View Full Version : Landlord served s.21 Notice; will not renew my tenancy

14-12-2005, 21:18 PM
I got an eviction notice today, stating that the company we rent from are not re-newing the tennancy, it was a section 21.
On my notice to quit form, which i had to sign when i signed the tennancy agreement, it says that i give the landlord permission to take possesion after the 25th December 2005.
I signed this agreement on 24June 2005, although they backdated that part of it, as it was actually 4th July 2005, when i signed the paperwork.
I am in arrears with the rent, and the company want the full £400-00 paid by 23rd Dec, which i have said i cannot pay all in one go, i have offered to pay £200, but the Manager hasn't got back to me about it, i have rang the company this afternoon for 2 hrs, and the girl i needed to speak to was constantly "on another call"
I spoke to them on 5th December as they told me they were going to revamp the house for me in the new year, i asked about the rent arrears, and they told me to just pay "a couple of quid" on top of the normal rent. the letter i got today was dated the 6th December.
I was on the understanding that they have to give 2 months notice for me to quit AFTER the 25th December, not before. There is no mention of the rent arrears on the notice to quit, it just says they are not re-newing the tennancy, but like i said, they have told me, although only verbally, there is no need for me to worry about the rent arrears, as long as i pay the amount i can afford.
Are they in the right to do this before 25th December, or does it not matter within the first 6 months of the AST?
Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jane.

14-12-2005, 21:54 PM
It sounds to me, althought it certainly depends on the wording, that the notice to quit you signed was an "advance" Section 21, which is a fairly common practice. The rest of my post is based upon this assumption. If that was a S21, then the landlord could being repossession proceedings against you immediately after the 25th of December(note I am assuming dates are correct etc - if dates are not correct they cannot, but I get confused with dates so wouldnt like to say one way or the other!). The 2 months notice can be given during the fixed term, as long as it ends on the last day of the fixed term/day after(cant remember which!). However, it is possible that the landlord has made this Section 21 null and void by issuing you with another. Unless he has put the words "without prejudice" on the one you have just received, I believe that the old one is void, and so they will not be able to claim possession for another 2 months. Sorry if this post is disjointed, dont believe any of the specifics from me, but think my general idea is correct. Not very well today!

14-12-2005, 22:09 PM
Bit of a tricky one this, as there is no wording that says "without predujice" on either one of the letters, the one i signed in July (the one dated-24 June) says at the top of the letter;
Housing Act 1988
Section 21 (4) (A)
my name

From- the landlord

known as; my address

DATED; 24TH JUNE 2005 Although it was actually signed on 4th July)
Signed by the tennant; me.

That is the first one, the one i got today says;
6th December 2005

Re; the above address

We write with reference to the above matter.
We write to inform you that we will not be renewing your tennancy agreement when it expires, so we ask that you find alternative accommodation and leave the property of your own accord, failing this, we will have no alternative but to contact the courts and arrange for court bailiffs to attend your property.
If you could please contact our office at your convinience.
Yours Sincerely
mr bloggs (Just a squiggle, no readable signiture)

Does this count as an eviction notice? compared to the first one i signed?
Thanks for reading this, to me this doesn't add up. Jane.

14-12-2005, 22:12 PM
OK. The first one is a Section 21 notice. The second is not - it merely is a letter "reminding" you that your tenancy expires on such and such date, and that you do not have to have another 2 months notice as it has already been served. In this case, I would say(barring technicalites such as wrong dates etc) that they can begin repossession immediately after. You do not have to leave on this date, but you will be evicted within a matter of weeks.

*EDIT* There is no requirement for a tenant to sign such a notice, so the date of signing shouldn't make a difference. However, if this date of signing would be construed to change the date of serving the notice, and such a date was not a valid date to serve(unsure whether it would or wouldnt - dont think it would be invalid to be honest) then this would affect the validity.

14-12-2005, 22:25 PM
They never gave me a choice when i signed the tennancy agreement, they said i HAD to sign it! and i do have a witness to that, so basically, they can repo the property even if were to get straight with the rent? if that's the case, then it stinks! most of the conversations i have had have been mainly verbal, and they have assured me time after time that i do not need to worry about the rent arrears, i think their main goal was to take possession of this house from day one.
If the landlord doesn't agree to the proposed payment i have offered, does he by law have to give me time to find somewhere else, or could i take them to court to see if they (the courts) would give me more time? as the properties round here, both private and council are hard to come by at the moment. I am on the local housing register, but i do not have any points. Jane.

