Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Non-motoring legal advice => Topic started by: PeacefulWarrior on October 25, 2023, 03:01:00 pm
-
Having read back through the thread, it appears that you were wrong as to the law (HCEOs can't enter with force to effect an eviction) and rosywillow was correct, as you've acknowledged. I don't really get your last post, which seems just to be an effort at saving face by you.
According to Citizen Advice:
'They aren't allowed to break down your door - they have to use 'reasonable force'. This means they'll have to come back with a locksmith who will unlock the door.'
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs-at-your-door/
Looks like I was right after all?
No, you are still confusing debt collection with eviction. In an eviction, the HCEO can break down the door, though they probably won't since it would leave the property insecure. For evictions they will as a matter of routine bring a locksmith with them who will drill out the locks to gain entry and replace them.
If you ask for advice, it's probably better for you that people ignore Lao Tzu's aphorism and actually give you that advice. If you choose not to take it, that is entirely your choice
There is no legislation preventing an eviction if an unaccompanied minor is in the property. Social services would take the child to a place of safety, and the eviction would go ahead.
-
There is a difference, as has already been said, between seizure of goods to satisfy a dept and repossession of goods.
The first does not allow forced entry.
The second does insofar as it is reasonable and part of the repossession.
The eviction part is actually secondary to the taking control from a landlord's point of view.
But usually seen as the important part by the occupiers
Often bailiffs will not break in a door as this is damaging the very property they are taking control of.
-
Perhaps if you had been honest and accurate in your portrayal of the circumstances on here, the advice would have been even more fulsome?
It's now a 15 y/o ALONE on the premises who was previously described as under the supervision of a (very young) adult.
We still don't know WHY this situation developed/allowed to develop and whatever indignation you have, doesn't usurp the law of the land.
Reason for forced entry? Again, detail is scant but it reads like you've been given notice, ignored it then a Court Order and ignored that. Quelle Surprise. The place belongs to someone and they'd like it back.
-
Having read back through the thread, it appears that you were wrong as to the law (HCEOs can't enter with force to effect an eviction) and rosywillow was correct, as you've acknowledged. I don't really get your last post, which seems just to be an effort at saving face by you.
According to Citizen Advice:
'They aren't allowed to break down your door - they have to use 'reasonable force'. This means they'll have to come back with a locksmith who will unlock the door.'
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs-at-your-door/
Looks like I was right after all?
Nope. Whether breaking the door down is reasonable force or not is a matter of fact that will depend on the circumstances. That being said, getting a locksmith to effect entry is still forcing entry because it’s not voluntary. At least you now accept that they can force entry.
-
Yes, I can imagine. Having lived not far from a neighborhood predominantly populated by gypsies, I know they are usually proud, independent people, who don't take kindly to intimidation. Bailiffs would not be able to scare them. But that would be a totally different can of worms in itself, that I would rather leave unopened.
In my case, we are talking about a 15 yo minor alone on the premises. While a pending N244 was in the Court. Hardly any reasons for using unreasonable force like breaking doors down to smithereens'. I am still searching for the exact link to the bit of legislation that says something about agents not being allowed to proceed when that is the case. I'm sure I will soon find it, just need some more time.
-
No, what is reasonable force is for the court to decide, not a well-meaning charity.
There have been occasions where HCEOs have carried out evictions by gaining entry with crowbars, chainsaws, it all depends on the circumstances. In one particular gypsy camp eviction in Essex they sought assistance from the police who barged in first, tasers drawn.
-
Having read back through the thread, it appears that you were wrong as to the law (HCEOs can't enter with force to effect an eviction) and rosywillow was correct, as you've acknowledged. I don't really get your last post, which seems just to be an effort at saving face by you.
According to Citizen Advice:
'They aren't allowed to break down your door - they have to use 'reasonable force'. This means they'll have to come back with a locksmith who will unlock the door.'
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs/stopping-bailiffs-at-your-door/
Looks like I was right after all?
