Unfortunately it does make sense to me in times when the only concerns are financial. Evict the existing tenants paying x amount and replace them with others on short stay in a deal with the council paying 3 times as much but still cheaper for them than alternatives. So everyone is a winner apart from those evicted of course but they are just people of little monetary value. A sad society we now live in.
Not sure if this is a wind-up. but these families are being kicked out to make way for homeless people. Apparently these house are owned by property firm Stef and Philips. The firm are now signing a deal with Peterborough City Council for the empty properties to be used as overnight accommodation for families without a home.
Have been doing a little more reading on the subject and it would appear that you are correct in your assumption. A very sad crazy state of affairs if this indeed does happen. Make families homeless to provide homes for the homeless.
Security of tenure is a complex affair and it's quite rightly often far from straightforward evicting someone. The tenants involved need professional help which they could probably obtain collectively or through one of the charitable organisations in this field.
The Council's reaction to this is that it has nothing to do with them - Stef & Philips, the company which bought the properties, specialises in providing temporary accommodation to local authorities.
Technically, the owners of the properties have a right to do what they are doing and if Peterborough Council didn't make use of the properties someone else would.
Stef & Philips acquired the properties from Akelius, a large Swedish property group. They then entered into an agreement with Peterborough Council, which is what triggered the eviction notices.
It's all very silly, but commercial interests will predominate. There's a binding contract between Stef & Philips and PCC, so it's hard to imagine what could be done to stop it unless both parties reached an agreement.
Obviously we do not know how much rent these tenants are paying, but I'm guessing that the council will be paying this company more. If that is the case what could be done is for Peterborough council to pay these companies the same rate or less than what the present tenants pay, then there would be no incentive for the landords to behave in this fashion. Making someone homeless so as to house homeless is silly in the extreme.
Oresome depending on the agreement between the owners and tenants it can be a simple matter of giving the tenants the agreed notice to leave.
As a tenant, you can usually only be evicted by your landlord if they obtain a possession order from the court. For most tenancies, there must be a court hearing to decide whether an order should be granted. There is a ‘fast-track’ or ‘no fault’ procedure that can be used for assured shorthold tenancies after six months or after a fixed term has elapsed, meaning there may not be a court hearing. The court still has to consider the case and look at all relevant papers.
My daughter has been to court a number of times seeking possession orders on behalf of a Housing Association and has had legal assistance throughout but nevertheless often fails to get the order granted.
The courts are fully aware that evicting someone merely passes the problem on and they are extremely reluctant to act.
All tenants are entitled to a free 30-minute meeting with a Legal Aid solicitor specializing in housing matters - the local CAB can advise. If eligible, they can then get legal aid either to fight the landlord or to get the council to re-house them.
In the latter case, of course, Peterborough would find themselves in a lose-lose situation and might be less tempted to work with a company that creates more work for them than it resolves????!!!!
If that is the case what could be done is for Peterborough council to pay these companies the same rate or less than what the present tenants pay, then there would be no incentive for the landords to behave in this fashion.
OK in theory but then they would just let to someone else.
"If that is the case what could be done is for Peterborough council to pay these companies the same rate or less than what the present tenants pay, then there would be no incentive for the landords to behave in this fashion."
Time for some joined up thinking..
The Council can't simply decide what it pays a privately-owned company for accommodation, it has to negotiate a price that is acceptable to both parties to the contract.
The property owners are the landlords, and they are in business to make a profit. If someone else wants use of their properties, that someone else is going to have to pay more than the owners are getting already. The owners are not behaving 'in this fashion' - they were approached by the Council, and they came to an agreement.
Now, the Council has to honour the contract, unless both parties agree otherwise.
It's a silly situation, as I said earlier, but it is commercial forces at work.
Oresome. As a tenant, you can usually only be evicted by your landlord if they obtain a possession order from the court. Sorry, but that is not entirely true. There are numerous private landords out there that rent out their properties on a renewable tenancy often a 3/6 monthly one. That is probably what this company has done
FE The Council can't simply decide what it pays a privately-owned company for accommodation, it has to negotiate a price that is acceptable to both parties to the contract. I may be a little naive, but negotiate a price that's equivilent to the rent that the present tenants are paying. Especially as it will probably be the tax payer paying to home the homeless.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.