from the risks that no prime lender will touch, and the extortionate interest rates they charge. Frankly the sub prime market is a sure fire way of making money! And the reason you keep being allowed to stay is because you've got equity in the house - their security isn't at risk and the courts recognise that, hence giving you repeated opportunities to keep your home. I don't see how this bears anything out regarding them wanting to get your property - they want their money, they are a business and it is what they do. (For the record I don't think it's right - I am just pointing out that they aren't individuals sitting rubbing their hands thinking we're taking so and so's house today - they are in the business of lending money at high interest rates to those who are high risk in return for high profits.) No offence intended, but virtually every single customer of a sub prime lender is a risk - it's their standard client base. They don't have low risk borrowers because those people generally find themselves at a high street bank when looking for a mortgage. I call it paranoia because those that say these things seem to think there is a personal issue against them, when it all only ever comes down to business. I have seen no evidence, once a case has been to court and a possession order granted, of either prime or sub prime lenders not executing warrants when payments are missed. The difference comes much earlier - prime lenders may wait the recommended 6 months before issuing proceedings, whereas sub prime will start at 3 months (the minimum level for possession proceedings), but again, this reflects the risk involved. A prime lender who has a mortgagor who defaults for three months is likely to believe the mortgagor will be able to catch up - the sub prime lender notes the risk factors and thinks their mortgagor will continue to default - hence starting proceedings earlier. It is, once again, business sense. You continue to be a risk - and until you clear your account, increase your credit rating, and move your mortgage to a prime lender, you will always be a risk to the mortgagee. I know most don't find this palatable as generally it doesn't sit well with their belief that the mortgagee is 'out to get them/their home', and it doesn't make the extortionate interest rates right - but the rates are set to reflect the risk involved in lending to people who can't borrow from prime lenders. That is the only way you'll find yourself considered a reduced risk - by going to a prime lender (though moving from sub prime to prime is virtually impossible in all honesty). It's business - no one is out to get you (or anyone else), the risk factors are the mainstay of sub prime business. So it is paranoia when people think it's a personal vendetta against them. That is not to say that I don't understand or sympathise with the stress it puts people under (I wouldn't do the work I do if I didn't care), but I call things as I see them, and if that doesn't sit well with people, then I'd suggest they try to take an objective look at the situations - another virtual impossibility for most people). Also, I am not going to post further in this thread about this particular discussion as I don't think it needs to take place in someone's thread where they have asked for assistance.

Was the agreement under a suspended possession order or under an adjournment on terms? If the former, then contact the council as soon as possible and explain the situation - inform them that you can catch up with missed payments once you get paid from the new job. If you fail to do so and they think you are ignoring the order, they can apply for a warrant, and you will receive the notice of eviction from the bailiffs. Ideally the council should contact you before processing the warrant, but they are not obliged to at that stage - so YOU contact THEM. If the latter, then they will have to actually take you back to court before being able to process an eviction.

The court staff are wrong - nor should they be offering any kind of advice that could be construed as legal advice (telling people what to file in response and stating what the judge would think if they don't do it, is legal advice), that is a criminal offence. You can file one defence, with both your name and your wife's name on the paperwork - just ensure you include both names and the case number (will be on the claim form and the particulars of claim). If you are doing witness statements, then you do individual ones as you each sign your own with a statement of truth - so they should be individual, but a defence to possession does not need to be in duplicate if it's the same defence.

OP - some of the advice in this thread is wrong. My advice in post 17 is correct. Your LL appears to be doing things correctly and is using a solicitor. On the day of your hearing, or before if you can, I'd strongly suggest you see if the court has duty advisers so that you can get some assitance on the day of the hearing with regards to representation.

So your arrears are actually £1560.11 as you have to include the missed payment on 1st June. They're still not horrendous and so long as you can continue to pay the £150 per week, you should be all right. Your CMI is £483.50. £150 per week calculated over the year works out at £650 per month - this means you are paying £166.10 per month towards the arrears, which means they will be cleared within 10 months, which, given the length of your mortgage is more than reasonable. You could ask the judge to adjourn on terms of CMI + £166.10 (i.e. £150 per week) and ask that he not give a suspended possession order on the property (which is precisely what the mortgagee will be asking for as they will not get outright possession for the level of arrears if you can show you can afford to pay ongoing). The change of lender isn't really relevant as it's a business decision and not one that affects the control or day to day running of your mortgage. My advice would be to change your payment terms for your customers. Your 'cynicism' is more like paranoia. It's a common theme on these threads, people think there is some personal vendetta against them or that the mortgagee is wanting to 'balance their books' or something similar. No, all they want is for you to repay the money you borrowed according to the contract you borrowed it under. It really is that simple in virtually all cases of mortgage arrears.

