You're not going to be 'relieved of ownership' though - it's going to cost you, and you'll end up continuing to pay for something you no longer own. But that's your choice. Good luck.

The judge will expect you to present your evidence - not expect him/her to decipher it for you. Don't start out on that foot - it's the wrong one and won't endear you to a judge. You'll be wasting their time. You are entitled to a copy of the codes they use, and one should have been included in the SAR. Get them to send it to you.

Your tenant could fight as long and hard as he/she likes - but the bottom line is, if you serve a s21 (if you've protected the deposit, and the fixed term is over), then there is nothing your tenant can do to stop the court awarding you possession of the property. A s21 notice is a no fault notice, which means the tenant doesn't have to have done anything wrong - and the landlord is guaranteed the return of their property. It does entail giving the tenant two months notice - and best to have this end on the last day of a tenancy period - e.g. if the rent is paid on 15th (and that is the same day the tenancy agreement started), then the notice should be served to end on the 14th...you must serve it with two clear months given to the tenant. So long as you get the dates correct, and deposit is protected and prescribed information has been served, then the tenant has no defence to the claim in court. The cost to get the tenant out, if you do everything yourself, will be for the court fee £250 to file the N5 claim form. You can claim that back from the tenant (and if your tenancy agreement has a clause stating you can claim your legal costs, you could instruct a solicitor to do it all for you and claim your costs back in court). It'll only be drawn out and costly if you serve the notice incorrectly, or have failed to protect the deposit or served the prescribed information. Otherwise it'll be straightforward and you can even apply for accelerated proceedings.

If your ex isn't involved in the property at all, and it is rented out and the mortgage is covered, there seems to be no reason not to apply to have your ex removed from the mortgage and have ownership signed over to you - you can apply to the courts for that. Applying for an order for sale to the courts would resolve the matter once and for all - but in the interim, if the tenant is causing you issues, it is easier and cheaper to evict them and get a new tenant in. You don't need a solicitor to apply for an order for sale, or to have the property transferred to you. Seek advice from a law centre as to how to draft your claim, in order that you quote the correct law, obviously, but you'll be able to represent yourself at court (thereby saving money).

Informing your local authority is part of the pre-action protocol - so there is nothing you can do about that. The judge will expect them to have done so in order that you can access funds that are only available if the local authority are notified (e.g. mortgage protection fund or mortgage rescue). Incidentally, possession usually adds about £30-40k to the actual outstanding debt, so any equity in the property due to the mortgagor is always depleted further. Which is why courts will allow extra time to someone facing possession if they have found a buyer - as this means they'll get to keep more of their equity (ultimately) than if the property is possessed by the mortgagee.

I don't remember. An N244 can be used to apply for a set aside or to stay a warrant. But you have to state what you want on it. In this instance, there's no point in you applying for a set aside, the PO was validly granted. The reason you have received 'very little advice of any value' is largely because there is no advice to give you that will help you because your mortgage term is over. Solicitors costs, whilst unpaid, can incur interest. It's just another outstanding debt. Your terms and conditions will undoubtedly refer to their contractual right to interest on any sums outstanding. You have had an additional three years past your loan term to resolve this (i.e. by selling or remortgaging) and for some reason appear to prefer the unhelpful (at this stage) activity of chasing your tail (trying to argue points that no longer have any validity - e.g. the interest rates). GEM won't lose out because they have a possession order. Your option is to sell and ask the court for time to do that rather than allow possession - but beyond that, there's not a lot a court can do for you at this stage. Far better to get accurate advice than to waste your time on something that won't work and which will ultimately dash your hopes anyway. You said you had cash buyers - get selling.

This isn't true. They do not need the first charge's permission at all to issue proceedings - and the judge can make a possession order if he/she so chooses without any reference to the first charge at all. The only issue with a second charge taking possession is that they may not get all of their money as the first charge has to be paid first - e.g. if there is a lack of sufficient funds once the property is sold to discharge both loans. But where in line a chargee stands makes absolutely no difference to whether the court will award possession or not. The plus point for this OP is that he appears to have been charged a huge amount in what appear to be unfair charges - so he's likely to get his adjournment on the basis that the claim for possession isn't based on arrears of payment, but on charges (and it's unlikely a court will award possession for those whilst there is a dispute about how much is actually owed).

