I guess Sandcastle you are a landlord and you would never understand hard working tenants can some times fall behind due to pandemic etc, and then you engage with them first before taking them to courts.. If you have nothing constructive to reply, how about not writing anything at all !?
I owed 4 months rent (combined total) at the during the pandemic (it wasn't I did not pay at all, been paying reduced rent after getting in touch with LL) and now got it down to 1.5 months..
well, yes, I am trying to clear the arrears, but if the landlord is arrogant to still go to court despite my good intention and actions, I got to give it back to him right...?But, I understand from KTC and JPKEATES, the ground under s214 seems not valid..I will have to do more research on this..anyway, anybody know what impact agreeing to a consent order with LL be pls? This is because, I am trying to see if it is better to defend the s8 or agree to a consent order which as I understand just to have a legal force to a payment plan I had put forward and can commit to.
anybody know what impact agreeing to a consent order with LL be pls? This is because, I am trying to see if it is better to defend the s8 or agree to a consent order which as I understand just to have a legal force to a payment plan I had put forward and can commit to.
If the debt is more than two months, it would be quite reasonable for the judge to award the possession claim (because they have to) and then suspend it to allow you to clear the debt in line with the payment plan.
I'm not sure how estoppel interacts with section 8 here. On its own if ground 8 are met, the court must award an order for possession and cannot suspend it. The most it can do is postpone it to up to six weeks from the date of the making of the order. Maybe the tenant in such a situation could apply for and get an adjournment before the hearing of evidence on the basis that there's an agreed payment plan that's being followed. Once the hearing take place, it's too late.
And s9 seems to be otherwise pointless - because the "extended discretion" given by the section is essentially removed by s9(6) as the schedule of possible grounds is, as far as can tell, exhaustive.
Quote from: jpkeates on July 26, 2022, 12:17:20 PMAnd s9 seems to be otherwise pointless - because the "extended discretion" given by the section is essentially removed by s9(6) as the schedule of possible grounds is, as far as can tell, exhaustive.The discretion is disapplied for Part I of Schedule 2 and section 21, i.e. all the mandatory grounds. All the discretionary ground is in Part II of Schedule 2. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 limits how long the court may otherwise suspend a possession order for, also probably the reason why discretion needed to be specifically stated in s9.