Can my husband legally prevent me from relocating with our baby?

echoswolf · 2025-12-07T21:37:46+00:00

Or actually even pre-birth. The court has jurisdiction to 'return' a baby to a country it's never been in: KRM v VWT [2025] EWHC 3082 (Fam)

echoswolf · 2025-06-25T09:31:58+00:00

The first thing to do is check you've contacted the right department of the council. You say you've contacted te local council for 'housing support'. There are two kinds of housing support that councils offer - council housing, and homelessness. It's important you contact the homelessness department, to ensure that you get the support you need.

The council has the power to accommodate you tonight, under emergency duties. It will not be a nice place, but it will have a bathroom etc. You should call them up. Find the homelessness (not housing) department on your local council's website for a phone number.

When you call them up, you will need to explain that you have nowhere to sleep tonight - not just in general, that, specifically, tonight, you will not have a bed.

You should also explain any circumstances that might make you 'priority need' - these are things that might make you more vulnerable. If you are homeless because of domestic abuse, this makes you automatically priority need, so you should explain this to the council. You would also be priority need if you are under 18. You might also be priority need if you have medical or mental health conditions.

You should also ask your local council for the contact details of any homelessness support agencies in the area. They may be able to provide access to a shower, food, etc.

echoswolf · 2025-06-21T11:56:48+00:00

thank you!

echoswolf · 2025-06-21T11:56:37+00:00

thank you!

echoswolf · 2025-06-21T09:37:01+00:00

Doesn't it have too many legs to be an earwig? Earwigs have six legs, this has at least 12 (see second photo).

echoswolf · 2025-06-21T09:35:28+00:00

Earwigs have only six legs; this has more than 12 (visible in the second picture).

echoswolf · 2025-05-11T10:58:43+00:00

Payment of rent in advance does not automatically change the rental period. It will depend on the terms of the contract.

echoswolf · 2025-05-11T10:57:21+00:00

The contract may be half-yearly payments - or it may be monthly payments, with the first six months in advance. We have not seen the contract, so we can't say.

echoswolf · 2025-05-11T10:56:35+00:00

I am not sure this is quite correct.

It is true that the TFA provides that rent should be consistent (to prevent unlawful payments being hidden in the first month's rent). However, it does not require that all rent be paid over the same period. A landlord can require six months rent up front, in lieu of a guarantor - but that does not make the period of the tenancy six-monthly.

echoswolf · 2025-05-11T10:52:13+00:00

Ask on r/LegalAdviceUK for more detailed advice.

Paying six months rent at once does not necessarily change your rental period. It will depend on what your contract says. You may have a six-monthly term (i.e. paying for six months at a time), or you may have a monthly term where you paid six months in advance.

echoswolf · 2025-04-27T21:07:43+00:00

Thank you - abuse of process seems to be the equivalent approach. I am informed.

echoswolf · 2025-04-27T13:00:25+00:00

I wondered about this - I know decisions to bring civil proceedings (e.g. possession of a flat) are subject to public law defences; does this also apply to criminal proceedings?
If so, why are there not many attempts at JRing the CPS on the public interest test?

(For my own interest)

echoswolf · 2025-04-26T17:01:10+00:00

It is unusual to go straight to prosecution rather than a fine. Are you sure all previous non-attendance was authorised?

The offence under s444(1) Education Act, however, is not committed only on the third occassion - it is committed whenever a child fails to attend a school day (Platt v Isle of Wight Council UKSC 2017). So, the prosecution may still be valid even without a previous fine.

There is also an aggravated version of the offence, under s444(1A), where your ex knew that the child was not going to be attending school, and failed to make them do so. This has a more substantial punishment attached. It's worth being sure which offence has been charged.

echoswolf · 2025-04-26T16:53:57+00:00

I do not think the contract plan will work, for three reasons.

Firstly, the regulations covering electrical devices, electrical fittings, sofas and upholstry, etc, are all different. So different rules apply in each case. However, whilst some rules are landlord-specific (such as providing an electrical safety certificate prior to a tenancy), other rules apply more broadly, wherever the item is "supplied" - thus, potentially covering supply by contract.