14-12-2005, 22:29 PM
No I'm sorry but it doesn't stink at all. So what if they required it as part of the tenancy? You had the choice to simply walk away. Why exactly does it stink that a landlord wants his property back from any tenant when their fixed term expires? Never mind a tenant who has not kept up to date with their rent. It seems that you think a landlord cannot ever claim possession of his property as long as the rent is paid. This may have been the case many moons ago, but not now, and all for the better.

No he does not have to give you any time. He has to persue the eviction through the courts if you refuse to leave, but with a Section 21 notice this is a foregone, and fairly(by court standards) quick, conclusion.

14-12-2005, 22:46 PM
No, I am not saying that a landlord doesn't have the right to take repossession, BUT, this company bought our house from us on a rent back scheme, and they told me, (verbally again) we can stay in it indefinatly, the reason why i am behind with the rent is because they took 4 months to mend the shower, and i had no other form of bathing, even for the kids, the EMH Officer told me i had reasonable grounds in which i was with holding my rent at that time, and the girl i deal with at the office understood the reason to, and she is one of the senior ones there.
They have assured me like i said, time and time again that the arrears are not a problem.
What has upset me more, is the fact that after all their re-assurences, they seemed to have backtracked on everything they have ever said, and when i ask them about things they have said in earlier conversations, they start making excuses, ie; the reason why my shower took so long to get fixed was because the workman was at houses that had caught fire, then a couple of days later, they have told me it was for a completely different reason!
I know not all landlords are bad, and they do have the right to repo a property, but when you have been re-assured about things time and time again, it makes me bitter, to know that they can deny all sorts of previous conversations that has been said.
IF the landlord agrees to my proposal of payment, should i ask him to sign an agreement? i know i can pay the full amount by the first week of Jan 2006, would it be upto him personally to agree to that? Jane.

14-12-2005, 22:55 PM
AH knew you'd posted before, you were the one who thought you could take the landlords possessions when you moved out!!

OK points:

- If you are assured to stay there "indefinitely" get it in writing. Otherwise it means nothing. Thats basic common sense.

- Who says the arrears are a problem? They do not have to give a reason for the S21 eviction. And even so, they may not be a big problem for them, but when it isnt really that big an issue for them to evict and then get someone who pays the rent on time, then why not?

- Now. The landlord may have been in the wrong with struggling to fix the shower, but please dont use that as an excuse to be in arrears. If you were merely witholding until it was fixed, then why did you not pay it into a seperate bank account? And pay it back when fixed? If you were planning on keeping this rent as compensation, then it is not arrears(at least not so far as you are concerned) and you should have made this clear to them. It appears to me to be the former, especially as you have made attempts to pay it back, so there is no blame you can put on the landlord for this!

- Yes it is up to the two of you to agree repayments. It would be in his interests to agree to this as any order he gets from a court would be most likely a small amount per week, if you plead poverty. In fact, you could potentially use this as a negotiation tool(VERY carefull), and say you will pay the full lump sum back if you can stay on(ask to sign another AST), otherwise the "financial costs" you will incur looking for a new place will mean that payment option will not be open anymore :). And yes ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you agree with a landlord, and almost every other person when it involves money, should be put into an agreement in writing.

I apologise for the tone of this post. However, you need to realise that you have made mistakes, some serious, when dealing with this landlord, and if you do not realise this by continuing to blame them on the landlord, then you will only do them again.

14-12-2005, 23:09 PM
Yes, i do agree with you, i realise that with hindsight (that very useful word) that i should have got things in writing, but they convinced me that things are ok, etc etc, they proberbly don't want to evict me anymore than i WANT to be evicted, we could go round the houses discusiing this couldn't we?
All i can do is see what tomorrow brings, and hopefully if the landlord wakes up in a good mood, then great! if not, i may ask to speak with him directly, and see what he says, although i know he said at first he wants it all by 23rd December.
And yes, it was me who wanted to rip everything out!! but i've come to the conclusion, it's only material stuff, can't take that with us if we haven't anywhere to go can we??
Thanks for your advice Mr Shed, If he does agree, i will personally take the money to the office and get him to sign an agreement, BUT, what if they say it doesn't matter? and just put me on a periodic tennancy? sorry for "nit picking" but i tend to look at every angle possible!

14-12-2005, 23:24 PM
Personally, in your situation, I wouldn't "accept" periodic tenancy, as there is every chance that they will just go back on it again. And, as far as I know, the Section 21 stays valid indefinitely, so they will not even need to give you 2 months notice again. If thats all they will let you have, then stay on periodic, but I would be quickly looking for another house quick sharp.

