pms

I'd go back to Mars if I was you. A tenant cannot be evicted unless you get a court order and thats fact or do you go around evicting tenants with baseball bats.By the way a pickaxe handle does more damage.Thicko Try it!!

Have you got a shock coming to you and it will be law within 12 months.

Don't forget you can't evict a tenant without a court order.Protection from Eviction Act (1977) and stop bullying Mr Shed or I will bully you!!!

Your the idiot here TTRTR and looking at somes of your post's you'd be better off being a comedy entertainer then a landlord. Perhaps you could also explain why there are only 72 laws as you implied in your post when I've got links to hundreds.Oh! something you got wrong NIEIC ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATES ARE NOT LAW!!!.The landlord if he is a decent one will have the installation checked every five years so Mr Shed was correct.I suggest you go back to reading your comic or throwing your toys out of your pram!!

1) There is only one of me.The "us" was the whole thread. 2) As you seem to know a lot about the "murkier" side of renting perhaps you could enlighten everybody on this board. 3) If you want sarcasim Im sure I could easily give you some

I haven't validated your previous comment whatsoever.Perhaps you can tell us all where your comment has been validated.

Imp you may be one of the lucky ones.Many of the calls I receive through the week are from tenants who have trouble getting their deposits back. I welcome the deposit scheme which is soon to be implemented through the Housing Act(2004) and although this was a start to modernize housing law I beleive it hasn't gone far enough.Private Landlords get off the "hook" too easily and my own opinion is that there should be more regulation for example they should be registered with their Local Authority likewise with Lettings Agents should be registerd with Trading Standards.It seems that these two particular groups get away with murder.

And I was going to agree with you Mr Crunch but you forgot one thing.There is no such thing as an equal claim because 9 out of 10 landlords keep the deposit anyway(prove that they don't) so I always recommend to tenants not to pay the last months rent.Obviously Mr Crunch doesn't agree but no doubt his wouldn't as his a landlord.

Apologies wrong case try this one http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...hill&method=all

Just found this piece of case law that might be intresting to Landlords http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...KERR&method=all

Got to say that I agree with Messer's Crunch and Shed on this one

Got to disagree with you there Mr Shed.You can't justify scuff marks as damage or the laminate flooring.As for the oven "fair wear and tear"

Mr Shed: I suggest you follow the link I posted as you may find some parts of Housing law that even when I read them I must admit I couldnt beleive.And thats from both points of view.

And what case law is that Mr Crunch?

How about some serious debate on this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/104.html Having read this there are some serious issues which affect tenant and landlords alike

Obviously Mr Crunch your brains are situated in your backside.Try reading the threads again doesn't it give you the drift that it's not the tenants fault each time but the Landlords.Are you so ignorant that it has to be spelt out to you or do I need to simplfy it for you because obviously you don't understand. Or to put it in plain english the Landlords con the tenants.You prove to me from reading the threads why the properties that Landlords let out are fit for human habitation.Read S604 HA1985 as amended or S11 Landlord and Tenant Act(1985) Im sorry to say but both of them properties refered to in the threads would have been condeemed. eg: The Landlord is responsible for the installations.Try telling me different.

1) They prove that landlords really don't give a toss about their tenants(It's called duty of care) yet they still rake in the rent each month. 2) It proves that many landlords would wait until either someone get's electrocuted or snuffs it from carbon monoxide posioning because their too bloody tight to get the job done properly. 3) It proves the sheer arrogence of these so called Landlords whose brains are in their **** and not their heads. Shall I carry on.................

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2238 http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2289 No who say's landlords aren't dodgy.They've just proved it.

Mr Shed I think your missing the point here.All S21 NOTICES are invalid as they don't follow the law.The reason being the wording.If you look at S21 HA1988 YOU may notice the words "without predudice" but to who. although it say's landlord this could be"tenant" as how would you define "predudice".This could be predudiced against either the landlord or tenant so in effect any tenant could say that they are being "predudiced" against. Which GOES back to issuing S21 NOTICES at the commencement of a tenancy. My point exactly

Firstly Mr Shed hope the hangover is wearing off.The points I am making are as follows 1) The wording in HA1988 as been amended as I have pointed out by the LGHA1989 and the HA1996 and have underlined the amended parts. 2) Having read through the section's I have mentioned in my opinion the HA is now a patchwork quilt or a bit like Microsoft Windows if you pardon the pun.Most people on the forums use the term "SPT" after a fixed term when in fact it should be either an ASPT or a replacement tenancy my point is how can tenants or landlords rely on the law when it can be argued that the wording has no difinition in law.This is refering back to the S21 NOTICES, in your opinion do you think that a major overall is needed to make the system fairer. 3) The reference to S175(3) HA1996 is a loophole in the law that many tenants are starting to use to get around problems with properties ie gas saftey checks for instance.Eg Making yourself intentionally homeless and get re-housed by the LA I think your find that reading through the post's this has a huge bearing on whats been discussed.