-
Not suggesting anything. Just answering to cp8759 :)
-
Hahahaha...good one and fair enough. I guess the saying could be amended for the legal forums as such:
He who knows, does not speak about things he knows little about. He who speaks when knowing little, does not know when to be quiet.
Are you suggesting I don’t know what I’m talking about?
-
Hahahaha...good one and fair enough. I guess the saying could be amended for the legal forums as such:
He who knows, does not speak about things he knows little about. He who speaks when knowing little, does not know when to be quiet.
-
He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
On a legal advice forum, someone who knows and doesn't speak would be pretty useless.
-
This only leads to other people bowing their heads in front of injustice
I'm not sure anyone was advocating bowing heads in front of injustice. Most of the comments seemed to come from a place of genuine concern for the wellbeing of your children, who appeared to be facing the very real threat of a HCEO forcing entry, without anyone older than 18 present.
-
He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu
-
Having read back through the thread, it appears that you were wrong as to the law (HCEOs can't enter with force to effect an eviction) and rosywillow was correct, as you've acknowledged. I don't really get your last post, which seems just to be an effort at saving face by you.
-
The reason I backed off and didn't answer lately is due to the fact that I did not come here to be judged by anyone, or to be called names. Looking back at the messages just now, some were less than kind or helpful. Let alone supportive. And I am still amazed how many people think they know exactly what the law says, while being totally misguided and giving ill informed advice. This only leads to other people bowing their heads in front of injustice, because they didn't know their true rights.
When I posted this and said I needed 'help', I meant I was looking for actual, practical help to deal with the situation, and not 'I think you should be doing this, because this is what I would do if I were you': rosywillow getting my thanks here, as she was one on point, every time.
Thank you all for your advice, no matter whether it was based on actual law or just influenced by TV shows, hear say or any other questionable sources. I know you all meant well, so it is appreciated nevertheless.
As for the curious minds? I won't torture you much longer and rest assured I will update this thread in due time, once I have more details, so we can all learn from this experience. For the time being I will not engage in any further speculations about what may or may not happen. All that matters is that one should stick to his guns and follow his conscience, no matter what. The truth will prevail in the end, always.
For the time being, I will leave you with the immortal words of a great, wise man:
He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu
-
Curious minds would like to know what happened?
One suspects being as OP hasn't been back to say that it all went as planned with bailiffs retreating in confusion that it didn't go well.
-
Came upon this thread by chance.
OP - Please listen to what you are being told. I have worked as a Housing Officer, and can tell you without any doubt that a bailiff can and will force entry to a property to carry out an eviction, and that the presence of children at the property will not stop the eviction from being carried out. I have attended evictions where children have been present and the eviction has gone ahead.
You should also be aware that the site you have taken your advice regarding the law on this is not to be relied on. At the bottom of the home page we find:
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. (c) Action for Justice UK Ltd.
As it happens, I've come across AFJ before. They are Freeman On The Land influenced scammers.
https://www.action4justice.co.uk/ (https://www.action4justice.co.uk/)
As others have said, if you leave children alone to deal with this you risk them taken into care of social services, and you may well find yourself in further legal difficulty.
-
I cannot find any web pages that suggest that evictions cannot go ahead if there is a minor living in the property. Anyone who has watched Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! will recall that several evictions of families with children took place, entirely legally.
While the evictions were lawful, the broadcast was held not to be in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 298 (Ch) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/298.html) as upheld by the Court of Appeal in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 677 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/677.html).
-
Your tenancy was brought to an end under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/contents
You chose not to leave at the end of your tenancy so your landlord used section 42 of the County Courts Act 1984 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/contents to obtain a writ of possession, which is enforceable under Civil Procedure Rules Part 83:13. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-83-writs-and-warrants-general-provisions
I cannot find any web pages that suggest that evictions cannot go ahead if there is a minor living in the property. Anyone who has watched Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! will recall that several evictions of families with children took place, entirely legally.
-
I rather go by what the law says, instead of relying on hearsay.
