x

eddie morgan

Director

1668 Profile Views

About Me

I am ready to retire all offers considered plus training given.

my expertise in the industry

I ran an estate agents from 1985 and began investing in property at the start of the 1988 housing Act. I had a scum bag partner with no talent and we split after a short time. I worked as a financial consultant for Legal and General but best was to start my eviction firm evicthem and the process experts. Andrew now runs evicthem and I run the process experts. We are passionate about helping the landlord get his property back. This is based on my own personal experience as to how bad a bad tenant lets face it a person can be. These skills are honed over many years and we revel in getting the possession order at a good price and in the large majority of cases without a hearing.

eddie's Recent Activity

If the section 8 mandatory order was accelerated allowing a later or post possession order off set against a counter claim even if the later counterclaim reduced the arrears to below two months this might be something. That would affect their legal aid. The sprit of the mandatory s7 order 'shall' only referred to the arrears. I know some clever lawyer will have a very different view but I expect the powers that be can create any rules that suite. They made up all the hoops needed to get a section 21 possession order how can this be any different. Except it works for the landlord to the detriment of the tenant. Ok shouldn't arrears run to the detriment of the tenant?

From: eddie morgan 04 July 2022 09:14 AM

If my business relied on the continuity of having a large landlord community I might be tempted to spin spin spin the idea that all is ok even though it clearly is not. 'any attempts to improve the sector are extremely welcome etc' . I have no sympathy for the government in a few years down the line because they have been told but ignored all warnings about the betrayed of removing a section 21 the precise mechanism which opened the gates to the private sector in the first place. It says tenant focused, but in fact tenant focused is actually back door consequences as it takes two to tango. Dur 'it looks as though' no sir it already is.

From: eddie morgan 04 July 2022 09:00 AM

If the landlord did not comply with the deposit rules the 3 times deposit claim or worse could wipe out the section 8 claim unless the possession order was given first. See below. It does say the court 'shall' give the order. Then the monitory computation could be administered after the possession order is given. Now, the landlord has to wait for sufficient arrears to ensure he will win even with a counter claim.

From: eddie morgan 31 May 2022 09:03 AM

Choose a cuckoo land the government have. The landlords don’t want the abolition of the section 21 so who does? Shelter? A solicitor firm veiled in a so called charity status with connections to the highest members of the judiciary. I am referring to the set-up of shelters legal department by a senior judge. Make the process litigational and more jobs for solicitors and shelter. Is it about evictions or is it about money. How did shelter convince the powers that be that the section 21 was ever used on a whim? On a different note. The mandatory part of the section 8 says that if they are two months not paid etc then the court shall make a mandatory possession order. The counter claim can occur before that order is made. When common sense says that the intention or spirit of the rule was to ensure the mandatory possession order was given because of the arrears. I would be ok with the counter claim being dealt with after the possession order is given. The landlord gets his possession orders the tenant gets a fair call on the counter claim. Then the judge cannot abuse the rights of the landlord as if they would do that? And how about an accelerated section 8? If they are two months not paid etc why have a hearing? Nothing to stop the tenant showing he did pay (except he didn’t) and to counterclaim to reduce the CCJ.

From: eddie morgan 31 May 2022 08:54 AM

By 2030 they will remove half of the rental property.? It says here. When are they going to take on the responsibility of building affordable decent housing? Without private landlords and the section 21 where exactly would people be housed? Excuse my ignorance but I have this naive notion that when a person takes on a property, it is already of a standard because they took it on. Only after the children and the dogs have wrecked the place (anecdotally) is there a call for standards. Where does the tenant fit in to keep the property at least in as good a repair as it was when they first took it on?

From: eddie morgan 01 February 2022 12:11 PM

See my separate comment below.

From: eddie morgan 24 August 2020 09:08 AM

Do I read right. The property was your sons principle home before the lodger moved in right? That gives him a licence yes? The tenancy does not give him an AST because the tenancy is by performance and not what is in writing, that would be case law. If your son has continued this as his principle home it has not reverted to an AST. He has no protection from eviction if I read your story right and you can give him short notice and change the locks but you must first talk to an expert like me at the process experts or someone else before you take action to confirm the detail of the story. A licence does not come under the coroner virus restrictions because the law agrees that a person does not have to put up with a scum bag in your own home.

From: eddie morgan 22 August 2020 09:43 AM

Scrooge said to the ghost of the future, is this how it will be? or are the seeds being planted here? Were only the smart landlords consulted?

From: eddie morgan 30 June 2020 09:41 AM

Ever heard of a tenant spending the housing benefit?

