Forum Home Search Login Register
+  Landlord Forum
|-+  General Category
| |-+  Tenant Advice & Help
| | |-+  who has to be pay the court fees?

who has to be pay the court fees?

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: who has to be pay the court fees?  (Read 360 times)
Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« on: December 13, 2020, 10:52:28 AM »

Hi,

Thanks for any replies.

If a landlord begins courts proceedings for rent arrears, but before going to court he accepts late payment from the tenant, and allows the tenant to stay, who has to pay for the court costs that the landlord began?

Newbie
Posts: 13

I like property

« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2020, 05:16:24 AM »

He has already paid the fees and if he has withdrawn the case then it is a matter of negotiation between you .   

A negotiation in which you can tell him to go F himself if you want but is not without risks...

If he took you to the small claims court it is rare for costs to be awarded against the other party - whoever wins.

However a pissed off landlord has many ways to squeeze more cash out of you one way or another and/or you may be relying on them to give you a reference and/or not ask you to leave via a S21 notice.

Essentially there are a lot of ways to play this, no matter your guilt or innocence.

How did this all come about ?







Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2020, 12:34:08 PM »

Thank you.

The landlord is a housing cooperative - they are a social landlord and there is a pre-action protocol that allows for rent arrears to be paid by instalments rather than by going to court.

I fell into rent arrears in mid 2019 because my family needed some assistance and I used the rent money to help them.
I have been in this coop since 2011 and no problem at all until this incident. It's 8 years and no problems.

I am also in receipt of Universal Credit (UC)

I agreed on a payment by instalments. However, the coop then lied to me about some issue with UC. It's a lie corroborated by UC.

I challenged the coop about this lie and suspended payment, but and this is a very important but, I tried to engage in conversation with them so that the issue of the lie could be sorted out and then I could continue the payments.

The coop got extremely upset when I challenged them over the lie. They broke communication with me and then began the court proceedings. Breaking communication in the way they did goes against their pre-action protocol policy.

I asked the council's homelessness prevention officer to intervene. She got in touch with the coop, but they did not reply. I have evidence of this. Instead they drove through to court.

I then realized that the tenancy agreement I have provides basic protection.

I kept the money UC gave me for housing purposes and did not give it to the coop because of the untrustworthy manner in that they were behaving. Given that I only have basic protection, I could have given them the money and they would have still evicted me. I would only give them the money if there was some third party that could oversee that I was paying them. As they wouldn't talk to the homelessness prevention officer, I decided to give them the money at court so that the judge would oversee that I had paid them. Giving them the money without someone impartial overseeing matters was a huge risk because they are full of foul play.

When I turned up to court and their barrister spoke to me, I told him that I had the money, then barrister went and came back and offered me to stay if I gave them the money there and then. I asked the barrister to have the offer checked with the duty officer. So he had it checked with the duty officer who said it was up to me. So I accepted the offer to let me stay and I transferred the money there and then.

Then we entered court and the coop's barrister asked for proceedings to be adjourned.

Had the coop engaged in conversation with me when I challenged them about the lie, the matter would have been sorted there and then. Furthermore, had the coop engaged with the homelessness prevention officer who would have overseen a by instalments repayment plan, again the matter would never have gone to court.

The coop has not asked me to pay the court fees as yet.

The court proceedings came about because the coop is full of foul play. However, if one challenges them, they don't accept that they got it wrong, but instead they have to teach you a lesson and appear right when they are wrong.

Thanks again






Jr. Member
Posts: 66

I like spoons

« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2021, 05:25:44 PM »

I would be extremely annoyed as a landlord that the government assistance you are being paid (you have not earned, you are being gifted it by the UK government), that is specifically designated to be used towards housing, was held back and not paid to the organization that is putting a roof over your head. All because you had your feelings hurt.

I would advise you pay the court costs as without your holding back of payment, they would not have needed to pay the court costs. This is a result of your action, and your action alone.

Sorry if that is the brutal truth.
Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2021, 04:33:00 PM »

Nope.

One I am not being gifted anything. I've worked for many years and paid plenty of taxes. So I am just being assisted in a moment of need.

1. The coop lied, I attempted to talk to them. They refused.

2. I asked Camden to talk to them, and they refused to talk.

Had they talked to me at step1, or step 2, then there was no need to go to court.

However, the coop, who is made up a very violent group of people, wanted to teach me a lesson for my having challenged them over the lie. Well their attempt to teach me a lesson rebounded on them. Now they can stuff it and pay the court fees themselves.

I am an incredibly decent person who stood up to them and did not let them get away with their nasty tricks, lies and foul play. In their application they argued that they have made huge efforts to communicate with me - another lie because I have evidence of the Camden homeless prevention adviser writing to them, and them not replying.

