General Chat

I was watching on TV a repeat episode of a programme about recovery of debt.
A pair of bailiffs arrive at the address of the debt with a court writ. They are legally authorized to recover the debt or remove property to sell in auction to pay the debt.
Many of those in debt had no intention of paying and need a visit.
But in the episode I saw bailiffs arrived at rented property to evict the occupants so that the owner had his property back.
Sadly the occupant were a young woman who hadn't seen her husband in a long time and two small children. Despite this scenario the bailiffs had to have the woman bag her "stuff" and leave the building with her children. So that she could not re-enter the building the locks were changed.
What became of the woman and her children ? God knows :-(

It is an unfortunate fact of life that landlords have to shell out and need the rent. Those without insurance can come to a sticky end. The UK housing assistance does not kick in until the tenant + kids + belongings is quite literally on the street. Most likely the mother and kids will be put in a hostel or B&B and wait a long time to be rehoused poss a long way away.
Even those who pay the rent can fall into this trap uf the landlord ends the tenancy.

'Move on; move out' - a regular expression heard by 'homeless' Irish travellers who camped illegally, often by the roadside.

A slight improvement from earlier generations instructions: eg. 'To hell or to Connacht'.

But the result was always the same.

In another episode a man had rented a house and lapsed on the rent big time.
The bailiffs could not find him, he'd gone,but he had sub let each of the rooms to a family !! The bailiffs had the unhappy task of emptying the house of all those people and their effects before changing the locks. They didn't understand why, they had paid for the rooms they were living in. Very sad scenario. Sometimes the Police are involved :-( but the bailiffs have the authority of a high court writ.

The CH5 programme Cant pay ? Well'll take it away, has been in trouble for televising it. It was screened without permission and repeated 35 times.

Channel 5 ordered to pay £20,000 damages to evicted couple

Channel 5 and its ilk are fond of all kinds of bs and much loved by the DM readers. Anybody taking them seriously is an apple short of an orchard.

CH5's Can't pay ? we'll take it away is listed as a documentary. Sorry if you disapprove.
The fact (?) that CH5 were fined £20,000 pounds is a piece of information (true or false) that I cut copied and pasted from the web.

"Documentaries" which break the law and distort the truth are not documentaries but a part of the vast fog of false news in which far too many credulous people believe.

Society today is openly assaulting the truth.

? Strewth. Perhaps GR and other forums on which I and millions of of others, yourself included, post and exchange "gossip" is a broth of fake news ?

Have a nice day

Of course, there are many perspectives on all things.

Some years ago, a local farmer allowed a couple to live in a derelict cottage in his yard because they had nowhere else.

He felt betrayed when they had the very substandard dwelling condemned but it was their only hope of being considered for social housing. There was no element of ingratitude in their action at all.

Some of the buildings the bailiffs evict people from have been trashed. :-|

Or had they, David? What state were they in when the tenants moved in?
Had the landlord carried out reported repairs?
Since 2016, rented properties don't have to be of a 'habitable' standard, thanks to a rejected amendment:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/tories-reject-move-to-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation

I would also like to say, it would be a foolhardy landlord who didn't have their property insured. The tenant only needs to have 'personal possession' insurance, if they choose, the landlord should have Buildings Insurance.
The tenant isn't responsible for the structural aspect of the building.

When I reported a leak from either my boiler or hot water tank (a damp patch about 2x1 inches), to the Council and I was informed by some bloke in an office that the boiler & tank couldn't be in the same cupboard - they were, I could see them - they'd been there for years - through 3 boiler changes and 2 tank changes but, apparently, I'm thick.
The Council contractors spent 3 weeks 'fixing' an unbroken boiler, which led to the ceiling falling in, water in the electrics, and the plaster falling off the wall, as water cascaded faster and faster from the leaking hot water tank, I can assure you, that would come under Buildings Insurance.
Apparently, I was 'responsible' for the damaged carpet, and the broken lampshade (clumsy electrician), through my home insurance.
So apparently, my premiums would go up through the ignorance of Council contractors? They didn't - I dried out the carpet and bought a new lampshade - but had I been in private rented accommodation, the damage to the 'fixtures and fittings' would be taken from the deposit, despite their damage not being my fault

The building I had in mind was semi commercial and had been occupied by several "squatters" These squatters appear to have self assumed rights over the property they have to be evicted from.