14-12-2005, 23:49 PM
YES, I have an appt next week with the local housing place, from what they have said, i should be able to get re-housed, although not in the area i want, i am not saying this company is "dodgy" but they have a very "cloak and dagger" way of doing things.
Everyone i have spoken to have said they cannot understand this companies way of doing things, even my friends landlord said the same! I know they are registered with companies house, so they must be legit.
I wish, like you say, i should've got everything in writing, i know i have created problems myself, even one of the girls i spoke to at their office said i hadn't done myself any favours!
Even if they agree to the payments, i will still look into getting another property.
I would tell you the name of this company, but i know it is not the "done thing" on this type of forum, although i have read a post on here tonight, and i am wondering if that person is with this company, they sound as though they are having the same sort of probs as me!!
I will let you tomorrow what happens, Fingers crossed!!!!

14-12-2005, 23:54 PM
Yes good luck....despite the tone of my posts earlier I hope you sort it, was merely to drum the point in! I'm the type of person that would want a signed agreement to lend money to my mum though so you know :p

Yes it isn't the done thing to post names, as even if you do not actually say anything about them, the pre-legal wrangling can cause almost as many problems as an actual libellous comment.

Oh well, take it as a learning experience, at least you will know for next time! I would consider, if possible, trying to comply as much as you can with their requests, as it will appease them somewhat with regards rent arrears and also in the case of possible future references. A simple conversation with them asking them to allow you to go onto periodic for a month or two while you find somewhere may be a lot more productive than you might think. However, if you do end up in a position where you do need to sit it out and wait to be evicted, bear in mind that because of the timing of the expiry of the notice, their eviction will take longer than usual, maybe even an extra week or perhaps a little longer.

15-12-2005, 00:04 AM
Good advice about the periodic tennancy, Mr Shed!
I will put this down to experience, a bad one at the very least, i will know for future reference not to take things at face value! and not to just take what people say as gospel.
Hard lesson to learn, but things happen for a reason i think, you never know, i could win the lottery next week!! ( can you see that pink pig flying overhead??)
No, i don't think your posts have been in a bad tone, as i appreciate some "straight form the heart" advice, and i can take "constructive critisism"
I will keep you posted! Jane.

15-12-2005, 11:22 AM
I rang the company this morning, at 9-15am,and spoke to the girl who i couldn't get hold of yesterday, she said the MD was in, so i asked her if he would agree to my payment proposal, and she asked him, he said yes, but i have to make sure i keep up with the rent, i offered to do a direct debit every week, she is sending me the forms out.
I also asked her if the company would confirm this agreement in writing, stating that i can stay in the house, and i will not be evicted, she said she would put it in writing.
Let's hope they keep to their word!! If i haven't got anything in writng by next Tuesday, i will remind them of their agreement to put it in writing, tactfully of course, as i think this company is one where if you "speak your mind" shall we say, they will make things awkward. Will you posted. jane.

15-12-2005, 11:24 AM
Excellent.....to be fair, it sounds as if they are being fairly reasonable, and trying to work with you. Congrats.

15-12-2005, 11:29 AM
Yes, I know these landlords are earning a living, they don't it for love!
But like i say, i hope they keep to their word, i did forget to ask them though, if they would "revoke" the notice now they have come to an agreement, i will wait and see what happens when i get straight, and maybe a few months down the line, as long as my rent is upto date i don't think i will have any problems with them, (hopefully)
On saying about the revoke of the notice, will that be automatically be "cancelled" due to the agreement? jane.

15-12-2005, 11:47 AM
- I am not sure the notice can be "revoked". They can of course agree not to go through with the eviction afterwards. However, it may be worth getting in writing that they have cancelled the notice.

- The notice will automatically be cancelled, I believe, if you sign a new AST, as this is a new tenancy. It will not if you are going onto a periodic tenancy.

23-12-2005, 16:29 PM
Well, this morning, 23-12-05 i got a lovely letter from the companys solicitor, telling me the LL is seeking possession on 3rd March 2006!
I rang the company up, the girl i needed to speak to wasn't there, (no surprise there then) so the other girl i spoke to, said they were expecting me to pay the money in as of last friday, 16th Dec, i told them i didn't say that, i was quite clear that i couldn't pay until 23rd Dec, i asked if i could speak to the MD, he wasn't there, not back until new year, i informed the girl, that i was told all this payment propsal would be put in writing, together with a direct debit mandate form, which i haven't recieved. I was tod the girl i needed to speak to would not be back in the office until this afternoon, and i asked if it was possible she could ring me after 2pm, they said yes, they would tell her, it is now 4-30PM, and no-one has returned my call, so i take it they have proberbly now closed for christmas, and they do not have any intention of phoning me back, i wish i could prove they have lied to me, but it will be very hard to do, as it will be my word against theirs won't it?
Any help or suggestions from anyone here will be appreiated.
I did email this girl who i need to speak to, and asked her as to why she said she would confirm the payment propsal etc, and she hasn't. i still have had no feedback.
HELP! Jane.