Your statement is poorly laid out - re-type it and add a number for each new paragraph. Did you apply to set aside the possession order - because if not your second 'reason' for your application is invalid. Your argument about a 'lawful contract' is seriously flawed. Even if there wasn't a signed contract, the loan would be equitable. Is there a charge on the property - one presumes so since a possession order was granted. Suggestion: remove this statement - it's not one you can argue in a court of law. You then change tack with reference to CICB interest rates and GEM interest rates - the two, according to the other information you have, are two different things - so why are you comparing them? If you want a judge to understand, you'll have to explain it better and point to exactly what it is you think is wrong and why. The loans referred to as A, B, C - did you have any further advances, is one for commission, is one interest based? You don't provide enough information - so how will the judge know what you are talking about? When the PO was granted - what was the money judgment amount for? That will give you a clue as to whether the amounts claimed are similar or close to the loan amount you think you had, and the loan amount detailed in the ABC figures. Have you cleared the funds? You state you can by end Jan 2015, it's mid February. No point in telling the judge you can clear them when you haven't done so - even if you are still in discussions about how much is owed, there is nothing stopping you from paying what you THINK is owed. The solicitors costs are contractual and will be in the terms and conditions provided to you - the judge won't be interested and has no jurisdiction over them. Which is why, with mortgage possession cases, judges never award costs; they're contractual, the judge doesn't have to order them because the mortgagee is entitled to them. You can challenge them if you believe them to be too high or unreasonable, but frankly, £800 for possession proceedings seems about right to me. Is the loan term over? You state GEM won't lose out - but if the loan term is over, the court has no jurisdiction, so whether you're paying monthly or not, the court can't do anything in relation to that. The sale of the property would probably mean the judge could order a stay whilst the sale was progressed. If the loan term isn't over, then you are far better having a discussion with the judge about clearing the outstanding balance in the remaining term of the loan by upping payments (i.e. a Norgan compliant offer).

45002's advice is accurate: the tenants need to take their paperwork to someone who can look over it. Whilst the OP states the LL doesn't live in the property, it all changes if the LL states that he does and has a room there - so what is written in the contract itself might have a bearing. If the LL definitely doesn't live in the property, the HMO probably should be registered (check with the local authority), and if it isn't, then there may be a claim arising out of that for return of the rent. If the LL doesn't live there, then a s21 will have to be served - unless the AST is some other form of contract, where the LL specified it was not to be an AST. Too many 'IFs' for anyone to give an accurate answer without looking at the paperwork - which is why 45002's advice was spot on.

They can't create (slight change, they CAN, but with provisos) the new contract until the old one has expired. In practical terms, LLs will often create the new contract and get it signed prior to the end of the current contract, but in doing so, they cannot ask for the rent until it's actually due. Rent can be demanded six months in advance, but the six months will start at 00:01 on 26th March if your old contract runs to 25th March - so technically no money is due until then. With that in mind, you are in a reasonable position as you state you can get the six months rent ready by that date - so write to them, inform them of such, and leave the ball in their court. The bottom line is, even if they decide not to renew your contract, you won't have to move from the property on 25th March - you can wait for them to issue proceedings against you in court for possession (they've already served a valid s21 on the information you've given - but it could take them a minimum of three to four weeks to get possession via accelerated proceedings and several months under the usual proceedings. You will, of course, expose yourself to paying their costs if they have to take court action and win - however, you could defend on the basis of the contract already issued to you (so long as you pay rent under it on time) and state that the new contract renders the service of the s21 under the current tenancy invalid. The issuing of a new contract (go and get a copy!) does invalidate the s21 served on this contract.

Sometimes only when the court papers come through - and then they say they didn't receive the s21, only to find they signed for it when they signed the tenancy agreement. However, most landlords will indicate that they are expecting the tenant to move, and obviously if the s21 has been served already, there's no need for that indication to be anything other than a heads up that proceedings will begin, so the month given in this case is fine - so long as the s21 was actually served.