I think part of the problem is that you don’t know what the law says, or perhaps that you don’t know what law is applicable to your particular circumstances.
-
I would also make sure that personal possessions are removed or at least anything with real or personal value.
You are in denial and if you don't want to believe that is up to you.
But make no mistake, when the bailiffs turn up, they can use reasonable force to enter and to remove people.
They will then change the locks and you have no right of access.
You will need permission from landlord or their agents to remove your property and they have the right to charge you storage.
They can also charge you for added costs such as for the bailiffs and for the locks.
If your son or anyone else obstructs the bailiffs, they can be arrested.
-
You are confusing debt collection with eviction. Bailiffs cannot force entry on their first visit (but can thereafter) if they are only collecting a debt, but they can force entry if they are carrying out an eviction, which is what is intended on Friday.
HCEO bailliffs can force entry to evict you. See for example: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/what_happens_when_bailiffs_evict_tenants
Having an unaccompanied minor in the property will not prevent the eviction. If there's a minor in the property they will call social services. They have a High Court Possession order, that's all they need to give them the legal power to force entry, evict the tenants and change the locks. They may agree to give you access to the property/to a storage facility on a later date if you have not removed all of your property, but you may be charged for storage.
Instructing a 15 year old to deal with this without an adult and to resist the bailiffs is unconscionable.
He can call the police, but the police do not have the power to stop or delay the eviction. All they can do is prevent a breach of the peace by anyone including onlookers.
Not every HCEO is listed on the site you found (it's an organisation which some HCEOs choose to belong to and some don't); common sense should tell you that a big company like Marstons for example - who work throughout the UK - will employ more than three HCEOs, yet only three are listed for Marstons on that site.
The bit you found about business debts is inapplicable because this isn't about a debt or business premises, but an eviction from a residential property.
Semayne v Gresham talks about where goods are being seized, but the page to which you link makes it clear that bailiffs can force entry in certain circumstances, one of those being when the King (in modern parlance, this is understood to be the Court) has given the order.
If you cannot or will not return to the UK by Friday, and if your N244 doesn't succeed in delaying the eviction, my advice is not to put your children in the position of having to deal with this. Get them to stay with friends so at least you won't be facing a social services investigation into leaving them alone in the UK and allowing them to experience such a traumatic thing as eviction.
-
I get what you are saying about the law and my intention is to find out exactly what the person named on the writ cannot/is not supposed to be doing, before he actually comes and does his deed. Preempting is always better than remedying, just as prevention is always better than a cure.
I'm the person you first approached for assitance so I'll give you my thoughts as I think you consider that although I am not a qualified lawyer, I am vaguely competent to give reasonably reliable legal advice.
I think you need to apply a bit of pragmatism here. If you insist that you can't come back to the UK in time and your N244 isn't dealt with before Friday (which seems likely, the courts normally take weeks to process anything), then regardless of whether you will ultimately be vindicated in the fullness of time, the likelihood is that the HCEO will (rightly or wrongly) evict anyone present on Friday and any minors will be taken into the custody of social services, as obviously an officer of the court cannot leave children homeless on the street. I know precisely zero about family law but I can't imagine social services would be impressed that you put minors in such a position.
So the question is not really what will happen when in six months or a year at a subsequent hearing where a judge might say that you were right all along, the real question is where do you expect the children to sleep on Friday night if the HCEO (rightly or wrongly) does what he says he's going to do?
And without looking up any references, I can tell you as a fact that once a court has granted an eviction order and a warrant has been obtained, a suitably empowered bailiff / HCEO can use reasonable force to make entry, regardless of who might be inside the premises. I have dealt with this previously but I don't have time to go and look up all the references, so either you accept this advice, or you don't.
If you really can't get back to the UK to deal with this, the best advice I can give you is to arrange for the children to vacate the premises themselves before Friday and go and stay with a friend or relative until you get back.
This might all sound very harsh but our mission here is to tell you how it is, rather than to tell you what you'd like to hear.
