UK Landlord Forum / Life

My landlord is threatening me with a Section 8 on grounds of contravening my lease (Nothing to do with rent arrears) which, in this particular case (I've checked) would be a discretionary decision by the Court (if we get that far). I'm inclined to let it run its course and take the risk of the Court finding against me. This will allow me to stay in my home for maybe 3-4 months longer (while the court proceedings are prepared etc) and won't cost me any money, since the LL will have to stump up the costs of bringing the case against me. Am i missing something?
Can the LL be awarded her costs from me if he wins the case? Will my credit references etc be affected even though this has nothing to do with rent arrears? Can future LL's be made aware of my being previously evicted? etc etc

Many thanks for any advice

Being evicted does not necessarily carry the negative connotations you might be construing. It is actually the technical term for asking someone to leave your property... this goes on all the time, right? In the vast majority of cases it is because a tenancy comes to a natural end or the Landlord and Tenant(s) end it by mutual agreement.

Being evicted by going all the way to Court, though, and having a discretionary Ground of Section 8 found against you, well, the Landlord must be confident in what you've been up to? There's absolutely no guarantee they would be successful, as you know. If they were then I would think that their costs could be claimed from you, that makes sense to me. I don't see how your credit score will be adversely affected, but I do think future Landlords may be aware, especially - of course - if you wanted a reference from your current Landlord.

I think I would focus my efforts elsewhere... like finding somewhere that's better for me. It can't be good knowing that the Landlord wants you out.

Hi Hippogriff, many thanks for your prompt response. I really appreciate it.
The Landlord  claims to have 3 grounds under section 8:
12 (which is a catch all for "contravening the lease"; )
14 (causing nuisance to neighbours: which I will counter, I have many neighbour friends in the same block who will vouch for me) .
17 (a tiny issue where I was "economical with the truth". The original AST said "No pets". I asked could I bring A cat, and the LL agreed and changed the AST accordingly. I actually brought TWO cats with me and one of the cats is causing some neighbours (who also have cats) grief)).  The LL is angry because I didn't tell her that actually I had two cats, and she claims that she would not have signed the AST had she known.

Even if she doesn't go through with her section 8 threat, I'm sure she'll give me notice in 7 months time under section 21.
My view is: I love it here. I'm a very good tenant. And I would prefer to live here for another 9 months, rather than (say) 4 months if I lose a court case, and I don't see why the court will not just demand as a worst case scenario, that I comply with the AST and get rid of one cat (which I wouldn't do of course, I would leave) But would such a "soft" court ruling still mean that the LL could be awarded costs? If not I've got nothing to fear, it seems.

I perceive Section 8 as a means of achieving eviction, not of 'correcting' Tenant behaviour. The Court would surely rule one way or the other, not say - "you must now only keep 1 cat and, if you do that (which you won't) then you can stay"?

.mmmm..wise words.......I always forget that the law is absolutely 100% logical, and I'm sure you're right.
In which case would costs be awarded as well? This is beginning to sound a bit financially risky.