pms
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pms
-
-
It means if you have 3 people in a place (3 adults, not 2 & a child) it's an HMO now and the HMO regulations have been written as though all of these places are bedsits and the tenants lock themselves in their bedrooms and don't talk to each other. Even a 1 bedroom flat that has 1 bedroom containing say a couple & the lounge turned into a bedroom (not uncommon in London) with 1 adult occupying, is now legally considered an HMO and subject to these regulations.
In short, these regulations oblige the LL to do a hell of a lot more than placing thier name & number in a prominant position in the place. Many of the regulations are completely rediculous for non-bedsit type accomodation and completely ignore the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. I have been told by my council that the ODPM has allowed scope for lenient interpretation for smaller HMO's, but the fact remains that if anyone chooses to, they can fall back on these regulations which impose a much greater standard than most LL's are willing to provide for in smaller accomodation.
My own approach is to cover my safety obligations and the rest I am leaving open to interpretation and I will see how the council deals with it in the next year. If they enforce some of these standards, I will be selling up and the tenants will have to find someone else to deal with their minor problems for them.
Have you got a shock coming to you and it will be law within 12 months.
-
If the tenant failed to do what is asked, then demanding the LL pays 300 pounds or else is unreasonable IMO and warrants an eviction at the end of the tenancy.
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!!!
-
You are an idiot to suggest it.
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!!
-
Here;
By the way who is "us" are there more than one of you?
I noticed that you were unable to answer the question.
"if the landlord doesn't have the deposit how can he keep it?"
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
-
Um, no I didn't forget anything if the landlord doesn't have the deposit how can he keep it?
Thankyou for validating my previous comment.
I haven't validated your previous comment whatsoever.Perhaps you can tell us all where your comment has been validated.
-
I have rented five homes through landlords and letting agents. I always clean the place before I left, and have only once had my deposit withheld (by a letting agent). So thats an 80% chance of getting your deposit back. The place where I didn't get the deposit back, the letting agent didn't notice I had put a hole in the wall, but did notice a hole in the carpet (same incident, a box emptied its heavy contents as I was moving in)
Good letting agents do exist. The best service I recieved was when a washing machine blew up one evening. By the end of the next day they had installed a new one.
Letting agents are generally average, with occasional good ones and occasional bad ones. Don't touch anybody who specialises in student lets. They seem to prey on the youth and inexperience of their tenants. Landlords can be good and bad.
Try and find an experienced landlords. If someone is a first time landlord they probably don't know their responsibilities and will try it on. If this is their first let, insist they use a letting agent.
If things go wrong, remember you can easily move out in 6 months time.
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.No it doesnt sound dumb, landlord and tenant law is ridiculously complicated.
When the deposit is held as agent for the landlord its pretty much the same as you having pysically handed the money to the landlord and the the landlord saying to the agent look after this for me and he is holding it purely in the landlords interest.
When the deposit is held as stakeholder even though it is your money both the landlord and tenant have an equal claim on it and it should not be handed to either party without agreement between landlord and tenant.
It is nothing to do with the agent owning anything.
I hope that is a clear explanation, I welcome anyone elses thoughts (other than pms obviously).
-
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
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
-
Its quite likely that there is a whole pile of unenforceable ****** in your lease.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DAAEFE5...EE/0/oft356.pdf
Got to say that I agree with Messer's Crunch and Shed on this one
-
Unfortunately, as harsh as it sounds, he is pretty much entitled to most of those costs. The scuff marks are not just fair wear and tear, it is actually damage caused(even though perhaps unavoidably) due to your actions. He is also probably correct about the laminate flooring not being able to be replaced strip by strip, especially if the marks were in the middle of the floor. However, he can only charge "like for like", which would include age, so depending on the age of the flooring he cannot charge you the full whack for it. The oven sounds certainly chargable. Unless an oven is cleaned weekly/fortnightly, it would require professional cleaning to get it back up to standard.
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"
-
Erm...the one you have posted?
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.
