Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

baboonuk

New Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About baboonuk

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. If houses are still affordable, then nobody's missed the boat, have they?
  2. Sell house. Take £600k. Invest at 3% interest --- gives £1500pcm. Use to rent house. Enjoy debt-free life.
  3. Oh yes they do. But only strange people.
  4. Ask him what the difference is between renting a house and renting the money to buy a house.
  5. Woo. That's an avalanche alright. Nice one, dumb-tabloid reader. Who was it that was going to eat their words?
  6. A return of around 7.9%. Alternatively, stick your £700k in a savings account and get 6% with no work involved at all. Plus in a year's time, the £700k will still be there*. Whereas if you blow it on this, in a year your £700k will probably be more like £500k. *(Maybe) Peter
  7. From the "submit a property" page: "In the present climate property prices are falling would you be willing to take 80% of the true market value?" They're only pricing in a 20% fall. Oh dear.
  8. Nobody in authority has ever told me not to take out a huge, unaffordable loan and blow it on a holiday in Hawaii either. Presumably you won't blame me if I do that?
  9. If your house has 1000 bricks, you have a very small house. Unless they're very big bricks.
  10. So can we all stop expecting it please.
  11. I'm confused. Firstly, what would be the point a law saying "You can't do this, if you haven't done (a) OR AT LEAST ("? Who would bother doing (a) if they can get away with just doing (? It's a bit like saying "You can have my house, if you pay me £100,000 or at least £10"! Only an idiot would pay the larger amount. Secondly, replacing "or" with "or at least" makes no sense in this context. Consider, for example: You can't be an MP at a time when a) you have not paid £100,000 to the Queen, or your teeth are not clean. Look carefully at this example and you will see that it is in exactly the same format as S215(1) of HA2004. So what does this mean? If you haven't paid £100,000 to the Queen, you can't be an MP (even if you have clean teeth). If you don't have clean teeth, you can't be an MP (even if you've paid £100,000 to the Queen). So if you want to be an MP, you must have paid £100,000 to the Queen and you must have clean teeth. Now replace "or" with "or at least": You can't be an MP at a time when a) you have not paid £100,000 to the Queen, or at least your teeth are not clean. What does that mean? Nothing at all; it certainly doesn't mean the same as my first example. Now apply it to our case; If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when— a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit. Now, forget for a moment what these two conditions mean. Forget whether it's possible to do (a) without doing ( or vice versa. Just consider it like this. If "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme", then no S21 may be given (regardless of whether "the initial requirements of such a scheme have not been complied with in relation to the deposit"). If "the initial requirements of such a scheme have not been complied with in relation to the deposit", then no S21 can be given (regardless of whether "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme"). If the deposit is not being held in accordance with a scheme, then it is "a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with". Therefore no S21 can be given. With me so far? What you are suggesting is that we should read it as: If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when— a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or at least the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit. Which means something entirely different, and I'm not quite sure what it does mean. You seem to suggest that it means that an S21 can be given if at least the initial requirements of such a scheme have been complied with, right? But this is not what it actually says, because we have now missed out the little word "not" and changed the phrase "no S21 can be given" to "an S21 can be given". What it would actually say is "no S21 can be given if at least the initial requirements of a scheme have not been complied with". Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Let me suggest a compromise position. In order to serve an S21, a LL must do two things; though not necessarily in this order. a) the deposit must be held in accordance with an approved scheme. the initial requirements of that scheme must have been complied with. If he has not done (a), no S21 can be served, regardless of whether he has done (. If he has not done (, no S21 can be served, regardless of whether he has done (a). The question is, then, what do (a) and ( mean? Based on the information in this thread (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=567707) it seems that "held in accordance with an approved scheme" means "registered with an approved scheme". That doesn't mean the deposit has actually been sent to the scheme; it just means that the scheme is aware that the deposit exists. This can be done instantly online or over the phone. Secondly, "the initial requirements of that scheme must have been complied with". I'm not sure what this means in detail. But what it means is that the LL cannot just tell the scheme the deposit exists; he must then take the necessary steps (which will be dictated to him by the scheme) to get the deposit actually protected. What is important is