23-12-2005, 16:52 PM
To be honest, this doesn't really surprise me, given what you've already said about them. Even if you had anything in writing, it wouldn't mean anything legally and they could still pursue the Section 21. They don't need a reason to evict you using that and, provided they've done everything correctly, it's manadatory possession. The rent issue is irrelevant to the court, but obviously not the landlord.

23-12-2005, 17:43 PM
Thanks for your reply, BTW, they have never done an ispection, we have no smoke alarms, and the gas has never been checked! i know it looks as though i am nit picking, but i am wondering, if all these things they haven't done would be in my favour so to speak?
I have rang the office just now, and i think they must have a call minder, so i asked for this particular girl to ring me back ASAP. I am not holding my breath though!

24-12-2005, 16:35 PM

No they wont go in your favour, if anything the court will wonder why you want to continue living there.

You said in an earlier post that this company bought the house from you on a rent back scheme, what is this?

Presuming that you are just on a AST I dont get your problem ? They rent to you for a period of time and then they can ask you to leave or you can leave. That is what renting is all about !!

What do you want from this company ?


24-12-2005, 19:27 PM
Basically Zoe, i want them to stick to their word, they bought the house off me due to mortgage arrears, which i couldn't clear, due to hubby been made redundant at the time etc,
They have already agreed a payment proposal, but there has been so many lies with them, it would take me all night to tell you!
When they bought the house, they said we could stay in it "indefinatly" as we have been here for 14 yrs.
They messed up on the exchange of contracts, which even the baillif said she thought it was dodgy, they left it until the proposed date of repo from the bank to sort the contracts out, AFTER they had told me everything was done and dusted, the friday before, even my friends landlord said he thinks they were doing this purposefully, so they would have an empty house.
It has taken them 4 months to mend my shower, they said they would send the workman round, i waited in, in total for 4 days, he never turned up, then they gave me different excuses as to why he never called, each time was a sad excuse.
They agreed to confirm in writing, my payment proposal, plus send me out a direct debit mandate, which never came. they never return phone calls, the list is endless to be honest.
I know the rules and regulations of AST'S but when you are assured you can live in your property indefinatly, you put your trust in these people, if i knew then what i know now, i would never have sold the house to them.
Sorry if this sounds bitter, as i know there are some good landlords about, but i think (in hindsight) i couldn't have chosen a worse company to deal with.
I have been to the local housing, and spoken to their housing officer, who has wrote to the LL personally, and he has suggested taking legal advice over the "discrepancies" within the comapny, as there have been so many things that do not seem to add up.
This company told me BTW, that they rent houses all over the area where i live at the moment, they don't! they sell them, so i take it, they buy your property from you, let you believe you can live there forever etc, then after 6 months they turf you out, and sell up! BAD PRACTICE!! if you ask me.

24-12-2005, 19:51 PM

Please stick to the facts else I will not be able to help.

What contracts do you have in place regarding the sale of your property ?

What is the name of the company ?

you need to remain calm, I for one see this as more than a landlord/tenant issue. Regardless of the AST you had a contract to sell the property under certain agreement. If they told you that if you sold them the house that you could live there as long as you wanted this is legally binding.

Have you any contacts number of other unhappy customers of this group ?

If I were you I would not move out, I would wait to get evicted, no doubt the court will agree that you have to leave but only if all the paper work is above board and notice has been issued correctly.

In the meantime I would try and get legal advise regarding the legality of the sale of your property, if it was sold under certain terms then you should persue this.

You will get further if you remain calm and stick to facts. ie. nobody cares about the shower !!!


24-12-2005, 20:21 PM
Thanks for your reply Zoe! yes, i do need to remain calm, but i am finding difficult sometimes, i don't think i can say the name on here can i? i could PM you if that's ok, and give you more details.
I do not know of anyone personally who has dealt with this company, and most of the people have never heard of them.
The only thing we have on paper, is the transfer of deeds, which i needed to produce for the housing benefit, which by the way, took them nearly 3 weeks to send me!
I know the shower is not important, but it was at the time, as it was the only form of bathing we had, the kids were being sent to my mums every other night for a bath! or the neighbours.
On the 5th December, they rang and told me they were going to revamp the house, ie; central heating new windows etc, bit of a coincidence then, that they have now sent me a notice to quit don't you?
All in all, we only have a deeds transfer, and a tennancy agreement, nothing else, apart from the NTQ.
Let me know if you want me to PM you, thanks, Jane.

