DS Forums

 
 

Phil's situation (merged)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-08-2003, 09:02
Carene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North-West UK
Posts: 2,820

Well i don't know anything about tenant's rights, but surely Phil and Kate have the right to live in their own house. Sure, there will be complications because the lodging couple have entered into a verbal agreement with Joanne, and exchanged money.

Can he do anything if he goes to the police? Yes, the guy has rented the property and paid upfront, but there will surely be some case here, as it is Phil's name, not Joanne's name on the mortgage??
Carene is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-08-2003, 13:10
Paul from Ulm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 765
We know from the spoilers that Phil & co. move into the Vic. But the question is why? This couple (one of them is the new doctor in the square) were conned by Joanne. That's tough on them but their argument is with Joanne not Phil.

I wonder how the writers will cover this one. Perhaps they'll just ignore it and have Phil wander meekly over to the Vic.
Paul from Ulm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2003, 13:34
Carene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North-West UK
Posts: 2,820
Perhaps they'll just ignore it and have Phil wander meekly over to the Vic.
LOL. Likely they will just ignore it --as they usually do
Carene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 10:46
rudi
 
Posts: n/a

I cannot believe this storyline that Phil returns from his hols to find his house has been rented out by the nanny. It is unbelieveable that either in real life, or for the character Phil, that he anyone would have to stand for it. Surely as the owner, he is the only one who canm enter into a rental agreement? As he hasn't, then surely the dopey tenants have to move. And as for them asking for new locks and redecorating!!!!! I am gobsmacked that such codswallop can be written into a so called real life soap.

Can anyone who knows the legalities of this set me straight or back me up on this?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 10:49
NewWoman
 
Posts: n/a

Originally posted by Carene
Well i don't know anything about tenant's rights, but surely Phil and Kate have the right to live in their own house. Sure, there will be complications because the lodging couple have entered into a verbal agreement with Joanne, and exchanged money.

Can he do anything if he goes to the police? Yes, the guy has rented the property and paid upfront, but there will surely be some case here, as it is Phil's name, not Joanne's name on the mortgage??
Its pathetic. Phil as the homeowner is the only one in law who can let the house. Therefore, even if the tenants signed an agreement with Joanne, its not legally binding.
Why didnt Phil phone Marcus asap, and get him on the case?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 12:04
Paul from Ulm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 765
This whole story line is very badly researched, or most probably not researched at all.

Granted Phil couldn't physically throw them out but it's clear that he can get a court order to evict them very easily it'll just take a while. Changing the locks was the correct thing to do. He was then fully entitled to keep them out of the house.

I also have a major problem with the attitude of the new tennant. First of all he's the square's new doctor so he starts off by locking a local family out of their house. Surely the practice would have something to say about that? Then he keeps trespassing in the private area of the Vic to demand that Phil redecorate the house. Is he so thicjk that he doesn't realise that it's only going to make things worse.

It looks like this was written just to push the Moon's and the Mitchell's together as an adjunct to the Nana Moon's mental problems story. The doctor's trespassing in the Vic fits in with this nicely. The situation will therefore last until the writers have finished with the Nana Moon story.
Paul from Ulm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 14:23
Bossyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,142
Originally posted by Paul from Ulm
This whole story line is very badly researched, or most probably not researched at all.

Granted Phil couldn't physically throw them out but it's clear that he can get a court order to evict them very easily it'll just take a while. Changing the locks was the correct thing to do. He was then fully entitled to keep them out of the house.

I also have a major problem with the attitude of the new tennant. First of all he's the square's new doctor so he starts off by locking a local family out of their house. Surely the practice would have something to say about that? Then he keeps trespassing in the private area of the Vic to demand that Phil redecorate the house. Is he so thicjk that he doesn't realise that it's only going to make things worse.

It looks like this was written just to push the Moon's and the Mitchell's together as an adjunct to the Nana Moon's mental problems story. The doctor's trespassing in the Vic fits in with this nicely. The situation will therefore last until the writers have finished with the Nana Moon story.
Your perspective on this is the same as mine. I also agree with NewWoman that the tenancy agreement cannot be binding as Joanne had no signed authority from Phil to instigate any sort of dealings on the house. Presuming she took rent in advance, she has actually committed a criminal offence but the writers seem to have overlooked that as well or simply don't care.

This is yet another silly storyline from Eastenders adding to its decline in my view.
Bossyboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 14:28
Bossyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,142
There is a thread in this forum called "Phil's situation" which may be of interest to you.
Bossyboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 16:16
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Bossyboots
There is a thread in this forum called "Phil's situation" which may be of interest to you.
I did ask for the threads to be merged.

rudi
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 16:24
Better The Devil
 
Posts: n/a

Originally posted by rudi
I cannot believe this storyline that Phil returns from his hols to find his house has been rented out by the nanny. It is unbelieveable that either in real life, or for the character Phil, that he anyone would have to stand for it. Surely as the owner, he is the only one who canmenter into a rental agreement?
I think the storyline is ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 16:42
rudi
 
Posts: n/a

Originally posted by Dreary
I think the storyline is ridiculous.
Dreary, long time no speak. How are you?