-
Well, one obvious question is - having been given legal notice to vacate, why are there still tenants in Situ? It reads as if the law HAS been applied correctly from the judgement laid down - if you think otherwise, please share it and the advice may differ. If not, heed what has been posted already...........
-
If you drip-feed things and omit key information it's hard for anyone to be specific!
Do bear in mid not everything is enshrined in law and indeed the law seldom says what one CAN do and most often prescribes what one CANNOT.
I didn't realize I was drip-feeding information, I was just presented things as they were unfolding. If it appeared so, it wasn't my intention.
I get what you are saying about the law and my intention is to find out exactly what the person named on the writ cannot/is not supposed to be doing, before he actually comes and does his deed. Preempting is always better than remedying, just as prevention is always better than a cure.
-
Nobody needs to prove anything to you. You can either accept the advice given or not.
'Nobody needs to prove anything to you.' I never asked for proof of anything, just references. And what you say may be so, yet it would be nice if people relied on actual law when advising people, not personal opinion, wouldn't you agree?
'You can either accept the advice given or not.' Indeed.
-
If you drip-feed things and omit key information it's hard for anyone to be specific!
Do bear in mid not everything is enshrined in law and indeed the law seldom says what one CAN do and most often prescribes what one CANNOT.
-
Nobody needs to prove anything to you. You can either accept the advice given or not.
-
Hi Southpaw. So far, no one has produced enough evidence to substantiate the fact that indeed a HCEO can use force, or to what extent that force can be used. I rather go by what the law says, instead of relying on hearsay.
In my research thus far I did not come across anything to specifically say that, hence my express requests that people contribute with actual links to legislation.
Not to mention that the crux of the matter remains: the Appointed Person on the Notice of eviction should also be the same as the HCEO that will attend the property. The name I was given came up empty, again and again. I can't confirm that he is who he says he is. Would you trust that person coming to your door? I am still amazed that nobody is concerned about that being so.
Today, the so called HCEO replied to my email. Took him a while and he probably had to dig deep and consult someone is their legal department. However, the information he gave me and the links to legislation are not only irrelevant to the case, dealing with collections of fines or inapplicable situation, but the main piece of evidence he relies upon has actually strengthened my case against the use of force. He sent me to look up a precedent dated 1604, Semayne's case, where I came across this brilliant definition of it, by Sir Edward Cooke:
https://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Semayne-v-Gresham1604.htm
'The Semayne case is the origin of the modern phrase: A mans house is his castle and this is borne out of Sir Edward Coke's commentary - The house of everyone is to him is his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose and if thieves come to a man's house to rob or murder, and the owner or his servants kill any of the thieves in defence of himself and his house, it is no felony and he shall lose nothing. This sets the common law rule that forced entry by a bailiff cannot be made into private homes.'
-
I suspect the main issue people have is that you appear to wrong as to the law. Specifically, that the bailiff/HCEO enforcing the warrant can’t use force to enter the premises and can’t enter when a minor is present. I can’t say I’ve been concerned to look the law up but common sense would dictate that if that were so, very few people would ever be evicted.
-
I am getting my information from reputable sources, such as legislation.gov.uk and https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk.
I find it a bit disappointing when people chime in with comments like 'this isn't going to end well', while disregarding the facts and evidence. The problem is not with the writ from the court itself, but with the way it is being enforced and the people who are planning to do that.
As I have stated before, there are serious causes for concern with the person named on the writ, who claims to be someone, yet he isn't.
I think it's best to look at the facts as they stand, rather than start making assumptions and negative comments about how things may or may not end. That is matter to be seen and not speculated about. So let's keep things simple.
The situation is as follows:
1. A letter was found on the pavement on the street by our daughter, addresses to me. It contained a letter entitled Notice of eviction. The way the letter was delivered is a subject in itself, as it appears to have been done very badly and not the way it is prescribed by law. Luckily the wind did not blow it away, or else it would have never been found. But I will let that slide for now, as there are bigger problems to be dealt with.
