Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have legally evicted a tenant and the baliff attended whilst locks were changed on Tues but tenant has left all possessions and says they are trying to get housed by council but I need to leave the country and secure my property but when I ring tenant to request they come for there belongings they have a million and one excuses as to why they cannot...what can I do as I need to fly out by Sunday...please any suggestions apart from throwing there stuff on the street and getting myself in a legal war...
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/1602-any-advice-on-eviction-please/
Share on other sites

I've just asked a friend (Baliff) here's her advice


By law they can't just get rid of their stuff, they have to issue the tenant with reasonable notice - usually 7 days and usually in the window of the property or served on the tenant if they know where they are - best done by a solicitor. After that period they can then legally dispose/sell stuff. Until then, they're stuffed, I'm afraid. Only alternative is to put it in storage but it'll be at the landlord's cost until the tenant can pick it up.
ok thanks guys...so I did the right thing by leaving a note on the door saying that these premises have been repossesed by....as of...in conjunction with court case number....at..court and in attendance with a court baliff...please note you have 10 days to make arrangements to collect possessions after which they will be dispossed of....but isn't it a bummer that tenant has known this action was pending and drawing ever closer and even still has not made adequate arrangements and still causing problems...amazing how the council eagerly try to get us to house people but when it's time for them to go and we do it all legal and correct we still have further hurdles to cross at great expense...

Kai - I've no idea what kind of tenant this person was - may well have been a nightmare in which case, my sympathies


But so far it reads as if you alone have decided on a course of action, and without explaining further, it sounds like the tenant is the one who has been put out. Literally and figuratively


If the shoe was on the other foot and your home was taken from you you wouldn't go out of your way to be THAT helpful would you?


As I say tho, you may have been forced into this action by an unreasonable tenant so I don't want to judge either way

Just comply with the law and put their things in storage if needs be. A bit inconvenient but I think you are obliged to. If you are going to line your pockets by providing housing for people you have a responsibility towards those people and society. Even if they are nasty buggers and you have to quite justifiably kick them out. That is why the law is in place.

Can I just say that I am amazed at the flak (no matter how politely couched) that Kai has been getting here - poor tenant, how difficult it is for the tenant etc. All that may be true but I do know that eviction notices are not issued lightly and the tenant has usually given a landlord every reason to evict them if an eviction order is issued. So, whilst I think it wise for Kai to comply with the law, I don't think he has any obligation at all to incur any additional costs on behalf of a tenant who must have well over-stepped the mark to get evicted in the first place and who doesn't seem to have taken steps him/herself to sort the situation.


I imagine that Kai has already had to invest quite a bit of time, energy and possibly money into this process and to expect him to further act as a de facto banker and storage facility to this tenant is a bit much. After all, who will pay the storage costs if this stuff is put in storage? Kai? The tenant who doesn't seem to want to deal with it? I'd be interested to know.

Having read Kai's posts, I think evict might be a bad choice of word. The plenty of notice, and going overseas bit suggests that possibly it wasn't an eviction due to any fallings out... I could of course be wrong. As for the original subject, I am actually with the landlord on this one, the person should get their bloody stuff out of a place where they no longer live. I say that as someone who rents by the way.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which porsche?

> How about this one?

>

>

> Dangerous streets these days, much safer than a

> boxster.




Am I right in thinking that that is a Panzer Ferdinand from WW2 (built on a Tiger chassis)? It is indeed interesting to note that many of our contemporary vehicle builders were heavily involved in arms production in WW2. I think of Porche, Skoda and MAN.

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Similarly Rolls Royce (Spitfire)


Not sure if this applies to anyone here, but there is soon to be published a Haynes Manual on the Spitfire.


Now no excuses for not restoring that one sitting in the back garden under tarpaulin.....

> Am I right in thinking that that is a Panzer Ferdinand from WW2

You are indeed, I hotlunk it to its wikipedia page, so just click on the pic.


I guess it makes sense that in times of total war a country turns to its existing industrialists for expertise and production capacity.

Swords into ploughshares and back again. As someone pointed out it was no different here really. I think it was that Porsche's son who went on to make nice sports cars a decade later.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Has anyone had any joy getting refunds for their cancelled kids' swimming lessons? I am constantly just getting a 'computer says no' response from Dulwich Leisure - quite how they think its okay to charge £42.40 per child without a service being given is beyond me! I will try emailing Portia too...
    • Just to clarify, this isn't the same cherry as last year, it's in the corner by the path that runs down to the crossroads of FHR / Colyton / Dunstans. It hasn't been an issue previously because the perimeter wasn't as large... I'm sure it must have been noticed & flagged during the various planning meetings, walkabouts etc and there is an ecological resolution planned that will avoid any damage to the tree. After all, Gala pride themselves on their environmental stance, being "nestled in the park" and everything... 🤦
    • Those branches are going to get chopped...again. All of this shows the central paradox at the heart of Southwark's greening the streets policy. What is the good of planting trees in tarmac if you are simultaneously wrecking large sections of the park and stopping locals using the park? It just does not make sense. Cllr Catherine Rose should be made to answer for Gala conduct, if they are already flouting the terms of their agreement.
    • All, I have had bad experiences with scaffolders in the past. They have a hard job and sometimes damage your house by accident. The way they deal with it after this is usually what remains in their customers' minds...... and I have used a few different companies across last 12 years as a customer. I don't know if it is an exception, but I found LDS scaffolding's guys really good: Discrete, focused and on time. Their comms was ok. I have made sure I saved their contacts and will use them again. Prices felt fair. LEE GORE 07931642467  DEAN PRICE 07940531370  Olivier
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...