Many people make a huge issue about money. But money is not the real red card offence. The real red card offence is when people break communication.

When it comes to living off the government, it is them who do so. Those who administer the coop have hijacked power. They run the coop as if it were their own business, and they know that they can mistreat the tenants, lie to them and more because most of the tenants are jobless with no mobility who would not stand up to the administrators for fear of losing their homes. Income is assured to the coop because the government will pay, and the administrators suck the udder of the benefit system in such way. They lick their lips at the tasty milk.

 




Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 1068

I like property

« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2021, 06:04:40 PM »

You obviously see yourself as the injured party,but I see someone who has been foolish,then proceeded to make matters worse by being bloody-minded.Why on earth,if you live on benefits,did you think you should offer financial help to someone else,getting into debt in the process?
You had a payment plan,then sabotaged that by refusing to pay,the reasons you give don't make real sense.Likewise, why drag things out to the last minute if you could have paid?
If your claims about violence,financial corruption and intimidation  of vulnerable people are true,have you made any real efforts to report them to the relevant authorities? If not,then it is hard to accept your version of events   
Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2021, 02:23:28 AM »

I am certainly the injured party, and I certainly was very cooperative; not bloody-minded at all.

It was a family need, so I assisted the family. They asked for help. I did not offer help. There is nothing horrible about this. The tenancy agreement does allow for one to fall into rent arrears (for whatever reason) and then recover from these by paying by instalments.

I did agree to pay by instalments and began doing so, but then they broke the agreement by lying. This lie is the straw that broke the camelís back. I suspended payment when they lied, not because I was terribly offended by a lie, but because I had put up from them far too much already, and I was not even going forgive a tiny lie from them any more.

Nevertheless I cooperated and was willing to discuss matters; not bloody minded.

They were bloody minded and became hugely offended because I wrote and these are the words, ďI think you have lied to meĒ. At this point they did not want to discuss with me any more and drove towards court. They were the ones who took a stance we are going to teach this fellow a lesson, how dare he challenges us? They did not want to talk to me, so it was them who are driving things to court. I am cooperating, but they are bloody minded.

Apart from my attempting to talk to them directly, I got the Camden Homelessness prevention adviser to talk to them. They ignore the adviser, so it is them who are driving to court. Another example that I attempted to cooperate, but they are bloody minded.

I did not have all the money I owed them when it all began. Over the months that elapsed before the court hearing, I was able to save the money. So I could not have given them the money when it all began.

The straw that broke the camelís back - my problems with them began as way back as Feb 2018. A long way before the rent problem of mid 2019.

Those problems were about mistreatment and hijacking of power. I used to be part of the management committee. I raised these issues at the management committee meetings, and that is when I began to find out how corrupt the click was.

As I attempted to address these issues through the correct channels, I was not welcomed. In the end without cause they suspended me from the management committee and without following the procedure set out in the code of conduct agreement that I had signed. Such agreement specifies that before being suspended I should receive a warning letter, and also that I have the right to a hearing to defend myself. They ignored all of that and chucked me out.

The chairman at the time left the coop because as he himself expressed it at a meeting and the minutes of the meeting reflect this, he had compromised his position by siding with the corrupt click. What made him jump was that I informed them that my MP was going to write to them, and he was very concerned about an outside body looking at them and left.

My MP has seen evidence and supports me, and has written to them on my behalf.

I wrote to the social landlord regulator. However, the coop was in the process of applying to become a social landlord, so as it was not yet a social landlord the regulator could do nothing. The coop is not yet (Jan 21) a social landlord, so I suspect their application was turned down and maybe the evidence I sent to the regulator may have had an effect. But I am not sure.

I also looked at writing to the Housing Ombudsman, but the coop is not registered with them either.

The coop is registered with the National Housing Federation, and I wrote to them. However, the federation wrote back telling me it does not get involved in the internal affairs of its members. 

At the management committee meetings when I aired my concerns about the manner the coop was being administered their faces of anger and hate are still vivid memories in me. This was April 2018.

On another occasion they began verbally assaulting me, I had to get out as quickly as I could. This was June 2018.

I tried to raise the issue through another correct channel - the Annual General Meeting (Dec 2018). So I asked them for permission to have a slot where I could present evidence to the other coop members. They blocked me and accused me of wanting to disrupt the meeting. So I never bothered to go as I did not want heated exchanges.

Once, I think it was in 2016, other members aggrieved at the corrupt administrators did air their dissatisfaction during the Annual General Meeting and it went really ugly. The police had to be called in. Since then the coop had to use security for the meetings.

There is written evidence of all that I written and there is more such as the ousting of a previous chairman who did try to stand up to the hijacking administrators.