2. Seeing as we, as parents, are not in the country and there is about a week difference between the eviction date and our return, I contacted the Authorized Person named on the in order to discuss the situation. He answered, claiming to be an HCEO. Upon searching the https://www.hceoa.org.uk, he did not appear as a member. To me, that is a serious cause for concern. I don't know how that looks to you, but to me, he is a liar and an impostor.
3. Seeing that the so called HCEO is not who he claims he is, I then filled an N244 with the court, explaining the situation and asking for a stay of the eviction until our return.
4. I emailed the so called HCEO again and asked for more details about the statements he made in the email he sent me, where he stated that he is not a bailiff, but an HCEO and has the power to force entry and remove any occupiers from the property. I specifically asked him to point out the law where he is getting that information from. I also asked him what kind of force he is planning to use: break the door down? Next, I asked him how he is going to go about removing a 15 year old from a property. By grabbing him and forcing him to go out? Is he even allowed to do that? He did not respond to my last email.
4. The notice is telling me exactly the time and date when the eviction will take place, what will happen on that date and what I can do. The person named as the Authorized Person who is supposed to come to the property is not an HCEO, as he is not on the lists of HCEO's. As such, he is just a person misrepresenting himself as an HCEO. I will deal with that and it's legal implication when I return to London. I don't think anyone in their right mind would let someone who appears to be an impostor come to his house and enter the premises. Hence my instructions to my son to immediately call the Police, should anyone by that name come to the house.
To me, what I have done so far seems to be sensible enough and not something that would lead to an 'it won't end well' kind of situation. I would also appreciate it if people could point out exact references for their statements and not just personal opinions based on preconceived ideas. They are not helpful. We are here to help each other, not sink ships.
-
Don't know where you are getting your information from but....
Bailiffs with correct warrant from County or High Court to repossess a property can break in and can use reasonable force to remove anyone within that property.
Including minors.
They have a duty of care so cannot just turf a minor onto the street without a responsible adult, normally this would mean Social Services being involved.
I think you may be confusing repossession of a property with seizure of goods to satisfy a debt.
With the latter they cannot break in or enter without invitation but they can for the first.
As for no one being able to enter with a minor present ???
Off the top of my head, Police, Customs, Gas or Electricity Officials, Fire Brigade to name a few, warrants likely to needed but not in all cases
-
This isn't going to end well............
I fear you might be right...
-
This isn't going to end well............
-
Hi again. Sorry about not replying earlier, I was pretty busy dealing with things. Thank you for the input and concern.
I have submitted the N244 today, 31.10.2023, explaining to the judge that the notice has arrived whilst we were away and we need a few more days to return and deal with it in person. I explained that my wife is suffering from and has been diagnosed with clinical mental depression and anxiety and can't deal with things without my supervision. I would have returned on my own, but she can't cope with things on her own, let alone dealing with 2 elderly relatives, hospital visits 60km away to the capital, etc.
I have researched the law online and according to gov.uk, bailiffs cannot force entry to a private property, nor are they allowed to enter when only a minor under 16 is present:
https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs
I also emailed the person who is supposed to come, namely Jonathan Chatfield, asking him kindly to consider postponing the visit until we return to London, on the 11.11.2023. He replied saying that the reference sent to him does not apply to high court enforcement officers, only to bailiffs. Yet the reference does not make a distinction between bailiffs, only between county court and high court officers, calling them both 'bailiffs'. And is is quite specific about neither being allowed to force entry, unless we are talking about squatters or commercial premises, criminal fines or HMRC taxes. And even those as a last resort. None of those apply in our case.
What's even more concerning, a search for Jonathan Chatfield on High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA) came up empty. The guy claims to be an HCEO, yet he is not registered with them? An impersonator, a fraud? Digging a bit deeper and found him here: Marston (Holdings) Limited. Jon headed the London office until October 2020. He then went Equivo LTD, where he is now managing director of the enforcement division. He claims both on Linkedin and Equivo that he is a student member of the HCEO's association. Again, he is not on their database.