24-12-2005, 20:28 PM
When they told us we could live here indefinatly, this was only verbal, but i do have an independant witness to when it was said.
They are registered with Companies house, but i have been told, that doesn't make any difference on their legitimacy, as long as they pay their tax and vat.
Also, i had another LL look at the deeds, and he said there is a couple of grand "that looks as though it has gone missing"
Sorry if i have gone off thread a bit, but i don't want to start the new year off with having legal fights on my hands and having to look eleswhere to live.
I think if i could prove certain things, it would give me piece of mind.

24-12-2005, 20:28 PM

I think you can post the name here. Do they have a website ?

If they told you verbally that you could live there then you do have a case. It is harder to prove but not impossible.

Also I think that any court would find it odd the you would sell the house knowing that you could be thrown out after six months.

Did you sell the property for market value or less ?

Please take legal advise. You should be arguing breech of contract as you sold them the house under the understanding that you had a secure tenancy, you need to argue that they lied and misslead you.

I would not call them anymore, put everything in writting and make sur eyou remain calm at all times. If possible keep up to date with your payments.

I presume you have an AST issued to you ? Did you not question this 6 months arrangement at the time ? If so what dod they say ?

Merry Xmas and dont worry. Worst case is you have to leave but they have to pay £1000s to get you out !!


24-12-2005, 20:44 PM
We sold the house for £43,000 which was the outstanding mortgage, plus arrears.
We had 2 secured loans which came to £22,000, altogether.
£65.000 in total right? well, on the deeds, it says £74.000!!
Yes, i agree, if we knew they would throw us out within 6 months, we would never have sold the house to them in the first place. it doesn't make sense does it?
The 6 month AST, they said it was standard for all new tennancies, but after the 6 months, we would go onto a "periodic" one. which i know is the norm, as the girl down the road is on one of those.
I am going to write to the LL personally, via recorded delivery, ( so they can't say they never got it) and ask him, would he reconsider his decision to not re-new the tennancy, specially after the conversations i have had with his staff.
But, something told me from the start, this would happen, for some reason, there has always been a "niggling" feeling in the back of my mind.
Also, when they bought the house, we had a 3 month period to buy back the property, ( which is obvious we couldn't do) and after that, they advertise it to "private landlords" My house, is now on the rightmove.co.uk website, for.... £90,000. Their info on it says that it needs modernising, (cosmetically if you ask me) and that a previous house sold down the same road as me went for....£105,000 that is a crock of crap, there hasn't been ONE house sold for that amount here whatsoever!!!!
BTW, it says on it "external viewing only, tennants not to be disturbed" we didn't even know they were selling it, it was my friend who rang me to tell me it was on the market!!! cheeky sods!

24-12-2005, 21:08 PM
Just a quick question, if things went as far as court, after i took legal advice, could the judge be in my favour, if things were explained? ie; could they make the LL re-new the tennancy? proberbly a bit of a far fetched question question i know, but like you say, we would NEVER have sold the house to them if we knew what was going to happen, they basically gave us a "false sense of security" in my book. I do have dates and times wrote for things too, which i think may help me.

24-12-2005, 21:18 PM
Just to correct what Zoe said. I would not post the name of the company....not only is it irrelevant to the advice given, but also can cause problems for this website.

24-12-2005, 21:19 PM

I think that you should be arguing that you should have been offered a secure tenancy and not an AST. If the terms of the sale (even if verbally) were that you would be able to remain in teh house as long as you wanted then this is binding.

you need legal advice.

The deeds need looking into.

At the time you sold the house, what was the value of the property on the open market ? It makes no sence for you to agree to sell your home to a company for less than market value if you were going to be thrown out.

Dont contact the LL by recorded delivery. Dont do anything just yet.

Get yourself some legal advise. I think yoy should be fighting for breech of contract. If the property was sold to them for 74k when the property is worth 90k then you should be suing for the difference and compensation and arguing that you were led to believ that you were selling at a discount in exchange for being able to stay in the property.

Get legal advice, write to watch dog, contact your local paper, try and find other people affected. It sounds like a very serious conn aimed at scamming vulnerable people out of their homes.

Dont agree to leave the property and do everything via a lawyer....


24-12-2005, 21:29 PM
If the terms of the sale (even if verbally) were that you would be able to remain in teh house as long as you wanted then this is binding.