From: eddie morgan 29 June 2020 12:56 PM

If only Margaret Thatcher could have seen a way forward to continue social housing instead of the need to pass the burden to the private sector. But she couldn't. Now without the private landlord we would be in real trouble which begs the question as to why the government is not looking after the landlord and in turn looking after the tenant?

From: eddie morgan 29 June 2020 12:52 PM

I can see that a mortgage payment holiday adds all of the interest to the loan (If he does it) and subsequent cost in interest long term but the tenant has a 20 per cent reduction in rent. Is he not clever enough to suggest reduced long term interest, so that the heaviest burden is against the lender? Why deliberately choose the landlord? The clever thinking has a bias in favour of the tenant and the lender. Because when the landlord is topped the lender has to remove the tenant and sell the property, which might otherwise have continued. What stops the landlord handing over the keys to the lender anyway if he sees no benefit from his greying hair and negative bank balance? The altruistic view that at least society will still have the asset from ‘the assets that they have owned’ even if the landlord is topped in the process is actually callus in my view. It would appear that the general view is that so long as the tenant survives, the landlord can go take a hike. The heaviest burden deliberately but why? The tenants can always claim housing benefit but the landlord cannot so why weight it against the landlord? To protect the tenant and the landlord the do gooder argument of paying the tenant the benefit so that he can be responsible for his own finances is misguided. All benefit claims should automatically be paid to the landlord. Make it an act of parliament come on professor lobby for the right thing.

From: eddie morgan 29 June 2020 12:44 PM

His Honour Judge Luba QC is a highly respected authority on Housing Law and has written many books on how to defend possession claims. This senior circuit judge clearly knows that he would prefer to write about defending a possession claim than prosecuting them. He is the person responsible for the out come on Caridon V Shooltz before a considerably more learned high court ruling overturned shelters most favourite defense in recent times. But then His Honour Judge Luba QC did 'set up' shelters legal department, he claims. Every possession claim we have recently put in has been returned with an illegal 90 day stay due to the coronavirus and some of these letters state this: This letter is issued on the authority of the Designated Civil Judge for London (His Honour Judge Luba QC). Do they really need to campaign for judges to be bias?

From: eddie morgan 26 June 2020 19:15 PM

Yes both Evicthem and The process Experts have true and genuine reviews from real customers. I cannot fine anything for Landlord Action.

From: eddie morgan 08 June 2020 12:39 PM

We at The Process Experts and Evicthem wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. We were third in the market after Landlord Action which was a ‘lay’ eviction firm and they inspired all of the lay eviction firms now in the market place. Without them, there would be no lay practitioners. We have successfully gained the property back for many thousands of landlords. As our reputation is second to none, weeding out the bad practitioners is a great idea even though it comes from a solicitor firm which for many years was 'unqualified'. To be balanced though I am not sure if siting one unhappy customer is enough. It’s a bit like saying landlords are using the section 21 to remove tenants on a whim therefore let’s get rid of the section 21 where Shelter has only found one such case. One also has to be careful of a proposal which is aimed at removing the competition.

From: eddie morgan 08 June 2020 12:04 PM

We have had an awful lot of this and in each case we have drafted a letter for the landlord to send to the court. We are beginning to get back responses and one court replied saying that they were given a template for this and apologized. You would expect the template to have run with CPR51Z but in fact it would appear that 'on high' has no rules with templates. This court then amended the stay to the correct date which then was the 25th June. Everyone must I am afraid shove the rules into the face of the courts and tell them to abide by the rules. It is inconceivable that I am writing this about the Judiciary of England. It has come to this. Corruption, deceit, manipulation and can I bring in that great word Kangaroo. Some are saying to placate the wishes of the mass of voters. But without the landlord, where is the Government going to place all the eventually evicted tenants if enough throw in the towel? Bed and breakfasts? All we ask is that the courts abide by the rules.

From: eddie morgan 08 June 2020 10:25 AM

Safe haven not so sure. Shafted by the tax rules with a likely slump in property prices followed by a very slow return on the investment, I see the phrase as a naive spin. I don't believe a landlord is basing his decision to invest on supply. Either the removal of the section 21 or the now updated 18 pages of some highly irrelevant questions on the N5b is designed to create sitting tenants, a betrayal of some magnitude dressed up in government rhetoric. If the government back in Maggie Thatchers day recognized that rising housing needs is best served by the private sector, then by gosh the government had better look after the landlords lest they pull the plug, not buy more.

From: eddie morgan 17 April 2020 10:16 AM

Breaking News