I emailed him back, asking him to tell me where exactly I can find evidence for his claim: 'We must point out though that the article you quoted relates to bailiffs who are collecting civil debts and not when enforcing a High Court Writ of Possession. As High Court Enforcement Officers we may force an entry and have any occupiers removed.'
His statement is both incriminating and problematic for him, as he seems to have tried to intimidate us by misrepresentation of his powers as a HCEO. While he is not even one!?
According to my research and the UK Law, nobody is allowed to enter a premise where a minor under 16 is living. Be they who they may. NOBODY. I would like to see him try, as I have instructed 2 friends to position themselves in front of the property and take video evidence of the proceedings. I also instructed my son to lock the door and not open to anyone, under any circumstances, as advised by a lawyer. He is a strong lad and I would pity anyone trying to break in and try to touch him, as in forcible entry and removal. I hope it won't come down to self defense, we are in the UK aftercall. At the first sign of forced entry, he is to call 999 immediately, while recording the whole time.
Another site that backs my research: https://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/company-insolvency/what-is-a-high-court-enforcement-officer-and-what-rights-do-they-have
What rights do High Court Enforcement Officers have?
Although HCEOs cannot force entry into your home unless you have granted access on a previous occasion, they do have right of entry to your business premises as long as there is no residential element to the building.
You should receive prior warning of an HCEO visit, and they must ensure the premises are properly secured before they leave. High Court Enforcement Officers operate under strict legislation, however, and the national standards for Taking Control of Goods state,
“Enforcement agents must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their powers, qualifications, capacities, experience or abilities …”
This is an important point when enforcement action is being taken. You also need to know your own rights in the situation, and it’s helpful to obtain professional advice in this respect. So which goods and possessions can be taken from your business premises by High Court Enforcement Officers under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations, 2013?
As I have said, I have emailed Jonathan Chatfield and asked the so called HCEO that does not appear to be one to tell me what kind of force is he planning to use when reaching the house. Also, what plan he has in mind when it comes to making good on his 'we will remove anyone living there'. I am eagerly waiting for his reply and will let you know what he has to say.
-
PeacefulWarrior, if you intend to apply for a stay using an N244 (though it isn't guaranteed that you would succeed in this application), you will need to submit the N244 and pay the fee/apply for fee remission before close of business on 31/10/2023 - tomorrow as I type this.
I hope you are already back in the UK; I am concerned that your children will be made homeless on Friday.
-
Once your fixed term expired you were on a periodic (month to month) tenancy.
Your landlord does not need a reason to give you a S21, and as long as you eventually got the EPC and the prescribed information about the deposit protection, that wouldn't have been enough to defeat the S21. But you can't revisit that now, it's a done deal.
Once the S21 was granted at the hearing (not a trial), you knew you had to leave so it didn't come out of the blue. You were ordered to leave three months ago. As you did not leave, your landlord is entitled to return to court to get a warrant of possession and instruct bailiffs to gain possession of the property.
You could use a N244 to apply to set the warrant of possession aside but it's not guaranteed that you will prevail. If you do use a N244 you will need to attend the hearing (or send representation), but there's a time limit which from memory is a minimum of three days before the bailiffs are due to arrive.
The issue of leaving your children alone for an extended period of time is a matter for you and/or social services, but my advice for one of you to get back to the UK immediately still stands.
What do you think you can say on the N244 that would lead a judge to agree to suspend the warrant of possession?
-
I tend to agree that getting on a plane seems best (and maybe only) option.
While two weeks notice may seem short, notice was actually given 3 months ago when the hearing ordered you to vacate.
I believe the normal time period to vacate when a possession order is granted is 2 weeks so it would seem that either you managed somehow to get the court to agree to far longer then normal or the landlord applied for a warrant to be granted so they could instruct bailiffs to evict.
