Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

agent46

Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About agent46

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. That's just dumb and if ARLA have such clauses in their standard tenancies, then that just makes them look like a bunch of incompetent wallies. Rents follow their own trends and are not tied to RPI. Just by way of example, in my area, rents went down by around 20% in the early part of 2002, then hardly changed again until this time last year, when they leapt up by about 15%, seemingly almost overnight.
  2. No. This is an assertion I often see repeated, but it is incorrect. The OFT document you refer to is guidance and not law. The OFT may have an incredibly and unjustifiably high opinion of themselves, but they are not given the power to make law. The courts can and often do ignore OFT guidance. I once had a judge describe an extremely extravagant reading of the 99 regs contained in the OFT's guidance as "utter nonesense", which was a shame, becauseat the time I was relying on the guidance to make my point.
  3. And they're mine, ALL mine...... HA HA HA Ha Ha ha ha (laughing maniacally)
  4. Well firstly, you seem to think you know an awful lot about me and my beliefs. Most of which is utterly incorrect. Secondly, if you want to fight for change, then surely you'd be better employed manning a barricade, or planning the dictatorship of the Proletariat rather than posting lots of empty threats against your LL on the internet?
  5. No you won't. You'll run off, crying like a little girl. In much the same way as you won't go through with your plan to rip out your LL's kitchen cupboards. You're more likely than not to be just another armchair hero, talking big on the internet, who is actually too afraid of getting into trouble with the Police or adversely affecting your credit rating to do anything so radical. Too many "Rage Against the Machine" songs methinks.
  6. Firstly. It's "Yoda", not "Yogi bear". Secondly, good luck on Tuesday, but do try not to lose your rag. Oh, and whatever you do, don't slip up and tell the LL of your plan to pinch all his carpets and kitchen cupboards etc, or of your aim to "really fook the swine" otherwise he might not think that you are such a "great full paying tenant" after all. Thirdly, while I'm on the subject, are you still going to go through with that crypto-anarchist plan? Or have you thought better of it because you value your bourgeois credit rating, or have you simply changed your mind because daddy might get cross with you?
  7. One small point of clarification, old chap, which might assist you with your "chat". You don't have a contract with the LA - you have a tenancy granted by a LL with the LA acting as his agent (the clue is in the words "Letting Agent") Good luck in sticking it to The Man on Tuesday (1) Why talking like Yoda are you, mmmm? (2) Presumed you have, that a letting agent I am! To continue the Star Wars references - "you assume too much". Just remember. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
  8. That is most likely for 2 reasons: 1) You have misunderstood the nature of the LL/LA/Tenant relationship. You are not the agent's client and thus are not a consumer of the agent's services. The LA is not a concierge service for the tenants, they are there to exercise the LL's rights and obligations on his behalf. Protecting the LL's interests can and often does mean refusing requests from tenants. 2) If you had ever worked in a LA, you would understand that many, many tenants do not act like adults living in their own home, but instead act like demanding toddlers living in a kindergarten. Not unaturally, this gets a bit wearing after a while. IME. FAO: "Modern Day Activist" - Good luck in court in your defence to charges of theft and criminal damage. Note to self - "Do not feed the troll"
  9. You forgot to mention the almost complete lack of common-sense and an attitude of institutional arrogance and insularity. I recently advised a LA who had an Env Health Officer threatening enforcement proceedings unless the LL built an 9ft stud wall or put up bars to the same height on the landing because a child "might" climb over the 4ft fence/rail/whatever you call it at the top of the stairs. Very much like your experience, it was a student house and didn't seem to matter that the house had never, ever been let to anyone with children, or anyone who might remotely ever give birth to children and raise them to climbing age during the tenancy, or anyone would even be likely to have children over to visit.
  10. I originally wrote: And your final posting says: Which means, in essence, that we have come full circle and you agree with what I first said
  11. Despite what you've said, you have not distinghuished between the situation where a LL can be sued for damages for simply breaching an obligation (as in LTA 1985 s.11) and the situation where a LL can be made liable in damages for eg: personal injury caused by his failure to comply with some other duty imposed eg: at common law, or to use your example, the HHSSR under HA 2004. If the LL does not comply with those latter duties, then at common law, no action lies against him until and unless the tenant or their visitors suffer injury, whereas under HA 2004, the tenant's remedy is to inform the Env Health Dept, who will go through the statutory procedure of enforcement action against the LL. I appreciate it is a subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless, the important effect of which is that in this case, the tenant can say to the LL "you are responsible", but the LL can turn round and say "I'm only responsible if someone gets hurt." It's all very well claiming a LL has a duty towards someone else, whether that duty is contractual, tortious or imposed by statute, however, the really important thing to consider when trying to deal with such situations as this is what remedy is available to the tenant and and in what circumstances. To sum up - you have to think further than the first stage of the the process (the duty) and follow your reasoning through the intervening stages (breach of duty, causation in fact, remoteness of damage, defences available) all the way to the end (the remedy).
  12. Because the law does not make him responsible. The word "should" in that sentence makes your statement into an expression of hope or desire, or an indication of your particular beliefs on the matter. The law is not concerned with such issues , but only deals with what someone "must" do (or not do). I think you need to re-read my previous post carefully. The LL is not responsible in law for the repair and maintenance of the paving (ie: he cannot be sued for breach of a repairing obligation), but if the state of the path causes injury, then he can (if some other factors are also present) be sued for that loss. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts?
  13. No problem. I was going to find the link to a thread on LLZ in which I became involved in quite a detailed discussion on this subject, and then return to cut and paste it, but I forgot http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=10810 I hope you don't think I'm rude or lazy by just posting a link - it's just that it saves me re-inventing the wheel. Have a read through the first page at least
×
×
  • 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.