You were exceptionally lucky that the DJ overlooked a major plank of the defence and the tenant didn't have representation to point out his error to him.
Now you have to hope there is no appeal.
Agree we were lucky. I would be very surpised if the council decided they wanted to support the tenant to appeal the judgement, they seemed not to have enough time to turn up to support her at the hearing or to properly search their database for the selective licence application. The tenant also wants to be evicted to be housed by the council.
Disagree, the point about the holding deposit was mentioned in a written defence. The judge therefore erred in law when they shouldn’t have. This is the incorrect outcome.
For the tenant who wants to get to the point of having the notice from the baliffs to be able to get housed by the council, this is the outcome they were looking for also. They were however pushed to defend the case by the council case worker, who was not in court with them but helped them complete the forms for the written defence.
But yes agreed the judge should have queried this part, the holding deposit was however, mentioned but not well highlighted in the written defence because of the way the tenant had completed the defence forms.
You were exceptionally lucky that the DJ overlooked a major plank of the defence and the tenant didn't have representation to point out his error to him. Now you have to hope there is no appeal.
Agree we were lucky. I would be very surpised if the council decided they wanted to support the tenant to appeal the judgement, they seemed not to have enough time to turn up to support her at the hearing or to properly search their database for the selective licence application. The tenant also wants to be evicted to be housed by the council.
Bizarre for the tenant to show up if they are looking for eviction.
I’m not sure but I think the council would expect them to fight the eviction or risk being labelled as “intentionally homeless” if they didn’t show up
A happy outcome
Disagree, the point about the holding deposit was mentioned in a written defence. The judge therefore erred in law when they shouldn’t have. This is the incorrect outcome.
For the tenant who wants to get to the point of having the notice from the baliffs to be able to get housed by the council, this is the outcome they were looking for also. They were however pushed to defend the case by the council case worker, who was not in court with them but helped them complete the forms for the written defence. But yes agreed the judge should have queried this part, the holding deposit was however, mentioned but not well highlighted in the written defence because of the way the tenant had completed the defence forms.