# Alder King evict 40 tenants in Exeter



## Libertad (Jul 15, 2014)

> More than 40 people including children have been evicted from a block of flats in a raid by bailiffs.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28295224



> Receivers Alder King, who sent in enforcement officers to repossess the property, declined to comment.



The tenants were given no warning of the action and had 20 minutes to get out. Alder King, your name shall also go on the list.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jul 15, 2014)

That's horrible, what a disgusting way to behave.
Alder King and their bailiffs ----- you should be ashamed, but somehow people like that ..... just lost for insults repeatable on t'interweb.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 15, 2014)

fucking disgraceful.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2014)

Abuse of power, pure and simple.


----------



## wiskey (Jul 16, 2014)

That's awful. How could they not be able to give the date to the council? Surely someone must have known what was planned.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jul 16, 2014)

Oh, I'm sure that they (Alder King) knew exactly when and what was planned; the reason for the non-notification was to make sure there was no (organised) opposition. Or am I just a cynic ?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 16, 2014)

wiskey said:


> That's awful. How could they not be able to give the date to the council? Surely someone must have known what was planned.





StoneRoad said:


> Oh, I'm sure that they (Alder King) knew exactly when and what was planned; the reason for the non-notification was to make sure there was no (organised) opposition. Or am I just a cynic ?



I think it suited the council to be ignorant of the action as they would not then have to provide alternative accommodation as is their statutory duty. Cynical StoneRoad ? No I don't think so, the charge of cynicism could however be levelled at Exeter and Alder King.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2014)

StoneRoad said:


> <snip> Or am I just a cynic ?


You're a horrid horrid cynic, and it's purely coincidence that the majority of tenants in that building were Polish, therefore less likely to know their rights, therefore less likely to be able to keep the bailiffs out.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jul 16, 2014)

Oh Greebo, I quite agree with you !.... it is  purely conincidence on their part ...(Not) ....... I don't know how the bailiffs in this case can even look in their mirrors, that eviction was monstrous.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 16, 2014)

Here's some contact info for Alder King:

 

Name: Lynn Guest
Job Title: Managing Partner
Phone: 0117 317 1000
Email: lguest@alderking.com

 

Name: Martyn Jones
Job Title: Senior Partner
Phone: 0117 317 1110
Email: mjones@alderking.com


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2014)

Love this quote:


> Council officers attended the eviction to give advice to those being evicted. And the authority has demanded better rights for those in rented accommodation



'demanded'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 16, 2014)

How does the law work in this case?

I had a little look for stuff on tenancy rights wrt receivership and found this: http://www.housingrights.org.uk/news/how-appointment-receiver-impacts-private-tenant

It seems that regardless of the receivership, they would have still had to get a court order and serve notice to evict. What's different in this case that means they could just turn up on their doorstep and demand them out in 20 minutes? It's outrageous.


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted Any advice about what they can do?


----------



## the button (Jul 16, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Here's some contact info for Alder King:
> 
> Name: Martyn Jones
> Job Title: Senior Partner
> ...



Surprising how many company directors still use their home addresses in Companys House returns. 

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/909061718


----------



## Geri (Jul 16, 2014)

the button said:


> Surprising how many company directors still use their home addresses in Companys House returns.
> 
> http://companycheck.co.uk/director/909061718


 
He lives just a few miles away from me.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 16, 2014)

Good work there Fez909 and the button , cheers


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

cesare said:


> Bitter&Twisted Any advice about what they can do?




I suspect the Council will be offering help to the tenants in order to bring about proceedings for illegal eviction, if the evictions were actually illegal.

This leads me to suspect that they may not have been.  This from the BBC News link provided:

"Rob Hannaford, Exeter's lead councillor for housing, said he was "very concerned" for the tenants, with whom the council was working with to provide alternative accommodation.

He said *the council had been made aware of the situation several weeks ago* and had offered advice on alternatives, as well as giving residents information on legal advice.

"We had been trying to find out the date of the planned eviction from the bailiffs but they were unable to provide us with that information," he said."


Formally, the procedure is as follows: 

Section 21 Notice served giving at least two rental period's notice. 
Tenants stay put and landlord (in this case  Receiver) applies to court for possession.  If all in order (i.e. the tenants were on periodic tenancies and not still within their fixed-term ASTs, deposits properly registered) court then awards possession. 
Tenants stay put. 
Landlord instructs court-appointed bailiffs to remove tenants.

It's this last bit that has happened here, I suspect.  The tenants had been given notice and warned that there were court-dates for the possession hearings.  Court-appointed bailiffs are generally quite busy and it may not have been possible for the council or the tenants to have been given a firm date for their physical removal.

It doesn't necessarily automatically follow that anything illegal has happened here, just that the tenants concerned were unaware of the gravity of their situation.


Edited to add:  it's likely that the tenants concerned have been on notice that they were going to lose their tenancies up to six months ago, maybe longer.  That should be enough time for most ordinary people to make alternative arrangements before they were physically manhandled out of their homes


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted Cheers


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

Unfortunately, I suspect the straight (and short) answer to your question "Any advice about what they can do?" is "fuck all".

The current legislation is totally skewed in favour of landlords but that does not mean families can be put out on the street without notice. This is unlikely in the extreme to be what Alder King, acting for the Official Receiver, has done.