Binding perhaps, but such a verbal agreement would:

a) have to be quite specifically worded to be taken as an oral contract, and

b) proven.

(A) is unlikely, (B) is virtually impossible.

And Zoe, with respect, I completely disagree with you. What I see here is a company having bought a property, and having then had issues with rent payment from the property, decided to evict the tenants. Whilst their changing their minds *could* be considered morally dubious, it certainly isn't unlawful. This is totally just my opinion, especially as I have not read all of the detail of the third part of this thread. However, the impression I have is not of some great "con" at all, but a genuine, if slightly misguided with some specific legal elements, company, trying to cut their losses with who they see as a problem tenant.

24-12-2005, 21:36 PM
Mr Shed

You may disagree, but there may be a case.

Forget the rent arears, this is not relevant IMO.

The company sounds like is is a complete conn, buying houses from desperate people, for less than it is worth, even then the value on the deeds and teh sum of money paid doesn't match up. Why would a company do this on the legit ?

Granted the seller of the property is quite naive to think they have a home for life when the buyer can sell on to any LL they wish. I personally would never be in this situation.

But consider the OP (no offence Jane), Finacial desperate, not particularly good with numbers, not good with legal jargon, assured by the buyers that they will have a home, selling their home of 14 years beleiving they can remain in it. I feel sorry for her and I feel that ths company has no right to buy a property by misleading their tenants in this way.

I just want Jane to take legal advice, i *could* be totaly wrong but I feel this needs looking into. Does it not sound completely unfair and dodgy to you ?


24-12-2005, 21:42 PM
Zoe, as I said, I do disagree, but I did also say this was purely my own opinion. I am not stating that she does not have a case, merely that I personally do not believe so. I also feel sorry for her, but as I have also stated myself on this and another thread, the poster(unfortunately) has to take a large part of the blame for this upon herself. And, as I disagree, I definitely do not agree with you that it sounds "completely unfair and dodgy"! However, you are of course totally correct in recommending consultation with a legal professional, they are the people who can tell the poster for definite, not merely your and my opinions based upon differing viewpoints, so OP, I would certainly highly recommend taking Zoe's advice here and consulting with a solicitor about this. Certain solicitors, including Painsmith(advertised on this forum) will give you a certain amount of free basic advice - however there is no substitute for acquiring good, paid, legal representation. My concern is that without any written agreement stating you are entitled to stay indefinitely once you sell the property, you have virtually nothing at all to base a claim on. Even if you did have such a thing in writing, I would assume that the company would have had the sense to add "escape clauses", such as when rent is not paid, which would allow them to break it anyway in your case!

Zoe I fully take your point, I feel the poster is in a very difficult situation, and will cause immense problems for her. However, just because someone feels hard done by, does not mean they have been. And, it is important to differ between moral rights and legal rights, and even then it is important to point out when such legal rights may as well not exist anyway as it is virtually impossible to prove! It is very easy to say a verbal contract is binding(don't get me wrong, you were right to say this). But the fact of the matter is, such a contract may as well not be binding, for the virtual impossibility of proving such a contract.

24-12-2005, 21:53 PM
It makes no sence for you to agree to sell your home to a company for less than market value if you were going to be thrown out.

The property was being repossessed.

24-12-2005, 22:05 PM
Yes, i agree with you, i have made problems myself, but what i can't understand, is that they tell me they are going to do this that and the other, then come up with every excuse possible to cover their backs.
IE; the agreed payment proposal to be put in writing, Never happened.
The rent arrears would not be a problem as such, if they had put it in writing, but i think they told me things, to keep me off their backs.
They do advertise in the paper saying "assured rent back"
The price of houses at the time of them buying mine, was about; £80,000 like the other LL said, there does seem to be some monies that don't seem accounted for.
I will seek legal advice, i think there are a few in the stockport area that deal with these sort of probs. Many thanks for you replies, have a lovely christmas, and i will let you know how i go on with things in the new year.
Zoe, i will take your advice, and see a lawyer before i write to the LL.
Mr Shed, thank you for your advice, it has helped me understand how things work. Jane.

24-12-2005, 22:20 PM
Energise, yes, the property was going to be repo'd, but they bought it from us the week before this was due to happen, although they waited till the due date of the repo to take place, before they exchanged contracts, after they told me everything was finalised. We had the bailliff turn up at 10.30am, they didn't exchange contracts untill 10.45am! even the bailliff rang the companys solicitor and asked her what was going on, and she told her she had already faxed the paperwork through, which we found out was rubbish, so the bailliff gave her 30 mins to get it sorted, which she did.
This happened on the monday, when they had already told me on the friday that they had already done it! does this sound dodgy or what!?
Even the baillif said she thought they wanted us to be evicted, so they would have an empty house to have! i do have her nam etc, but i don't know if those people are allowed to back you up in cases like mine, i know she made a note of what was going on, as she said she had never come across that sort of situation before. Jane.