Offering a payment plan doesn't mean it will be accepted, particularly when the income and expenditure doesn't support it (which appears to be the case from what you have written in this thread), therefore court action was an inevitability based on their assumption that affordability is an issue. As you owe so little in arrears, the court are likely to accept your payment plan - and if I were representing you I would put to the judge that this should be an adjournment on terms, rather than a suspended possession order. But even then, there is very little that can be done to stop the costs of the legal action given that it was undertaken legitimately. To answer your question - they can send multiple letters out, and invoices, but if you believe them to be unfair, then you can write to the mortgagee and complain about it - the likelihood is that they will refund at least one of those charges, though the letters to your wife, you and the occupiers are standard. How much is your monthly instalment if the arrears are only just over 1k and you are paying £650 per month (that's the 150 x 52 / 12) and £108 of that is towards the arrears? Are you saying you are only 2 months in arrears with the mortgage? If yes, then they shouldn't be taking you to court at all as you should have at least 3 months of arrears before court proceedings are instigated. I think you need to provide more information. 1. How much exactly are the arrears? 2. How much is the current monthly instalment? 3. How many years and months exactly are left on the loan? 4. Are there are loans secured on the property? 5. Is this the main mortgage?

If you failed to keep payments up due to a close bereavement but are now back in a position to get on track a court might consider allowing you to stay. So in any statement you make to the court, make sure you state why you fell behind with the court order and why you are now back in a position to make the payments agreed. In addition to that you can state that the property is also up for sale and that you have an offer (you will need proof from the estate agent including an estimate of the time to completion). As you are able to pay in the interim, you should be successful at your stay application, even with the substantial arrears you have.

1. The charges applied for legal fees are contractual - the court can only make an order that they not be added to the mortgage account or the security if the legal action was frivolous or malicious. (From the information you provided that is definitely not the case - even if it were, depending on the judge even if he thinks court action could have been avoided he/she may be reluctant to interfere with the contract itself.) 2. The ERC should not be included in the amount stated on the particulars of claim - not unless judgment is given against you. Point out to the judge that it has been included and is not actually money owed by you at this stage. 3. The solicitors don't care if it goes to court or not - they have no personal investment in this like you do. They are entitled to their fees according to your contract and unless, as per no.1 above, there has been untoward behaviour, then you will have to pay the legal costs of the case and the judge doesn't order that - as I said, it's contractual. 4. Your irregular payment history is the issue in this case. Whilst you have offered and stuck to your £150 per week payment offer, it has not been accepted (the court is likely to accept that you pay CMI plus X towards the arrears and won't be fussed that it is being paid weekly), but the lender will argue that you are self-employed and on the face of the regular income into your household the mortgage is unaffordable. Lack of affordability is one of the factors all judges look at - so you need to fill in your budget sheet to show exactly how you manage on £90 per week for you and your family and there is no point in focussing on monies from self-employment which aren't provable or regular, make reference to them if need be, but preferably only the ones you can actually quantify, i.e. money you WILL make, not 'might' or 'could'.

If there are no arrears at all, a court will not award possession. However, that does not mean that the LL cannot continue with the claim and ask for his costs as you paid up because of the court proceedings being issued against you. Most sensible LL's would just withdraw the case at this point, and if they really wanted you out, would simply serve a s21 notice. In your other thread (there really isn't any need to keep posting new threads) you state that the LL is also relying on a s21, but state you have not received one. Are you sure? It could have been served alongside your last tenancy agreement which you state you signed three years ago (now on a periodic). s21 notices have no expiry date (unlike a s8) - they are ended only by signing a new tenancy agreement. So is it possible you received it and have merely forgotten as it could have been three years ago? It is perfectly acceptable to the court to plead alternatives - e.g. a s8 on relevant grounds and in the alternative a s21. Did you pay a deposit and is it protected? Can you scan in the particulars of claim and the claim form, redacting any personal information and post them to the thread?

You'll more than likely be rehoused according to the size of property you need, rather than what you currently have. So if, for example, you're a family with two children of 10 and 15currently in a two bed property, you're likely to be rehoused to a 3 bed property, but the same family currently in a four bed would likely be downsized to a three bed. What was said to you by one person isn't legally binding. The only thing that a social housing landlord has to do when demolishing properties is to offer 'suitable alternative' accommodation. 'Suitable' isn't defined.

Why not post up your query and see what response you get? CAG does not encourage personal messages (quite rightly) as any advice given should be freely available to anyone else who might happen upon the site with a similar query.

