Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Random User Name

New Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Random User Name

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. I would guess that when he signed the original deal, he didn't expect anyone of value to be living there - hence the 21days probably didn't matter. He may have even been paid a little more for such a short time span.
  2. But it is not her house. It is something that he is renting. When he dies, the contract ends. Thing is, he entered a contract, and now his situation has changed. Solution? Move on. That way, she can get the stability that she would need should he die first. Starting afresh means they can write a new contract on the terms that they want. Presumably, he saved the 77% that he cashed in? Maybe he could use that to buy something smaller? Why should the other party have to change the contract because he has a change of situation?
  3. I think you are misunderstanding the situation. A phone line can be "active" even without an account. This doesn't mean you can make calls though, just that the line is still connected at the exchange. Thus, when someone wants to activate a new account on that line, it is a simple process. However, as people are often chopping and changing, an "active" line without an account can be "reassigned" at the exchange at any stage. After this, the line cannot have a new account on it until the line is reconnected at the exchange - and this requires a visit from BT, and a charge (about £130.00). The longer a property is left empty (and the phone line not used) the greater the chance the line will be disconnected at the exchange. Providing a working phone line is not a legal requirement of a Landlord (although you could expect a "good" landlord to go halves with you). The OP is right to be annoyed, as the next tenant may be able to get a phone account without paying this charge, as the OP has paid for the reconnection. Perhaps, as has been suggested, get BT to disconnect it when you leave - but be aware of a typical Landlord "sting in the tail" clause in the lease - that the tenant cannot disconnect the phone on departure. In this case, not only will the tenant have to stump up the £130.00 reconnection fee should they find the phone line is dead at the start of the tenancy, they cannot disconnect it at the end for fear of falling foul of this clause in the tenancy agreement, and exposing themselves to issues with the bond. My advise to the OP is to take this as a hard lesson. Next tenancy, make it a requirement in the lease documents when you sign them that the phone line is connected at the exchange (and able to be activated for no charge). Thus, one of two things will happen - a) the Letting Agent / Landlord will not accept this (so either go someplace else, or be aware you may may be liable for an extra £130.00 if you proceed), or b ). they sign, and then if there is any problem, pass the charge on to them. There is a final alternative c) - non BT options. Perhaps Virgin can connect you via cable (thus giving you a phone as well). Or, don't have a phone, and use a mobile "dongle" for your Internet. After all, whilst it isn't a legal requirement for a Landlord to provide you with a working phone line, it isn't your job to get one for the property either. Might as well leave it. One final thing - if you raised it during the initial stages, and get a "not my legal responsibly" answer, it does tell you what kind of Landlord they are (and really, they are best to be avoided). Expect a reasonable Landlord to be prepared to go halves. After all, it helps them both by getting a happy tenant, and by making the property more rentable next time (to someone who asks questions, that is!)
  4. Especially as the images presented only apply to a very very tiny fraction of Aussies. Most don't even have a pub near them, let alone one near the water like that. Might as well say living in the UK for the average punter means a view like this ... rather than this ... Such statements are great to try and make others feel bad ... unless those others actually know what the reality is like for the average punter. Then, it just looks stupid.
  5. It's only an observation. I live in a "posh" area in the West Midlands. Currently half way through my present lease, I happened to pass through the village where I last lived for 12 months. Interestingly, when I moved in there (a year and a half ago now) there were several properties for sale. They still are. I pass through the village alot, so I get to see what comes up and what sells, and it is interesting to note that some properties sell reasonably fast (when I look into it, generally, they have to drop prices about 20% from initial asking to sell). However, properties that don't drop ... well, two and a half years (and counting) is a Long time to have your house on the market. And it's not as though this is just one property! There are several others with 500-odd days on market too. Not counting those properties which have changed agents, thus throwing the dates out. I get what some of the "HPC is dead" posters are saying, but in my area, their mantra of "it will sell" doesn't hold water, unless the price is right.
  6. You are saying that Victorian British people were better off than those living there today? As a whole, or just as a gross generalisation? Intersting.
  7. *sigh* I liked how everyone was called each other muppets. Can't help it if I see a bandwagon, now can I!? I was saying, China isn't exactlty Victorian England. It's a modern version, to be sure, but it's not that simple.
  8. welllll .. to be fair, it aint either. Dickens ... modernised. Oh, can I join in? "Muppets" *giggles*
  9. 1st - "Don't think so"? Well, the selling of the tokens of the ironmonger in advance vs for payment rendered is very different. But, I digress - unless the tokens exist and change hands, any register is fraud? Hmmm. Why a register then? Why even "tokens"? Let's embrace the middle-ages again! *attempts to have a pint, but is unable to do so as pint is not provided with the labour of ones own hand*
  10. Don't get into "debt" then in the first place.
  11. Are we not confusing tokens for services rendered, and tokens for future obligation here? Anyhow, why should the bank keep a large room full of tokens in any case? If everyone accepts they exist, a ledger of tokens would work just as well.
  12. They have my money. I'm not a big fan of the "under the matress" approach.
×
×
  • 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.