24-12-2005, 23:03 PM
jinny on the right there is a logo for Painsmith solicitors they are specialists give them a call they will be able to tell you if you have a possibility of calling them on their oral agreement I am not sure, on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy there mandatory groungs for a landlord to reposses the property, to have anything other than an AST it must be specific and in writing.

24-12-2005, 23:22 PM
Thanks Energise, i have looked at their website, and i will give them a ring in the new year, preferably the first week! they seem quite helpful on both tennant advice and LL advice.
Have a good christmas. Jane.

26-12-2005, 21:45 PM
Today, 26-12-05, i got a hand delivered letter, well, it was a copy of the NTQ, it said "by hand" with a date of 26-12-05, but it had been altered to say 23-12-05. It must have come sometime this afternoon, as it wasn't there this morning, Boxing day of all days!
They still haven't returned my call, so i take it they do not want anymore contact with me.

28-12-2005, 03:50 AM
Maybe i should point out section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

2.—(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.

(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.

28-12-2005, 21:06 PM
OK, after re-reading this post from the start, am i in my rights to question the section 21 notice they have given, espcially as i am lead to believe this is a notice that doesn't need a reason for you to quit?
What i am trying to ask, is this; if they have given me a section 21, then why have they not given me a notice stating the reason WHY they want me out? could this be because i could take this to court for a hearing if they stated rent arrears on a notice? and the section21 being classed as a mandatory proceedure?
I was told by someone today, that i could tape their conversations, but i do not think this would hold up in court or any legal meetings would it?
If the sec 21 is for no particular reason, then they have gone back on their word by buying my house with the assurance of me living there indefinatly.

29-12-2005, 02:23 AM
Sorry but if you are implying that by having a reason to evict they are breaching some kind of agreement, then this argument simply will not hold up. I guess this is what you are trying to mean.

29-12-2005, 10:15 AM
Jinny, stop clutching at straws!

Sounds like you have a lot of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" going on in your life.

If the landlord (ie the owner) wants their property back, they don't have to give anybody a reason but they do have to go through the courts, starting with a S21 notice. What more can possibly be said on the subject?

29-12-2005, 11:10 AM
I do know of a similar comapny which gives one day courses on how to buy up repossession houses, all of which is legal, but perhaps not morally ok for lots of people. However, a house can be sold for any amount by the owner, regardless of what other houses go for in an area. If someone is after a quick sale, and another after a good deal then I do not see what the fuss is about. When someone owns something they can do as they wish, if nothing was signed saying they would always have the property to rent then, then guess who has a problem. Also why should a landlord have someone in their house who cannot/does not pay to be there. The house was being repossessed, so they would have had to leave anyway. The fact that the arrears was because of redundancy is not the problem for the people who bought the house.

29-12-2005, 11:55 AM
Yes, maybe i was clutching at straws, but i have spoken to a solicitor this morning, who advised me i DO HAVE A CASE. will let you know the outcome.

Choices- My husband was made redundant before this company bought the house.

29-12-2005, 12:17 PM
What does the solicitor say the case is based upon out of interest? Was it a specialist solicitor in property and letting law?

29-12-2005, 13:44 PM
No, you ARE clutching at straws. There is nothing in your case to prevent the owner of the property evicting you through the courts, the same way as any other tenant.

Save what money you have left, don't waste it on a solicitor, prepare to move out.

You've received plenty of free advice here from people who are closely involved with the property business. What makes you (and now your solicitor) think they are wrong?

29-12-2005, 14:12 PM
The way this company have gone about their business with me, saying one thing, then backtracking on things, denying things they have previously said etc, i have asked for things to be confirmed in writing but they have never done this. If i knew they were going to evict us, specially after 6 months, i would never had sold the house to them, the only reason we did sell to them, was because they assured us we could rent back indefinatly, and they advertise this in the paper. I do have the backrent in the bank, and i know i will have to pay this no matter what. But it seems to me this company have lied to me, they say they have houses to rent all over the area, but they don't, on their website the only SELL houses, so like i said in a previous post, i think they rent out for 6 months then issue people with a section 21.