Yes it is ridiculous. Not only does Phil have the law on his side, he's also a tough guy, with an ex CID girlfriend. She surely knows how to get them out also. Given her undercover with gangsters work, she's no shrinking violet. They don't send probationers in to do that stuff.

Rudi.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 17:04
Bossyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,142
Originally posted by rudi
I did ask for the threads to be merged.

rudi
Sorry, it wasn't a criticism just an observation. I hate it when there are stroppy replies telling people there are double threads so I was trying to point it out politely in case you hadn't spotted the other one.

As they have not been merged, I will post my thoughts again here.

This is a truly ridiculous storyline. Joanne committed fraud when she took rent money from the "tenants". She had no legal status to grant a tenancy. Therefore the tenants have no legal status in the property.

The point about Phil is agreed. How can this "hard man" of Walford let these people simply walk over him.

It has also been mentioned in the other thread that this tenant is the new doctor. This is hardly the way you would act when you are going to be doing a job that brings you into such close proximity to the local people and need to gain their trust.

All in all mistake after mistake by the writers.
Bossyboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 17:08
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
I concur BossyB. And I really do appreciate your politely pointing it out about the thread.

Must go home to SWMBO and 3 noisy boys now. Ciao!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 17:34
Better The Devil
 
Posts: n/a

Originally posted by rudi
Dreary, long time no speak. How are you?

Yes it is ridiculous. Not only does Phil have the law on his side, he's also a tough guy, with an ex CID girlfriend. She surely knows how to get them out also. Given her undercover with gangsters work, she's no shrinking violet. They don't send probationers in to do that stuff.

Rudi.
I'm very well, thanks Rudi! Nice to see you!

Yeah, an CID girlfriend and yet they let these new "tenants" walk all over em? Sheesh!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 23:09
Jackie H
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 54
This happened to us some years ago. We rented a house from someone who said he was the owner.

He had been the owner untill the council compulsurary (sp) purchased the house from him for re development.

We were classed as squatters and should have been evicted, but as we had correspondence and a rent book off this guy the council decided to rehouse us and take the guy to court.

It took six months for us to be moved and we lived rent free for this time
Jackie H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2003, 23:53
Helen 2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 600
This whole story line is very badly researched, or most probably not researched at all.
As they've also ignored the fact that Phil has no legal claims over Louise I'm not surprised they've ignored that this is a stupid storyline too.

Helen
Helen 2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2003, 02:36
hogpog
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 911
i suppose with phil now residing back in the vic it ties in with the upcoming dirty den return and the alleged "i've come back for my pub" storyline. this way it means den will probably be saying it to the actual "owner" (phil) and not the manager (alfie)
hogpog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2003, 04:19
Drifter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,678
lol, this whole thing is rather stupid.

And if they wanted to get the Mitchells in the pub, whether to do with the Nana Moon story or Den coming back, they could've just made up some crap about the house being worked on and having something wrong with or whatever, like with Mark Fowler's that time, instead of going through all this UTTER rubbish about Joanne renting the house out...
Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2003, 10:26
Carene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North-West UK
Posts: 2,820
And if they wanted to get the Mitchells in the pub, whether to do with the Nana Moon story or Den coming back, they could've just made up some crap about the house being worked on and having something wrong with or whatever, like with Mark Fowler's that time, instead of going through all this UTTER rubbish about Joanne renting the house out...
Yes, i agree with you
Carene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2003, 10:56
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
Wasn't it only weeks ago that we saw Phil subdue the top gangster's henchman at gunpoint, before he killed Joanne, and take him back said gang boss (forget his name). He later agrees to, almost goes through with, killing Dennis. He then conspires with Dennis to murder the scary gangster in cold blood. His track record includes torching the car lot (killing a tramp in one of the cars), armed robbery with Grant, and possibly killing his wife. He has been shot himself and implicated in a variety of nasty crimes.

This is not a person who gets pushed around and readily accepts being done up like a kipper by the sacked nanny.

Despite what he promised his ex CID cop girlfriend, this is so out of character as to be completely unbelieveable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2003, 11:25
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
I see that now he has been put in the picture, the bogus tenant has moved out double quick. Nice one Alfie.

There are times when it's good to have a bad reputation.


Rudi
  Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2003, 12:38
sally1978
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: over the hills and far away
Posts: 1,480
Originally posted by rudi
, before he killed Joanne,
Did i miss something?
sally1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2003, 13:05
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by sally1978
Did i miss something?
The gangster's henchman was going to kill Joanne a couple of months ago, after it was discovered that she was discovered to be an undercover cop. Phil found out and stopped it.

Rudi
  Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2003, 13:53
Carene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North-West UK
Posts: 2,820
The gangster's henchman was going to kill Joanne a couple of months ago, after it was discovered that she was discovered to be an undercover cop. Phil found out and stopped it
I think you are confused.

Kate is the Undercover cop, and Phil's fiancee.
Joanne is Louise's nanny
Carene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2003, 14:11
rudi
 
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Carene
I think you are confused.

Kate is the Undercover cop, and Phil's fiancee.
Joanne is Louise's nanny
I'm not confused anymore. Thanks for correcting me. I am so embarassed! It's a good job my real name isn't shown or I'd really mortified.

I've no business being on these forums, as I'm terrible with names.

rudi
  Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:03.