Estoppel Question Advise Needed

[Tiger7861]

Me and my partner live in my parents house for 15 years now they want me out in the past on numerous occasions they have promised me and my partner the house but nothing on paper
The deeds are in there name and we have never paid any rent or mortgage but we have spent money on the property over 10 years about 15k . Do I have any chance of keeping the house or staying here we have 2 children the solicitor had advised me of estoppel saying that you parents have broken there promise?Additional DetailsI forgot to mention me and my husband are separated know he is saying that no promise was made I have a witness to the promise but we did apply for local housing housing register waiting for a house will that have any significance ?
As the landlords are saying one of the conditions of staying there was that you stay on the hosing register.
In other words we did not reply to our detriment can this act bee taken like this ?

[Peter Pedant]

same reason as your solicitor thinks you have a case....see posting no 1 or thereabouts

[Tiger7861]

Do u think I can be successful In the estoppel or eviction

[boxtops]

no PP, different class of question.

[EDDIE51]

You have NO HOPE of getting the house , you have been told over and again.
Just get off here and go to your local council housing department, the one where you are registered. Tell them you are being evicted and have children under 16.
They HAVE to help you , you will be offered at least temporary accommodation.

Your solicitor told you about estoppel as he/she thought you had a provable promise to be given the house but ,as you have been told many times, the promise is NOT provable .
If this went to court it would be your word and your witness against your ex-husband and his parents there is no way that could be proof or even likely.

[Tiger7861]

No pp different class of question plz explain box

[woofgang]

Yes indeed PP (desk toppy) EDDIE and I mentioned it last night.

Can I ask you a question? PP
you say that Estoppel stands a chance here.
I get the promise, I get the reliance, but where is the detriment?

[Tiger7861]

So woofgang you see the promise ?

[pixie373]

Why would you want to take your ex in-laws house from them? Whatever they might have said, they've changed their mind.

[Peter Pedant]

she had the choice to spend the 15k elsewhere.
therein lies the detriment

I dont think we are going to get to 400 by tomorrow
but I admire people's numbers of attempts

[Peter Pedant]

Ed - I thought the councils were bound to rehouse children under 16
but I am told it is children under 5

rules change with bewildering speed

a bit like the law on proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts

[Tiger7861]

The 15k was my husbands not mine it was spent 15 years ago on kitchen bedrooms etc but we have used them for 15 years too

[Peter Pedant]

Then you have no right at all in any branch of law - promissory estoppel, constructive trust or the other one - quantum meruit

to stay. wow answer at last.

Go to the Council tomorrow with the eviction notice and tell them you are about to made homeless. I agree some people have been quicker at this than I have....

[Tiger7861]

R u saying the money had to be mine not my husbands peter

[Peter Pedant]

yes

[Tiger7861]

In marriage his money is mine is it not

[EDDIE51]

Priority for emergency housing IS still for people with dependant children UNDER 16 see this link from Shelter, no mention of under 5
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council_when_homeless/priority_need#people_responsible_for_dependent_children
Tiger, as you have dependant children under 16 you WILL get emergency housing from your local council.
So, stop this rubbish about getting the house you are in now and tomorrow morning get to the council housing department and register as homeless. You do not have to actually be out on the street , your eviction notice is sufficient to get you and the children into emergency housing. DO IT TOMORROW !!!

[Peter Pedant]

No tiger it is not
Listen to Eddie - he has said it more than once

[Tiger7861]

***

[woofgang]

but pp, for that 15k, she got 15 years of residence in the house....also she wasn't asked to spend it, it was a voluntary action....thats why i cant see the detriment.

tiger i don't say that i believe (or disbelieve ) that you and your husband were promised the house, only that if that was so and provable, then that would constitute the first requirement,

[Tiger7861]

What's reliance I relied on the promise