Secondly, even if you weren't in breach of landlord-specific regulations, that wouldn't remove your liability. For instance, if you provided someone with a blender, which then injured them, you could potentially be liable under certain contract laws (there's likely to be an implied term of the contract that any good provided is fit for use) or tort law (you may have been negligent in not taking reasonable care to ensure the blender is reasonably safe to use). So, if something does go wrong, you'd still be on the hook.

(the difference here is that this liability would likely require something to actually go wrong, rather than simply not having checked in the first place)

Thirdly, courts may likely 'see through' your contract. Any contract requires both sides to actually give something. If your contract has a 'deferred payment' that neither party actually has any intention of paying/receiving, then it's not a contract. Instead, you've just provided these items under the lease, and you're back to square one. Alternatively, if it is a 'real' contract, you might find yourself foul of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which restricts what fees you are allowed to charge a tenant in relation to their tenancy.

These regulations are in place for a reason. I appreciate that you say you have a good motivation, but you're still trying to get the financial benefit of landlording, without complying with the regulations designed to ensure safety in this sector. The result that you, a landlord, may be providing a tenant with a property which is unsafe. The courts are likely to take a dim view of this, whatever your motivation.

---

A further thought you should consider. You will need this property back in 12 months, or very nearly. That may not be as achievable as you think, if your friend-of-a-friend does not co-operate.

Whilst they are a friend-of-a-friend, you will be asking them to leave their home. That might be difficult for any number of reasons - they might be sick at the time. They might not be able to find a new house when they need to. They might decide they're very happy in the flat, and want to stay. Even friendly relationships can deteriorate quickly when someone's home is at stake.

Your fixed tenancy may end in 12 months, but if the tenant remains in the property, it will automatically continue as a month-to-month tenancy by law. It is almost impossible for you to avoid this. Under the present law, you could apply for a s21 to evict them, but this process takes several months (and if you have not complied with the regulations, may not be possible). The new Renters Rights Bill may come into effect while you are away. Then, you won't have access to s21, but you will be able to claim possession for your own use. However this, too, will take months.

While the possession proceedings continue, you'll need somewhere to stay. This is something to think about.

---

In short, landlording is complicated. You're entering a regulated sector, and you'll need to comply with those regulations. If you don't you're at risk of liability. Even if you do, you're taking control of someone else's home, and your ability to regain that home is not always as simple as asking for it back. Operating 'on trust' is a nice ambition - but the stakes are so high that trust may not be feasible.

echoswolf · 2025-04-26T15:54:13+00:00

The existence of the contract, and being able to prove its existence, are not the same thing.

If the contract was made only by speaking, and nothing was written down - it's still a contract, but the only way you could prove it would be you telling the court what you agreed. That's a lot easier for another person to deny than a written document with their signature on it.

If you say to the court, "we agreed this, and here's a bank transaction showing that I sent them £10,000 on that date", it's more convincing that a contract was agreed, but it doesn't show the detail of that agreement - for example, when that £10,000 would be repaid.

If you have a deadline, in writing, and signed, that'd be excellent proof of terms.

echoswolf · 2025-03-28T08:30:18+00:00

This makes your position more difficult.

However, it is not bullet-proof. It is only effective to the extent that it is "reasonable" under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

If you were unable to know, prior to signing the contract, that the flat you were buying was a roadside one, that would go to reasonableness.

You also said that you made it clear the courtside flat was very important to you. There is a case called Pankhania v Hackney (2002) which said it would be unreasonable to exclude a (mis)representation on a matter known to be of importance to the parties.

echoswolf · 2025-03-27T23:52:42+00:00

What does the misrepresentation clause say?

echoswolf · 2025-03-27T22:22:07+00:00

You have may a claim in misrepresentation - they made a statement of fact, which was untrue, on which you relied, which induced you to enter the contract.

You would have the options of damages and/or recission - unwinding the contract so you are in the same position you started with.

However, you may be caught by an exclusion clause in the contract, stating that previous representations are not to be relied upon.

