Joined
·
139,632 Posts
Family facing eviction finger URA for lack of housing
31 December 2009
South China Morning Post
A family who have received their landlord's order to move out of their rented home in Sham Shui Po staged a protest yesterday, saying the Urban Renewal Authority failed to provide accommodation after announcing a redevelopment project on their site.
Io Chengpou and his wife Li Chunfang, tenants of a flat at 69 Shun Ning Road for seven years, were told to leave by their landlords, named Lam and Lau, who sought a court order to evict them. The couple live with their two daughters and pay about HK$2,000 a month for the 200 square foot flat.
They refused to leave and were supported by about 30 people, including other tenants. After hours of protest, court bailiffs called Io to say they were not coming.
Li said: "The problem is that the URA doesn't recognise our status as tenants. It is not that the landlord doesn't have a right to evict us."
She said she did not want the cash allowance provided by the authority, but a public housing unit - an offer available only to those who can live there until the URA starts acquiring the properties from owners.
The URA is waiting for the government's approval of the redevelopment, announced in June, in order to start property acquisition and hand out compensation. A survey done right after the announcement registered the names of owners and tenants, including the couple's.
However, as soon as the survey was done, the landlord asked the family to leave, giving one month's notice. This means they will not be eligible for the public housing offer.
Li said the authority had declined to accept their status as tenants and turned them away on three occasions. "URA knows there is a legal loophole, but it is not doing anything about it," she said.
A URA spokesman said it was in no legal position to arrange for public housing as the government had not approved the project. He said the tenancy records collected in the survey were for reference only.
The URA, however, has doubled the relocation allowance - meant for tenants who are asked to leave by the landlord before their tenancy expires - for about 10 residents, including the couple. The money is equal to 10 to 19 months of their rentals.
It is unknown why the landlord, who could not be reached for comment, wants to evict the tenants even though, according to the URA, the move will not benefit him financially.
31 December 2009
South China Morning Post
A family who have received their landlord's order to move out of their rented home in Sham Shui Po staged a protest yesterday, saying the Urban Renewal Authority failed to provide accommodation after announcing a redevelopment project on their site.
Io Chengpou and his wife Li Chunfang, tenants of a flat at 69 Shun Ning Road for seven years, were told to leave by their landlords, named Lam and Lau, who sought a court order to evict them. The couple live with their two daughters and pay about HK$2,000 a month for the 200 square foot flat.
They refused to leave and were supported by about 30 people, including other tenants. After hours of protest, court bailiffs called Io to say they were not coming.
Li said: "The problem is that the URA doesn't recognise our status as tenants. It is not that the landlord doesn't have a right to evict us."
She said she did not want the cash allowance provided by the authority, but a public housing unit - an offer available only to those who can live there until the URA starts acquiring the properties from owners.
The URA is waiting for the government's approval of the redevelopment, announced in June, in order to start property acquisition and hand out compensation. A survey done right after the announcement registered the names of owners and tenants, including the couple's.
However, as soon as the survey was done, the landlord asked the family to leave, giving one month's notice. This means they will not be eligible for the public housing offer.
Li said the authority had declined to accept their status as tenants and turned them away on three occasions. "URA knows there is a legal loophole, but it is not doing anything about it," she said.
A URA spokesman said it was in no legal position to arrange for public housing as the government had not approved the project. He said the tenancy records collected in the survey were for reference only.
The URA, however, has doubled the relocation allowance - meant for tenants who are asked to leave by the landlord before their tenancy expires - for about 10 residents, including the couple. The money is equal to 10 to 19 months of their rentals.
It is unknown why the landlord, who could not be reached for comment, wants to evict the tenants even though, according to the URA, the move will not benefit him financially.