29-12-2005, 14:16 PM
Honestly, if your solicitor has said you are going to win a case on the basis of what you have just put, your solicitor is an even bigger conman than this company. There is just no way on earth he is going to win a breach of contract case based upon vague oral promises, which cannot be proven.

29-12-2005, 14:28 PM
Yeh, he is supposed to be looking into it, but i have come to the conclusion, i am flogging a dead horse as they say!
I appreciate your replies, and i know there must be people out there somewhere who are worse off than myself, but it is the principal of the way they have dealt with things that has got me annoyed. For a company that's sposed to big as big as theirs, they have a funny way of going about business, they never return phone calls when they say, you can never seem to be able to speak to the landlord direct, even though he is in the office, things are only verbal, they never put things in writing when they say they will, the list goes on, but i have to see the local housing officer next week, as he has wrote to the landlord and he is waiting for his reply, i will let you know what transpires. Jane.

29-12-2005, 14:32 PM
Jinny again don't get me wrong, as I have put above somewhere, I sympathise with your position, and yes the company probably has not behaved completely honestly with you. However, you need to realise the difference between certain slight misjudgements on their part, and crime of the century, and also the difference between what has happened, and what is legally binding and provable. This solicitor in my opinion is giving you hope where there is little to have. He may win some points on some technicalites found, but this will be a case of winning a battle and losing the war. Can I suggest an email to Painsmith solicitors? They should be able to help you.

29-12-2005, 14:41 PM
Yes, thanks Poppy, someone else suggested i try them, but with it being the hols etc, i was going to wait till next tuesday, but obviously if i email them, they will get it anyway, i will do that today, and just outline the general things, etc, i will keep you posted! Jane.

29-12-2005, 14:42 PM
Sorry! i meant to put MR SHED!

29-12-2005, 14:42 PM
Yes, thanks Poppy

Seriously people love getting my name wrong in the last 24 hours!! :D

29-12-2005, 14:48 PM

Once the housing authority know that you:

- sold your house
- renting it back
- not paying rent
- getting evicted

They may conclude that you are intentionally homeless.

In this particular set of circumstances, you would be best advised to pay your rent and wait to be evicted.

Any possibility of getting back into your landlord's good books?

29-12-2005, 14:50 PM
You sure Poppy? Well sorry obviously not sure, but you even think so? The poster is being evicted on S21 not S8, no reason needs to be given, I would say unintentionally every time.

29-12-2005, 20:12 PM
Jinny, you have had good advice all the way through the postings. This is what you wanted, so why keep on, it was you that did not pay the mortgage so then bailed out to keep the house, it is no-one's fault except your bad luck. I know it is an awful thing to happen, have been without roof over my head before, with 4 horses and 2 dogs to look after, life is shitty at times. Husband losing job was bad luck too, but you must now look at a more positive future and let go of all the negative energy that you have. It will not get you the house back if the MD does not want to talk to you or listen to reason, he is in business to make money. He will not care about you, some peple are like that, it stinks, but the harsh realities of life. I hope things work out for you.

29-12-2005, 20:18 PM

I would not give up yet. If your solicitor thinks that you might have a case about the conduct of the company and about the way they have lied to you in order to buy your house then I think you should look into this.

You need to keep the two issues seperate, the possible misconduct of the property purchase and the notice to quite are seperate. It is not likely that the court will grant you anythinjg more than compensation.

Pay the rent up to date and wait to be evicted.

In th emeantime still pursue your case with the solicitor on the other matter of the house sale and the possible breech of conduct. It may be hard to prove what was said but not impossible.

Go back to you solicitor and ask why they think you will win, what you will win and possible costs.

Good luck.


30-12-2005, 00:32 AM
Choices, the mortgage was not paid due to hubbys loss of job, and the insurance did not pay out.
Zoe, The housing officer has wrote to the landlord asking him if i was to get the rent upto date, will he re-consider re-newing the tennancy agreement.
he has sent me a copy of the letter, so i am hoping the landlord will reply to him asap.
Poppy, The housing know what has gone on, i have told them everything, and they have basically said that the circumstances i am in at the moment is not my fault, hence the section 21, that can happen to anybody. They cannot penelise me for selling my home after assurance of being able to rent it indefinatly. That is where the problem is, they have lied!

30-12-2005, 11:35 AM
I'm not sure there's much illegal happened, more a case of unscrupulous people making money from others' hard luck. Watchdog may be interested.

30-12-2005, 14:43 PM
I have just emailed Painsmith solicitors, so hopefully i will get a reply, will let you know what they say in due course! I didn't give them the blow by blow account, i just outlined the things i have said on here. Thanks guys for all your replies! Jane.