that the deposit must be registered with a scheme before the S21 can be served. A third thing that LL must do before serving S21 is give T the prescribed information. There are two issues here: Does S215(1) mean that both (a) and ( must be complied with before an S21 can be served? People get confused here because the word "or" appears in the section; so they read it as "An S21 can be served if the LL has done (a) or (", or, as you seem to be reading it, "An S21 can be served if the LL has done (a) or at least (". What it actually says is "No S21 can be served if the LL has not done (a) or (". That means if LL hasn't done (a) or (, he cannot serve an S21. The second issue is, what do (a) and ( actually mean? When it talks about the deposit "being held in accordance with an authorised scheme", does that mean the deposit must actually be in the scheme? Or does it mean the deposit must be registered with the scheme? Or does it just mean that the LL must be intending to put it in a scheme within 14 days? I believe it means either the 1st or 2nd, but not the 3rd. In other words, the LL must actually do something with the deposit before we can say that the deposit is "being held in accordance with an authorised scheme". Peter
  12. I do see what you're getting at, but isn't it entirely clear that in this case the LL cannot serve an S21 if a) the deposit is not held in accordance with a scheme or the initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with. The whole argument boils down to one question. Can a deposit be "held in accordance with a scheme" but not "protected"? I don't think "or" has that many meanings! If someone says "I will not eat if the sky is not blue or the grass is not green", then their meaning is obvious. If the sky is not blue, they won't eat. If the grass is not green, they won't eat. If the sky is not blue, it doesn't matter whether the grass is not green; they won't eat. If the grass is not green, it doesn't matter if the sky is not blue; they won't eat. In our case, it doesn't matter if the "initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with"; if the deposit isn't "held in accordance with a scheme", an S21 can't be served. Peter
  13. The "initial requirements" are "such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit". Each scheme may have a set of requirements that the LL has to fulfil when he received a deposit. They could be anything --- for example, LL might be required to turn around three times and touch the floor six times. But it really doesn't matter what these requirements are. You only need to worry about them if the landlord has fulfilled Section 215(1)(a). If he hasn't done this --- i.e. if the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme --- you don't need to worry about (. The fact that he hasn't done (a) automatically precludes him from serving an S21. It isn't the case that LL can serve S21 if he's fulfilled 215(1)(a) or 215(1)(. It's the case that he can't serve S21 if he hasn't fulfilled 215(1)(a) or 215(1)(. He has to have fulfilled both 215(1)(a) and 215(1)( before he can serve S21. Just think of it like this. LL cannot serve S21 if a) he has green eyes or he has blue eyes. Can LL serve S21 if he has blue eyes? No! Can he serve S21 if he has green eyes? No! If his eyes are blue or green, he can't serve an S21. Now apply that to our situation: Can LL serve S21 if "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme"? No! Can he serve S21 if "the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit"? No! If "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme" or "the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit", he can't serve an S21. Compare the two sets of red writing. But as I say; it doesn't matter what the "initial requirements" of the scheme are. If the deposit "is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme", no S21 can be served. Peter
  14. If a deposit is held in accordance with an approved scheme, it's protected. If it's not, it's not protected. 215(1)(a) stipulates that before an S21 can be served, the deposit must be held in accordance with an approved scheme. If the LL hasn't submitted the deposit to the scheme or registered the deposit with the scheme (as appropriate) then it's not being held in accordance with an approved scheme and an S21 can't be served. Ermmm, OK. Try Section 215(2)? "If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with." Section 213(6) reads: "(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person— (a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and ( within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord. " So in layman's terms, unless LL has given prescribed information to T, he can't serve S21. Ok? Anything else? My pleasure. Sorry for the personal stuff --- I like planner really! In my view, the LL has to do two things. He must first of all protect the deposit (this is S215(1)(a)). In other words, he has either to send the deposit to the scheme (for a custodial scheme) or register it with the scheme (for an insurance-based scheme). Once he has done this, he has to comply with the initial requirements of his chosen scheme. Now, what I don't know is what those requirements are. For example's sake, one might be that he has to pay a fee to the scheme. Therefore LL can do (a) [send the deposit to the scheme, so they are now holding it] but he must then do ( [do what the scheme says]. So LL can do (a) without doing (. None whatsoever! Peter
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.