-
There was no 'trial' merely a hearing which it seems ruled in favour of the LL. Whether an EPC was provided and its relevance may be to do with time....but they're freely available online anyway and have been for several years. If the deposit is protected, it's protected - memory fades, but the requirement for both to be provided is a fairly recent 'thing' and not 3+ years back?
As Rosywillow, it doesn't need both of you to assist overseas, but it does need one of you to participate back here so the way forward is clear. I'd not leave a 15 y/o supervised by an 18 y/o for any significant period, but that's another topic altogether. Get back here pronto.............
-
Hi and thank you for the replies and help. The notice came after a S21 was served. There was a trial and I had to represent myself, since the legal aid did not cover the actual trial, just the preparation of the case preliminary to the trial. I did not have enough time to prepare for the trial, only 6 days. I received the skeleton argument one day before the trial and the trial bundle from the opposing party arrived at the house after the hearing. The judge awarded the case to the opposing party. My legal team was pretty bad and did not identify faults with the S21, which were:
1. No EPC was given when we signed the contract
2. The prescribed information was given to us 3 years after the deposit had been put in the deposit scheme.
Studying the legalities and learning more about the case myself, I discovered that, but after the trial. As I have said, our legal aid funded paralegal was not worth her salt. I looked at the bundles presented by both our legal team and the landlords and found numerous mistakes that would have thrown the case out had I known about them at the time.
We have tried to talk with the landlord, who owes me some money for materials and refurbishments done at the property, but he is not being very upfront. The notice of eviction came out of the blue, 3 months after the trial.
The issue is that the notice of eviction came while we had already gone to Europe. It's not as if we have received and decided to go away regardless. I was hoping that it would make sense to have it postponed with the help of the N244 until our return, once the judge understands the situation. The landlord had about 3 months to act, yet he decided to do it now, with no prior communication or warning.
At the moment, there is no actual contract in place, as the last yearly contract signed and agreed upon was back in 2021.
-
If the eviction notice is from the court and bailiffs have already been instructed, you must have already had a court hearing.
Did you attend the hearing?
Are you in rent arrears and if so how much in terms of months or weeks of rent?
What section did your landlord use to apply for the eviction? S21 or S8 - and if S8, what grounds?
You can use the N244 form to request a stay only if your landlord used a section 21, or a section 8 with grounds 9 to 17.
However, if your landlord used S8 with ground 8, you cannot use the N244 form to stop the eviction, even if you clear the arrears of rent. If your landlord had used ground 8, you could have stopped the eviction if you had reduced the arrears to less than two months in total by the date of the hearing. But if you did not do so at the time, you cannot prevent it now.
Without more information it's really not possible to give you better advice.
Be aware that if the eviction goes ahead, your 15 year old son may come to the attention of social services who will be obliged to house them, but your 18 year old daughter will be homeless with nobody obliged to house them. Whilst I recognise that you may not want to leave your wife alone in Europe, it may be that you would be better advised to return to the UK to deal with this.
You are still responsible for the accumulated rent (and bills, if not included in the rent) until the day of the eviction.
-
Without knowing what's gone before in terms of comms with you and/or what prompted the eviction, it's hard to say?
What's the story? There won't be an eviction notice or only 2 weeks out of the blue...at least not a valid one!
-
My immediate thought is talk to landlord and arrange a stay with them.
Whether or not that will work depends a lot on what has brought this situation about.
Otherwise only the court can order a stay but I am not sure if an N244 is the right mechanism.
Someone with more knowledge then I will have to comment on that.
-
Hello everyone. I have received a 2 weeks notice of eviction from the court, specifying a time and date when the bailiff will come around with a representative of the landlord: 03.112023 at 10AM. The property should be vacated by that point, it says. The problem I have is that I am away in Europe with my wife, attending to some her mom's health problems. In the property at the moment are our 2 children, 15 yo son and 18 yo daughter. Our return flight is on the 13th of Nov and it seems that my only option is to fill in a N244 and ask the court for a postponement. Has anyone been confronted with a similar situation(very unlikely) or has any helpful advice in the matter? Any help would be much appreciated.