-
Why?
There is now established case law so what is the issue?
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
-
There is not a lot of point, you dont seem to be able to answer the question "how do either of those threads prove anything?"
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2238
Seems to be a thread about landlords seeking advice and concerns about Corgi Engineers.
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.
-
Ok I read the threads, how do either of those threads prove anything?
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.................
-
I meant this bit - "...then I would never use it, nor would I condone the use of it, for the circumstances as you have described above, nor any others which are not the tenants fault. I would give the full notice again. But yes, others may not, hence the problem." - but, fair enough, on rereading, you are excluding circumstances where it's the "tenants fault". But why should you treat all tenants as being potentially at fault in the first place, which is what this practise involves?
I like Elvis's analogy to putting a gun to your head and saying don't worry I won't shoot. Alternatively I could say that's a bit like saying "why don't we put all teenagers on probation - we know some of them will commit crimes and it will make it so much easier to jail them if we've already started the process".
(Actually that sounds scarily like the sort of thing New Labour might well come out with as their new law and order crackdown. I hope the Home Office don't read this forum…)
Sorry, but landlording is a business and this is one of the business risks, deeply frustrating though it must be. It doesn't justifying twisting the law. If landlords are in such a tight cashflow situation that they can't afford to observe the law in such cases they have only themselves to blame for getting into a business without sufficient margin for dealing with forseeable problems. That's not to defend dodgy tenants, but even dodgy tenants have a right to the correct protection of the law, and this practise is affecting many tenants who aren't dodgy but are being treated as guilty unless proved innocent.
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.
-
Correct, and this is why I totally take your comments on board. What I am saying is that, as a useful tool for evicting ONLY when the tenant has behaved in an unacceptable fashion. If I do use this method(which I am still not saying
) then I would never use it, nor would I condone the use of it, for the circumstances as you have described above, nor any others which are not the tenants fault. I would give the full notice again. But yes, others may not, hence the problem.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
-
pms....so that I don't get completely lost....which part of your essay refers to what we are talking about? Sum up your point for me please....hungover today can't be having with reading all that text!
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.
-
Yes it does. I can easily arrange to move in two months and would do so without hesitation if necessary BUT there is no way I could arrange to move in two weeks. I'm renting unfurnished so have a house full of stuff and as imp already said even just arranging removals in that time would be tough, never mind time off work at such short notice which often isn't possible for professional workers. So if the LL imposed this then of course it makes a difference to the tenants rights as they can't complain to the LL for fear of being booted out without notice.
Yes with two months notice rather than about two weeks,
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.
-
I get annoyed when landlords forget that they are the vendor in a £6,000 pa contract (i.e. sizable). Their attitude can be as if they are the buyer in the deal and expect the tennant to jump through hoops just to be allowed to give them £500 a month.
If I was buying a car, I would walk away if dealer treated me like some landlords think they can treat tennants.
On the other side, I have only once not had my deposit back in full because I keep to my side of the deal.
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.
-
Richard's Dad, if you treat your tenants the way that you would wish to be treated in their position, then you will avoid most problems.
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.
-
Had a look on the CAB but no joy. Would anybody know of a resource where I can get a legal definition or guidlines of what a tenant can expect if a property is let as furnished?
Thanks in advance.
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.
-
Just to contradict(slightly) what bonnie says....it IS legal to evict over pets, as long as the term is worded correctly. You cannot have a blanket ban on pets, but you CAN ban pets which may be reasonably expected to cause damage to the property, or cause a nuisance. The initial reason whay a blanket ban was made unfair was because it in theory prevented pets such as goldfish etc!
It is worth pointing out that although it may be illegal to evict due to certain terms(such as a blanket ban on pets etc) it is perfectly legal to "discriminate" against such tenants prior to a tenancy being taken up. However, if as a tenant you lie about having a pet, children etc and then bring them, expect to be evicted quite speedily on a Section 21!
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.
Apartment Flooded With Sewage
in All about renting
Posted
Try it!!