Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Man of Kent

Members
  • Posts

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Man of Kent

  1. I see my hypothesis that people become landlords because they can't hold down a proper job remains unfalsified. I dunno about a sweepstake, but I'll give a tenner to Shelter if I'm still a member at noon tomorrow.
  2. I'd like to express my sympathy with Mick's situation, but I'm afraid I can't find a violin small enough.
  3. If the deposits have not been protected, the landlords are liable for repaying the deposit, but are also liable for a penalty of between 1x and 3x the deposit. It is not a defence against a penalty that the landlord trusted someone else to do it for him. Of course, the landlord has a claim for breach of contract against the agent, but they don't have the means to pay him any damages. This news brought to you by the Tiny Violin Orchestra of Great Britain.
  4. Fergus will have to pay £3,000 pro bono costs which will be paid to the Access to Justice Foundation, a legal charity which will help other people get legal help. This news brought to you by the Tiny Violin Orchestra of Great Britain.
  5. Not as heavy as his, obviously. His is made of stone, which is why it requires all that underpinning.
  6. It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that Fergus is at it again: http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/15/racist-landlord-banned-coloureds-sues-youtuber-calling-racist-7229806/
  7. It's about as sane and rational as Donald Trump. If I borrow the money to buy a house, the interest on that money is part of the cost of buying. At the end, I own a house. If I pay rent on a house, at the end all I've got is a s.21 notice and a cardboard box. In the meantime I've bought someone else a house. Of course it's not dead money from my landlord's perspective. He gets to keep the house at the end. All of this cobblers trying to convince Generation Rent that they're actually better off renting assumes that they're completely stupid and can't see all their money disappearing down the drain.
  8. The only consolation is that there is someone at the Treasury watching and thinking "what a lot of unearned income these landlords have, and look how everyone hates them. We can squeeze the tax out of these people until the pips squeak."
  9. He's representing himself in court. Does anyone know if you're allowed to take popcorn into the public gallery?
  10. Fergus will be ok though, because one of the questions will be "Are you a corpulent racist with a history of personal violence, rubbish racehorses and laughable political ambitions?"
  11. On the basis that this kind of lending is somewhat more risky, yes. I think that lenders will be concentrating more on making their Ts&Cs more compliant with this ruling, however. They can avoid this kind of issue with future lending by making it clearer from the outset.
  12. In this case the matter before the court was to determine what the terms of the mortgage actually meant. It's not one of those cases where the court has to decide whether the mortgage is consistent with some statutory or regulatory requirement. The lender offers a mortgage to the borrower. The borrower accepts that offer and a contract is formed. Precise terms were given to the borrower by the lender later. The issue was this: to what extent was the lender able to rely on any of those terms, where they were inconsistent with the offer the borrower accepted? In this case, the court ruled that the term wasn't incorporated into the mortgage contract, because it was so inconsistent with the product offered to the borrower. That it would be unfair to the borrower was considered by the court, to the extent that the consequences for lender and borrower were unequal, but that was just part of the court's reasoning. They've not looked at the contract and ruled it out of order just because it wasn't fair on the landlord. As we speak, legions of highly-paid lawyers are drafting terms that are consistent with this judgment. And the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are thinking "One fifth of that's ours..."
  13. So the result of this is that the landlords affected will have paid much less interest. Interest payments upon which they will have claimed tax relief. They'll be declaring this on their next tax return, right?
  14. I met Darth Vader once. Well, the Green Cross Code man, which is the same thing.
  15. I'm the Lord Chief Justice and it might be embarrassing if people found out if I were on here.
  16. ...though anyone who's bet the house on this is a berk. But we knew that already.
  17. To be fair, you're not in it for unlimited costs, just a sum equivalent to what you paid in. If you fund one side for five grand, you have to be prepared to stump up another five grand if they lose.
  18. That does not appear to be what the High Court ruled in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others, but I'm no expert.
  19. Just to be clear, Fungus the Landlordman has been ordered to pay £20k towards the Returning Officer's costs, not the court costs: Fatguts would have had to pay the court fees up front. Doubtless the Returning Officer will be keen to recover every penny he owes, which won't be hard as he has invested all his money in large brick objects which are really difficult to hide (and I'm not referring to his jackets). The amusing thing of course, is that all his legal woes began when he gave his letting agent a smack because he was outraged at having to shell out a few quid for a new boiler. If a few bob means so much to him, imagine how he must be feeling now.
  20. The rule with JR is the same as with all civil claims; the general rule is that costs follow the event. Loser pays. It is possible to obtain a Protective Costs Order when bringing a case, if it is on a matter of public interest and not brought for personal gain, but I'm not aware that one has been applied for in this case, nor that it would be possible. They are not given out lightly. Where numerous people have contributed towards the cost of a losing party's case, I believe the rule is that they can all be made to pay an equivalent sum to contribute towards the winning party's costs. As they may find out when the Divisional Court's judges have finished laughing them out of court.
  21. I hesitate to say I told you so but I did, in fact, tell you so... He's been ordered to pay twenty grand in the other side's costs. His own costs must have been way north of that. That's fifty grand in costs alone. The whole thing must have cost him more than £100k. And not a single vote to show for it. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
  22. I see they are raising more funds on the promise that they've got a really good case, even though legal professional privilege prevents them from saying what it is. Even though LPP says nothing of the sort - though it does prevent your lawyer from contradicting you if you say you've been advised you've got a really good case, when in fact he's advised you to settle. I am not saying this is the case here, of course. Certainly not. You have to admire their chutzpah if nothing else. I'm afraid I am unable to create a hilarious movie spoof to illustrate this point, though if you like you can imagine me typing this while singing Brother, could you spare a dime? (In a similar vein there used to be a chap who advertised a guaranteed money-making scheme in the back pages of Private Eye. When people paid him their hundred quid he advised them to take out an advert in the back pages of Private Eye...)
×
×
  • 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.