Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Badlad1967

Members
  • Content Count

    634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Badlad1967

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canterbury
  1. Thanks for this.... Yep as they both have their money back it is rather moot. Regarding your point of it being nothing to do with the tenants. My point was that their money was possibly being used to fund the operating costs of the business and not being placed in the deposit protection scheme - which certainly is something to do with the tenants (morally if not legally)..... Interesting discussion - thanks all for your input. Will be great to see how this unfolds.... If anyone sees or knows more I'd grateful if they could add to this thread.
  2. OK thanks.... Obviously I have no definitive evidence other than the fact the deposits were not protected. As that the deposit disappeared into the black hole of the LA's evaporating finances, it appears more than likely that it was being used to aid "cash flow" - but as for "evidence" I would expect most of that has been shredded by now But the whole thing is rather moot now as my friend has her money back... The whole thing just highlights how inappropriately regulated the rental market is IMPO
  3. Thanks for this. Just checking the date though..... 6 May 2012? This all kicked off just before then....... (matter of weeks...)
  4. What other info do you need? And thanks for taking the time to respond. Most of the info is in the original link..... But in the case of my two friends..... Each had a difference tenancy - they both knew each other and just happened to use the same agency. Each handed over their deposits and application fee and rent was paid to the agency. They both left their respective flats and one signed up with a different agency. The other one left town. This is when the young lass who is staying in Canterbury found out about the deposit scheme and asked me what it was exactly. I explained and after a few raised eyebrows I asked if she had been registered with her previous agency. No. She found out a few days later (via letter) that the agency had gone belly up and got some creditors notification letter. I said the whole thing sounded "iffy" (pardon the legal jargon lol) and she should go to the police. Her English is very good and she is able to express herself very well so I was surprised that she was fobbed off with "it's a civil matter and not our area" which I thought was cobblers. I then told her to go to the landlord directly. She did and he coughed up within days. No resistance or excuses. In this case the landlord seems to know his responsibilities but I'm sure this will not be the case for everyone. Thanks for the info that it is the legal responsibility for the landlord to protect deposits and not the tenants.... Appreciated. It just seems a shame that if the police should have helped and just couldn't be bothered - or are genuinely ignorant and made a mistake.... A legal opinion would be appreciated for my own interest. Thanks
  5. Had 2 friends that got burnt by this. Two Polish women living in different properties and neither knew of the tenant deposit scheme and neither deposit had been placed in this scheme. They were both in the process of moving when all this hit the fan. Luckily, they both got their money back from their respective landlords. The also went to the police who were completely unhelpful as they said it was a "civil" matter which seemed complete billhooks. It would appear they were using the deposit money to support their business - surely this isn't a civil matter? Fraud? Anyone know? :angry:
  6. General strike in protest of austerity and various other bits and pieces..... Torygraph link
  7. Get my fags in Belgium. Fill up the car while I'm over there (fags and diesel.) Swing back to France and get some wine and have a nice meal. Save a fortune! Plus it's a nice day out. I live in the SE though - so it's a piece of cake for me. Osborne will not be getting an extra 37p a packet from me.....
  8. I think that was true some years ago..... But now we have pay day loans. Another elephant creeping into the room. These loans are not used by people who are financially secure....
  9. Very very good point. It's a shame that everyone will be dragged down: the innocent and the guilty.
  10. Cheers for that... OK - post 316 from Giant Purple Slug has answered for me. Crystal balls indeed But one factor that is being reported which really is inaccurate and which IMPO will speed up the unravelling, is that it is 26 politicians that have signed up: not their people. Seeing the fury around Europe and chatting to friends in France it is clear that people in the Eurozone have had enough. Go to a French supermarket and everything is still priced in Euros and Francs. Feeling against Sarko in France (amongst French people I know - quite a cross section TBH) is bubbling into anger. But where I think we really disagree (please correct me if I'm wrong here....) is you see the Eurozone as some strong, viable entity from which we will be excluded: and all I see is a very bullying Germany trying to control a bunch of squabbling politicians with conflicting vested interests. Rather like a dysfunctional family Christmas gathering. I see a very rapid breakdown coming of the Eurozone in the near future as this latest "meeting" just got everyone to sign a piece of paper and completely ignored the rather significant problem of DEBT. It won't be pretty. But for the UK - 60% of our trade is not with the Eurozone which is a blessing (for us). When (IMPO) the EZ breaks up, should the £ get dragged down as well, it will be an opportunity to increase this trade with non-EZ countries.
  11. OK - so are you going to declare your vested interest here? What you appear to be offering here is your opinion - yet quoting it as fact. It's almost like listening to the BBC! I would very much like to see some links that back up your opinion, as you are making some pretty wild, and extremely one-sided, assumptions....
  12. The property is not yours until the sale has completed - although you are liable for insurance on exchange of contracts.... You are then legally obliged to complete by a certain date or the other party can sue you for breach of contract. This is not limited to the amount of your deposit - but also for any expense in re-marketing the property and any difference between the selling price agreed in your contract on and whatever the property eventually sells for. As for any damage that occurs between exchange and completion. All fixtures and fittings should be listed in the contract of sale - all that's included. So if the boiler is swiped and it is listed in the contract (it should be) then the seller is liable. This really does need expert advice as it sounds like criminal damage. Good luck - it should as though these people are taking the pish. But act quickly.
×
×
  • 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.