What I failed to do was to gather strong evidence of financial wrong doing so that I could pass it on to the financial ombudsman. I was naÔve. Whilst being part of the management committee, I could have got hold of some, but I didnít. I began airing my concerns in a naÔve manner thinking that there was integrity in the management committee - I was wrong; itís a corrupt click.

Without appearing arrogant, I am the only person who has stood up to them, and they have not been able to get out. I've been able to do this because I am a very responsible, decent person who remains incredibly calm under huge pressure..
 
They can stuff it. They can pay the court fees. Teaches them a lesson.




Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2021, 04:36:19 PM »

I was not aware of what bloody-minded meant. So I looked it up in google. The example they give is extremely appropriate - "a bloody-minded landlord". Yes that is what I have.

The coop is small. It has about 300 tenants. I'd say only 20% of them attend annual general meetings. Barely 10% attend other activities such as barbecue event at summer time.

The coop members don't bother because they are well aware that the hijackers are there for themselves. As long as they have a roof over their heads, most members care less, and the hijackers carry on milking the system. The hijackers are useless; they wouldn't find work anywhere else. There is no way they are going to let go of the udder they suck from.

Supposedly they are non profit organisation and they make profits of over £1K. Then no one knows where the profits go.

Anyway, as yet they have not asked me to pay the court fees, and if they do, I don't plan to do so; it's now a year since the court proceedings.







Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2021, 04:15:46 PM »

You obviously see yourself as the injured party,but I see someone who has been foolish,then proceeded to make matters worse by being bloody-minded.Why on earth,if you live on benefits,did you think you should offer financial help to someone else,getting into debt in the process?
You had a payment plan,then sabotaged that by refusing to pay,the reasons you give don't make real sense.Likewise, why drag things out to the last minute if you could have paid?
If your claims about violence,financial corruption and intimidation  of vulnerable people are true,have you made any real efforts to report them to the relevant authorities? If not,then it is hard to accept your version of events

May I ask? In my narrative of events what makes me appear as if I had been bloody-minded?

I suspended payment, then I made two attempts at communicating with them - I am being cooperative. However, they made no attempt to communicate with me and drove to court. It is them who are bloody minded and didn't engage in communication. BTW, the tenancy is basic protection. So once the notice to quit expired and they introduced the court order, it was a mandatory request. Legally they knew that they would evict me - the court would not be able to protect me.

It's understandable why they were bloody-minded; they knew they were going to win.

You may ask me, why as I was saving money to pay didn't I deposit some in their account as a good will gesture? The answer is that I didn't trust them. Had I done that, they would have taken that money and still evict me because the request was mandatory. Furthermore, they had already introduced the request, so they had already paid the court costs. So my putting some money into their account would not have saved them the court costs.

Would you trust them?

The court costs would have been saved had they replied to the council's housing adviser. But they didn't cooperate. They didn't cooperate because they knew they were going to win, and evict me.

I ask about the bloody-mindedness because I would like to know why I am giving the impression of being so.

Thank you for any reply.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 05:36:06 PM by bermudj »
Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2021, 01:04:19 PM »

The situation I was in was that because of the basic protection and their request being mandatory they could have evicted me even though I paid them the money.

I could have paid them; nevertheless, they could have evicted me on the grounds that I owed the money!!!!!!

In summary the result could have been: I owed them no money. However they evicted me on the grounds that I owed them money.

And it was all legal!

But I am a tough man; took it on the chin and they failed to evict me.
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 1068

I like property

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2021, 02:53:02 PM »

I get it.Your story is all too familiar.Many will have come up against  similar situations.If you want to see real  corruption and incompetence, just get involved with a big charity.A friend retired to a lovely Devon village,and joined the parish council.It's like the sodding mafia,threats,and hate mail. Your mistake was in giving them reason to discredit you. You see yourself as having scored some victory,stuck it to The Man.They will say why would you be trusted to sit on the management  committee, when you can't even manage your own finances ? You have to keep your nose clean if you want to hold the moral high ground. 
Newbie
Posts: 16

I like property

« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2021, 06:44:43 PM »

....They will say why would you be trusted to sit on the management  committee, when you can't even manage your own finances ?

You have to keep your nose clean if you want to hold the moral high ground.
When I was chucked out of the management committee I had no financial problems. My rent arrears problems began a year after my being thrown out of the management committee (July 2018). I joined the coop in August 2010 and until July 2019, I had had no financial problems.

I am certainly 99% cleaner than them, and I did score a victory and stopped them from evicting me.

Now, I'll leave in my own terms and can look for a better place in my own time.

Thanks for the reply

Pages: [1]
Print