Having just read this and without getting too complexed you all seem to be missing the boat here: 1) Everybody seems to be working from the 1988 HA which was amended by the Local Goverment and Housing Act 1989 and further amended by the 1996 HA. 21.—(1) Without prejudice to any right of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with Chapter I above, on or after the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy which was a fixed term tenancy, a court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house if it is satisfied— (a) that the assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end and no further assured tenancy (whether shorthold or not) is for the time being in existence, other than an assured shorthold periodic tenancy; and ( the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months' notice stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house. (2) A notice under paragraph ( of subsection (1) above may be given before or on the day on which the tenancy comes to an end; and that subsection shall have effect notwithstanding that on the coming to an end of the fixed term tenancy a statutory periodic tenancy arises. (3) Where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house by virtue of subsection (1) above, any assured shorthold periodic tenancy which has arisen on the coming to an end of the assured shorthold tenancy shall end (without further notice and regardless of the period) on the day on which the order takes effect. (4) Without prejudice to any such right as is referred to in subsection (1) above, a court shall make an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured shorthold tenancy which is an assured shorthold periodic tenancy if the court is satisfied— (a) that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section; and( that the date specified in the notice under paragraph (a) above is not earlier than the earliest day on which, apart from section 5(1) above, the tenancy could be brought to an end by a notice to quit given by the landlord on the same date as the notice under paragraph (a) above. That is what the HA1988 should look like after the amendment of the LGHA(1989) which would therefore make the wording on a S21 NOTICE invalid. Furthermore add the amendments to the 1996HA 98. - (1) Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)( (which requires the landlord under a fixed term tenancy to give two months' notice to recover possession), after "notice" there shall be inserted "in writing". (3) In subsection (4)(a) (corresponding provision for periodic tenancies), after "notice", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "in writing". Restriction on recovery of possession on expiry or termination. 99. In section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted at the end- "(5) Where an order for possession under subsection (1) or (4) above is made in relation to a dwelling-house let on a tenancy to which section 19A above applies, the order may not be made so as to take effect earlier than- (a) in the case of a tenancy which is not a replacement tenancy, six months after the beginning of the tenancy, and ( in the case of a replacement tenancy, six months after the beginning of the original tenancy. (6) In subsection (5)( above, the reference to the original tenancy is- (a) where the replacement tenancy came into being on the coming to an end of a tenancy which was not a replacement tenancy, to the immediately preceding tenancy, and ( where there have been successive replacement tenancies, to the tenancy immediately preceding the first in the succession of replacement tenancies. (7) For the purposes of this section, a replacement tenancy is a tenancy- (a) which comes into being on the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy, and ( under which, on its coming into being- (i) the landlord and tenant are the same as under the earlier tenancy as at its coming to an end, and (ii) the premises let are the same or substantially the same as those let under the earlier tenancy as at that time.". I beleive if these were read in conjunction with s175 HA1996 many private landlords would be stung by the courts. - (1) A person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, which he- (a) is entitled to occupy by virtue of an interest in it or by virtue of an order of a court, ( has an express or implied licence to occupy, or © occupies as a residence by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession. (2) A person is also homeless if he has accommodation but- (a) he cannot secure entry to it, or ( it consists of a moveable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation and there is no place where he is entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it. (3) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy (landlords not carrying out gas checks) (4) A person is threatened with homelessness if it is likely that he will become homeless within 28 days. All in All private renting is a farce and all private landlords manage to get away with it.

Imp you make a very good point there.Why should tenants jump through hoops.My own thoughts are that tenants shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush as landlords shouldn't but im afraid that until this"them and us culture" is eradicated the problem is always going to be there.

There seems to be a general concensus on these forums who is right and who is wrong.I agree with Pedro if tenant's are treated like something " you've just scrapped off your shoe"(my words) then the landlord deserves all that he gets and "vice versa".It may upset a tenant if a S21 NOTICE is issued at the begining of a tenancy because there is always a threat of eviction hanging over them although this may be to his/hers advantage in court proceedings.Similarly if a tenant get's into arrears with his/her rent or trash's the property then they deserve all that get.My own opinion is that there should be a compromise between tenant and Landlord and that the tenancy conditions should be adhered to by both parties and actually written into the agreement in wording that both parties understand.

Mr Shed has summed up the definition of furnished but this would depend on what is written into the tenancy agreement.If you are considering furnished property carry out an inventory of the items so that there is no claim afterwards for damages etc.

But would not pets count as your personal belongings.But on the other hand if the pet's are causing a nuisance then a landlord would have every right to request that there found another home.I think there may be a" double edged" sword on this one.