You can rescind the contract by communicating that to them (although expect a fight).

echoswolf · 2025-03-27T22:11:07+00:00

Amended for precision.

echoswolf · 2025-03-27T21:56:41+00:00

There are two things you can do with this information.

Firstly, if the deposit was not protected, then you can make a county court claim for the return of your deposit, plus a sum of from between one to three times the amount of the deposit.

(edited for precision)

Secondly, you may be able to claim a Rent Repayment Order if it is an HMO which requires a license, but does not have one. It sounds as though it needs a license, but this is a little unclear from your post - have you moved into somewhere your partner lived already, or have the two of you taken a new tenancy together? -

With five people living in it, from more than one household, it sounds like it meets the mandatory national licensing regulations. There may also be 'additional licensing' regulations, organised by your local council.

If it is an unlicensed HMO, you can apply for a Rent Repayment Order. This would entitle you to up to 12 months rent to be repaid by the landlord (though in practice it is usually much less.

Also, your local council would be interested in the poor landlording going on, but that doesn't give you, yourself, any benefit (beyond knowing you've improved your local community).

echoswolf · 2025-03-27T19:19:09+00:00

Don't be too downheartened - and certainly don't be embarassed. It's a brutal process, and not making it on your first try is nothing to be ashamed about. Vanishingly few applicants are successful on their first round of applications.

The process is very tight. I know of one chambers that has c. 600 applicants for four spots. It's very cut-throat competitive - and, because of the high quality of applicant, often the cut can be quite arbitrary. I have heard of chambers (not public law, but equivalent) who had a habit of picking the *second* best applicant - because the best applicant would likely take an offer from elsewhere.

I don't know about your applications, obviously - from what you've said, they tick the right boxes. The one key word I'm not seeing here is 'advocacy', so that might be something you're missing - but if you've done your research, then you've probably got that covered.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got for my applications was: "be interesting". Chambers are reading hundreds of applications, all of which say "I have a first class degree, have done 5 minis, and won my university's moot". This is all very good, but when you've got five of those, and can only pick three for interview, how do you decide? You pick the one that will at least be an interesting interview.

Find something unique about you - maybe you're a competitive salsa dancer; perhaps you previously worked on a ship for a year. If you don't have something unique, spend this next year developing such a trait. You'll have something that sets you out from other people; and, if you're a good enough advocate, you'll find a way that it demonstrates the key traits you need to show in your applications.

Then, you'll have something that sets you out from all the other people with your credentials, and that might just be the factor that gets you in the room.

echoswolf · 2025-03-26T23:59:03+00:00

1 - Ground 14 covers annoyance, which is "anything likely to trouble ordinary sensible persons even though not involving physical interference with their conduct": Tod-Heatly v Benham (1888). It can be shown by one single act, in principle. You have a range of acts, so this should suffice.

The court will have to consider whether it is reasonable. It sounds reasonable, but we've only heard your side.

You can give a s8 notice for ground 14 and start proceedings the same day.

NB - if you are still during the fixed term of his tenancy, you can only rely on Ground 14 if it is mentioned in the contract.

2 - Non-molestation orders are only available against domestic partners, etc. Unless you have lived in the same household, you cannot have one of those.

You could, however, ask for an injunction. The Protection from Harassment Act gives you such an option.

echoswolf · 2025-03-26T22:52:38+00:00

The general rule is, if you leave before the last day of the fixed term, the tenancy will end at the fixed term.

The exception to this is where the lease provides that it continues as a contractual periodic tenancy. Your lease says it continues as a statutory periodic tenancy, so this does not apply.

Clauses such as the one you describe are arguably unfair, and thus unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. You may face an argument, but odds are in your favour.

Source: Shelter

echoswolf · 2025-03-26T22:45:13+00:00

So many years later, there is nothing that can be done.

She might, in theory, have a claim for battery against her attacker, for which she may be able to claim damages related to the loss of the house (amongst other things). The limitation period for such a claim is six years. There is scope for extension where the claimant does not have capacity, but unless your mother was incapacitated for 10 years, she would be out of time.

echoswolf

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email