I once worked for an agent acting for the OR and saw these kinds of evictions going on all the time. The consultancy fees from legal firms were substantial


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2014)

Yes it looks as though formal action isn't possible.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

'Exeter Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said: "This is a disgraceful state of affairs which the city council and police should investigate as a matter of urgency.

"It also highlights the urgent need for the growing number of people in our communities who rely on private rented accommodation to be given more protection."'


Ben Bradshaw is a disingenuous twat!  How many governments, Tory or Labour, have we had who could have amended the legislation since it was passed in the eighties?  They haven't because they didn't give a shit and they should stop posturing that they do now.  Cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

> Council officers attended the eviction to give advice to those being evicted.



So the council who didn't know when the eviction would be still managed to have their staff present when it happened? 

I sense a new contender for Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs page.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2014)

> Shaun Kelly, a former director of Property Edge Lettings, said the eviction had come "out of the blue".
> 
> He said: "The tenants work, they pay their taxes, there are no shirkers in the house.



Once again this bullshit appears, the implication that violating people's basic rights is OK as long as they're unemployed 

Letting agent in 'cunt' shocker.


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Once again this bullshit appears, the implication that violating people's basic rights is OK as long as they're unemployed
> 
> Letting agent in 'cunt' shocker.


It's also unlikely to be true, looking at bitter&twisted's timeline. It can't have been out of the blue if there's been court proceedings and court bailiffs appointed.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

Property Edge Lettings ceased to be the owners of the properties once the OR was appointed, and would therefore not necessarily be aware that the evictions would be taking place.  Nor would they care either way.


----------



## cesare (Jul 16, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> Property Edge Lettings ceased to be the owners of the properties once the OR was appointed, and would therefore not necessarily be aware that the evictions would be taking place.  Nor would they care either way.


Some kind of journalistic soundbite opportunity


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

Sounds to me like the journo/s who put this report together could do with doing a little more research before they start being all contentious.  Dozens of people being put out on the street is obviously no laughing matter but it sounds like some of them were receiving advice before the bailiffs turned up.  

Local Authority's "gatekeeping" methods generally mean that people at imminent threat of homelessness often have to be put out by court-appointed bailiffs before the Council will accept their legal responsibility to provide housing, either LA or private rentals.  It's possible that all of the tenants were hoping to be housed by the Council rather than accepting that they'd have to find their own roofs over their heads in private accommodation.

There's a whole lot going in this particular situation than meets the eye, I reckon.  However, it's all conjecture failing proper reporting.


----------



## the button (Jul 16, 2014)

This is Alder King's version of events...

http://www.alderking.com/news-publi...eviction-process-at-bartholomew-house,-exeter



> Property consultancy Alder King was appointed in 2012 to act as Receivers in respect of Flats 1-6 Bartholomew House in Exeter after Property Edge Lettings Limited, the company which owned the property, went into Administration.
> 
> In early 2014 communication commenced with the occupiers and their legal representatives concerning obtaining possession of the property advising them that they were occupying the property as trespassers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

"Occupying the property as trespassers" intimates that none of these tenants ever had formal tenancy agreements with Property Edge Lettings or anyone else.  I find that hard to believe, although at a stretch it could be possible.  You'd need to break in and occupy illegally to be a trespasser, not a legal tenant over-staying your notice, as that wouldn't require a hearing at the High Court.


As I said previously "There's a whole lot going in this particular situation than meets the eye" and it appear that this is indeed the case


----------



## ChrisD (Jul 16, 2014)

It happened at 7 am and Exeter City Council housing officials (who were aware of the general situation) weren't told of the eviction date....
I agree that there's probably other info not in public domain but it seems a horrid case of looking after the property being given precedence over looking after people.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

The Official Receiver's role is to protect the creditors and maximise the potential value of the assets they hold on their behalf.  Property has always been more important that people and has been since the Norman Conquest


----------



## Quartz (Jul 16, 2014)

6 flats and 40 tenants?


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2014)

Quartz said:


> 6 flats and 40 tenants?


Not so surprising if you bear in mind that a lot of those tenants were Polish, therefore more than a few of them would be Catholics.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 16, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> Sounds to me like the journo/s who put this report together could do with doing a little more research before they start being all contentious.  Dozens of people being put out on the street is obviously no laughing matter but it sounds like some of them were receiving advice before the bailiffs turned up.
> 
> Local Authority's "gatekeeping" methods generally mean that people at imminent threat of homelessness often have to be put out by court-appointed bailiffs before the Council will accept their legal responsibility to provide housing, either LA or private rentals.  It's possible that all of the tenants were hoping to be housed by the Council rather than accepting that they'd have to find their own roofs over their heads in private accommodation.
> 
> There's a whole lot going in this particular situation than meets the eye, I reckon.  However, it's all conjecture failing proper reporting.



I'm guilty of having read and accepted the BBC report at face value but as is often the case there's more to this.
Friends used to find my naivety endearing but I just think that I'm a bit of a sap at times.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 16, 2014)

Some news stories at first reading, when they could be about specific instances where specialist knowledge would be useful, often appear to be about one thing when they are really about something else altogether.  This is a failure of the reporting, and not a failure of the innocent reader's comprehension.  In this instance I think the BBC should be ashamed of themselves.  I have written to them to point this out.  Not that I expect a reply.

Never lose your endearing naivety or you're in danger of become an embittered old cynic like this poster.


----------