A s21(b) can be served and remains valid until the tenancy ends (when tenant moves out), or a new AST is created. A periodic tenancy makes no difference to the s21(b) served at any time during the fixed term - and doesn't invalidate any s21(b) served. No need to issue a letter either. The original s21 will do. If the LL was savvy enough to serve the s21, you can bet he has some form of proof it was served (a signature on his copy for example).

No. He's already given notice that when the fixed term is over he may want possession. He still has to go to court, but he doesn't have to serve any further notice.

Post #31 has inaccurate information in it. A s21 has no end date, bar the tenancy ending (i.e. by tenant moving out), a court ordering possession or a new AST being created. An AST turning into a PST does not require service of a new s21.

There does appear to be an end date - either 'a' or 'b'...the latter being defined as 'the 2014' - fairly certain the actual date has been redacted from the document posted, but even without its existence in the original document, the only thing the judge would look to would be whether the demand for payment had occurred sometime between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2014. OP states she received the demand for payment before Christmas, telling her to pay within 5 days - so as far as we can ascertain from the information provided in this thread, such demand was made (at least) five days before the end of the year, i.e. 31st December 2014. In other words, the second material date as defined at 'b' in the agreement. OP latterly adds that there was an agreement to sell or refinance five years after the loan was given...so perhaps that too ties in with the demand before Christmas. HSBC have nothing to do with the possession proceedings - they're the first charge, so once the property is repossessed, they will receive their money irrespective of what is left over to pay the second charge. Their permission is not needed for the current possession proceedings. They may, however, have an interest in loaning the OP the further sums in order to repay the second charge. However, on the telling of the story by the OP, the money was borrowed from the friend because she had no chance of raising that level of mortgage in the first place (she can correct this assumption if she so chooses, but if she can correct it to say she can raise that level of mortgage, then she has found the solution to her problem - remortgage and repay the charge). I think that the loan is not one that is regulated - it appears to be a loan between friends, therefore it is the contract that the judge will look to, and which was signed and agreed to by the OP some one year after she had the funds (so she definitely had the opportunity to refuse to sign it)...therefore a judge will think she had ample opportunity to get legal advice prior to signing and knew what it was she was signing (she states there was agreement to repay in five years). In other words, despite all the encouragement from the other posters, the same protection provided to those who have regulated loans, or loans from subprime lenders or highstreet lenders, this does not appear to fall into that category, as the OP's friend does not appear to be a regulated financial lender. A judge may be sympathetic and allow repayment over a period of time - but if the OP could not afford the original loan from a high street bank, then the likelihood of being able to repay this loan without selling the property is also quite slim, which means the most likely method of repayment would be by selling (or remortgaging). OP should speak to HSBC and see if they'll remortgage and not leave it to the judge as the judge may not be able to do a thing, given the loan term has come to an end, even by means of generously looking at 'the 2014' to mean 31-12-14... If the demand had been made Christmas 2013, OP might have had another year as a judge would probably have interpreted 'the 2014' to mean 31-12-2014 as that would be fair.

If, even with all the charges removed, there were still arrears outstanding at the time the PO was granted, then there are no grounds to set it aside. If the refund of charges etc. would have meant there were no arrears, or very low arrears which would have resulted in an outcome other than an SPO, then you could apply to have the order set aside. But, given that there are still arrears, the likelihood of achieving that is slim to none.

The hearing hasn't taken place, so you can't get anything set aside - that is for judgments. What you can do is go to court and present your 'defence'. However, you will have some difficulty in persuading a court that the s8 isn't valid. I am presuming you are more than two months in arrears and the s8 refers to ground 8? If yes, the order will be mandatory - and the judge has the power to dispense with the service of the s8 notice if they feel doing so is just (level of the arrears often dictates this). Therefore, whatever you read regarding the s8 having to be 'exact' is not correct as the judge has the power to dispense with it in its entirety. Your only arguable point, from what you have written, is that the address on the papers is incorrect - which means that when the LL has to prove in court that the property is his, he will struggle as his proof will have a different address on it. But that will require a mere adjournment whereby he will be allowed to amend the paperwork, and all else being in order, the mandatory order will follow. At best such an argument will delay the process by a couple of weeks. The LL is not obliged to give you a new contract if they don't want to - that is not an arguable point and it is not a reason, in law, to stop paying rent which is lawfully due (you've said nothing that indicates it is not due).