One other thing - you state on the date of the hearing you will have reduced the arrears to around 6 weeks. Is the hearing near a rental period? That is, will you have also paid any rent due by the date of the hearing? If rent is due just before the hearing, or on the day of the hearing and has not been paid, then that too will be included as rent owing and will make out the ground 8 if, for example, your rent is due monthly.

To accurately answer your question, whilst grounds 10 and 11 are discretionary, the judge will also take into account any financial difficulty your lack of paying rent for 12 weeks has had on the LL. I would expect the LL to state he/she has had extreme financial difficulty brought about by your lack of meeting your obligations, and for him/her to ask the judge, despite the arrears being reduced to below ground 8 levels, to grant an outright possession order anyway. Judges are not reluctant to give possession of privately rented properties back to the LLs. I have no idea where people get that idea from. If the facts show that the tenant is likely to continue with arrears and only acted because they were served court papers, then on balance with the LLs needs a decision will be made as to whether or not it is proportionate and reasonable to award possession. There is a strong likelihood that if you have substantially reduced the arrears and have a viable payment plan to clear the remainder, that a judge will find in your favour. The judge may, in such circumstances, award the LL a suspended possession order instead. This means if you miss one payment towards the arrears, or further payments of rent, the LL can proceed as if he had a PO (see below). If possession is granted, even on a mandatory ground, the usual point is to give a 14 day order, which means that until 14 days from the date of the hearing have passed, the LL cannot execute the warrant. It is only after the 14 days are up that the LL applies for execution and the bailiffs then send out a notice of eviction to you, which could give you a further seven days (minimum) or could, depending on just how busy your local bailiffs are, give you several weeks more before you have to move out. If you have factors that mean you require more than the standard 14 days (these have to be exceptional hardship factors and are not necessarily easy to prove), then the PO could be for more than 14 days, up to a maximum of 42. Possession Orders are only 'stayed' once a notice of eviction has been issued and the tenant makes an application for such a stay. Possession Orders can be 'suspended' - which I refer to above. My answer re ground 8 above which you query is based on the possibility that on the date of the hearing you may still have ground 8 level arrears - if you haven't, then of course the judge will not consider ground 8 as on the day of the hearing there will be no basis for it.

I think you might have been misinformed by your solicitor - no disrespect to whoever it is, but such advice always makes me wonder just how many times they have been in court with a possession claim where disrepair was being used as a counterclaim, as judges are very wise to the tactics used. If the disrepair is so bad as to establish a sufficient counterclaim to off-set the arrears substantially, then the question a judge asks is 'why wasn't a claim brought by the tenant before possession proceedings were brought against them?'. It's a very reasonable question. The other thing that is very likely to happen in such cases is that the judge grants possession under the mandatory ground (ground 8 - more than 8 weeks arrears, or under the discretionary grounds 10 and 11) and adjourns the money claim to be heard with the counterclaim. The argument for this is often that if the disrepair in the property is so bad, then the tenant won't want to stay there anyway. None of the above means that your solicitor is wrong - he/she after all has had the benefit of seeing relevant paperwork and assessing the situaiton first hand. But if I were you, I would not rely too heavily on the possession claim being adjourned simply because there is a counterclaim. Far better to be prepared for possession to be granted (under whatever grounds) than assume otherwise. If you've seen a solicitor I am unsure why you are posting here to ask about whether the hearing can be postponed - surely the solicitor will have filed a notice of acting for you? And if you cannot attend, he/she can attend in your place. With regards to your medical appointment, calling to change the appointment will not result in a further seven month wait - you're already in the system, so you are likely to be able to move your appointment a couple of weeks on. Again, judges are wise to people asking for hearings to be adjourned in order to allow them additional time to pay off the arrears and may take a dim view of this, particularly where a solicitor has been instructed and can attend in your place. Your solicitor is best placed to advise you, given that he/she has all the information to hand. I think the above should make you aware of any potential pitfalls.

The fact that she relies on housing benefit and the LA are asking for a new tenancy agreement is immaterial as to whether the LL has to grant a new tenancy agreement (he/she does not have to if they choose not to). A periodic tenancy is more than sufficient for HB - so long as your daughter can prove she lives in the property (e.g. utility bills, usual identification items); if HB do not accept this, then your daughter will obviously not be able to pay her rent, which may result in the LL issuing a notice to her and thereafter proceeding to court for a possession order.

No, it will be evidence that the court may have reached a different decision if your friend had attended.

That's the point of applying for a set aside of the possession order - your friend wasn't in attendance, and if the mortgagee now agrees a payment plan, then an adjournment on terms might have been granted at the hearing, or a suspended possession order. Leaving all this in the hands of the mortgagee now means that they can choose to enforce the PO whether you pay or not.