It wasn't valid if the intention was to leave on 5th December...OP said he gave notice beginning of November (1st), and if he'd left on 4th, such notice would be valid (if tenancy is periodic). He didn't leave on 4th, he left on 5th, which is the day rent is due on. Legally, rent is payable in advance, and staying even one minute into the 5th (i.e. 00:01) would make the OP liable for that month's rent. Staying on does not make him a 'trespasser' - trespassing is illegal, and if a tenant who overstayed their notice and became a trespasser, they would also become a criminal on that day and be liable to arrest and eviction by the police. That clearly was not the intention of the change in law on trespassers, and if the LL wanted to get a tenant who had overstayed their notice out, the LL would have to go to court on the basis that he relied on the notice he was given and perhaps even had other tenants lined up and make a claim for any losses - so even logically it makes no sense to think that a tenant overstaying for one day could just pay one day's rent in order to do so. That would make a mockery of tenancy agreements. If a tenant only wants to stay one day extra, they should negotiate that, otherwise they leave themselves open to having to negotiate with the LL after event, which leaves them in a weaker position. Incidentally, the blog you linked to was posted in 2009 - the law has changed significantly since then in relation to tenancies and trespassers.

My post above relates to this.

Doesn't matter what the agency said, if the dates are accurate, the tenant owes another month's rent.

Post #5 clearly states: Monthly rent commences on the fifth of each month

Here's your problem in a nutshell (based on the information and dates you provided in your posts): 1. Rent is due on 5th 2. You moved out on 5th December 3. Rent was due on 5th December 4. If you wanted tenancy to end with one month's notice, you should have moved out on Thursday 4th December. 4. LL is correct, incorrect notice given and rent is due to 4th January.

Your LL and his lender may have agreed that the rent payments go towards the mortgage - so check with your LL if it is the case that the rent must be paid to them. The strongest likelihood is that there are receivers in place, in which case they will take the rent from you on behalf of the mortgage lender. If you don't pay, you can be evicted via the usual possession proceedings.

Costs follow the event - the event being the execution of the warrant. The stay application is merely the attempt to stop it, not the event itself. Ergo, you aren't owed any costs and won't get any. If you felt the execution of the warrant was incorrect you could have asked the judge to not allow any costs of the action to be added to your mortgage account, but as you did not, that is not a retrospective action the court will take since the costs you will be charged are in your contract with GEM.

The 'rent arrears' if only relating to the increase in rent, aren't valid and no court would enforce it as a rent increase needs either your agreement, your payment, a notice served in the appropriate format, or the signing of a new tenancy agreement. None of which occurred. Secondly, there is no ability to correct the late deposit protection, so you are entitled to go to court and make a claim for non-protection and request the judge to make a penalty payment (judge will decide whether it will be one, two or three times the deposit amount, dependent on a variety of things). The LL may counterclaim for the alleged rent arrears, but as per the above paragraph, he's very unlikely to succeed. Thirdly, LL or agent are not entitled to demand anything from you before repaying the deposit - make a claim direct to the scheme it is protected in. Deposits should be repaid 10 days after you move out. Fourthly, I have no idea why the solicitor made the assumption that because you were not homeless that there was no illegal eviction - he/she is wrong. If the end date on the notice was 16th November, you were entitled to have access to the property until that date at midnight. So changing the locks sooner than that is unequivocally an illegal eviction - whether you have somewhere else to stay is neither here nor there. See another solicitor, one that specialises in possession (more likely to have dealt with illegal eviction). However be forewarned, any monetary gain from such is likely to be very minor...though that may increase by the subsequent unlawful holding of your possessions.