Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Turnbull2000

Horrific Renting Thread On Mse

Recommended Posts

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

Edited by Turnbull2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

It's nothing to do with tenancy - assuming what's being described has taken place then it's a straightforward criminal offence - entering the property without permission and taking another's possessions is a matter for the police. I'm no legal expert but I'd be suggesting breaking and entering, and theft as two possible charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

sadly , laws do not prevent crime. they just make certain actions criminal.

anyway, added my 2p worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

I've thought that for a while. A friend of mine from Uni was from a fairly wealthy background. We both graduated at the same time and started working at the same time. I earned more than him then and still do now, not significantly but several thousand more a year at every stage.

His parents gave him a large deposit and he was able to buy a 4 bed house in Bristol, he rented out the 3 other rooms which has more than covered his mortgage. His parents also bought him a car and supported him financially at university so he didn't take on any debt.

So whereas financially I've also earned more, the money from his parents has meant he has never had to spend any of his take home salary on housing, the mortgage is covered by the rent from the lodgers, he hasn't taken out a car loan or any student loans. Plus as he was able to buy in 2002 he's made a substantial capital gain on the house, even at current prices. From my estimation he's probably atleast £1000 per month better than me due to his parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've thought that for a while. A friend of mine from Uni was from a fairly wealthy background. We both graduated at the same time and started working at the same time. I earned more than him then and still do now, not significantly but several thousand more a year at every stage.

His parents gave him a large deposit and he was able to buy a 4 bed house in Bristol, he rented out the 3 other rooms which has more than covered his mortgage. His parents also bought him a car and supported him financially at university so he didn't take on any debt.

So whereas financially I've also earned more, the money from his parents has meant he has never had to spend any of his take home salary on housing, the mortgage is covered by the rent from the lodgers, he hasn't taken out a car loan or any student loans. Plus as he was able to buy in 2002 he's made a substantial capital gain on the house, even at current prices. From my estimation he's probably atleast £1000 per month better than me due to his parents.

he'll be fine till he needs to move on.

course, having riches in the family helps. like being born winning the lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work.

This has always been the main determining factor in your financial success. You have to a different idea about what success is if you parents are poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nothing to do with tenancy - assuming what's being described has taken place then it's a straightforward criminal offence - entering the property without permission and taking another's possessions is a matter for the police. I'm no legal expert but I'd be suggesting breaking and entering, and theft as two possible charges.

It's a pity that Tony Martin was not the tenant. As he would not be too concerned to call the law, as the situation would be dealt with swiftly and efficiently in-house with a shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His parents gave him a large deposit and he was able to buy a 4 bed house in Bristol, he rented out the 3 other rooms which has more than covered his mortgage. His parents also bought him a car and supported him financially at university so he didn't take on any debt.

So whereas financially I've also earned more, the money from his parents has meant he has never had to spend any of his take home salary on housing, the mortgage is covered by the rent from the lodgers, he hasn't taken out a car loan or any student loans. Plus as he was able to buy in 2002 he's made a substantial capital gain on the house, even at current prices. From my estimation he's probably atleast £1000 per month better than me due to his parents.

And so the plutocracy advances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
It's a pity that Tony Martin was not the tenant. As he would not be too concerned to call the law, as the situation would be dealt with swiftly and efficiently in-house with a shotgun.

Apart from the fact that the break-in took place when Martin was on the premises the parallels are obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

Nothing to do with tenancy law. More to do with police not doing their job. The woman should report it again to the police and if they again refuse to take action, she needs to put a complaint. Someone stealing a passport is indeed a criminal rather than civil matter - even if a bone idol copper says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to a different idea about what success is if you parents are poor.

In my village it was not going to prison and not getting up the duff... THAT was success.

Going through friendsreunited, reading profiles, every girl I went to school with had got married/had kids. That was the norm... it seems to be only me that didn't. I just sat and waited for Mr Right, who never appeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nothing to do with tenancy - assuming what's being described has taken place then it's a straightforward criminal offence - entering the property without permission and taking another's possessions is a matter for the police. I'm no legal expert but I'd be suggesting breaking and entering, and theft as two possible charges.

You're right, it's a criminal offence. If a landlord enters their property without the tenants consent it's a criminal offence and the Police have a duty to record and investigate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read recently that only HRMC and landlords have the law of destraint, where they can take your goods in place on money owed, without going to the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the incidents and landlord's conduct are as described then it's a clear case of harassment -- a serious criminal offence.

Maybe an HPCer registered at MSE could post these links up...

'My Landlord wants me out - protection against harassment and illegal eviction':

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications...mylandlordwants

This booklet describes some of the forms harassment may take and sets out what people can do if they are being harassed or are threatened with illegal eviction.

'Harrassment by Landlords':

http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/index.php?pa...ible&id=140

Harassment by a landlord is a serious offence and carries civil as well as criminal penalties.

The law relating to harassment and unlawful eviction is very one sided and heavily weighted against the landlord. A landlord can act in what they would consider to be a reasonable way and still be legally engaging in an act of harassment. For instance faxing a letter about rent arrears to the tenants work resulted in a successful claim for harassment being brought resulting in damages of £750 being awarded against the landlord.

Harassment includes a landlord: cutting off water, gas, or electricity; threatening tenants with eviction; interfering with tenant's mail; long-term failure to do repairs; deliberate noise pollution, seeking the tenant outside the scope of the premises a landlord is letting i.e. going to their workplace.

Advice to landlords

Landlords should never coerce a tenant into leaving no matter how bad they are. If a landlord proposes to do something to their tenant thinking "that will get rid of them", if they have not got a legal reason for their actions, they are probably acting unlawfully.

If a landlord must visit their tenant under strained circumstances they should always try to take along an independent witness. In this way the landlord will be in a position to defend them self from spurious claim made by the tenant.

A landlord needs to be particularly careful where they think a tenant has left the property or so called Abandonment. They should never be tempted to change the locks and remove tenants' possessions in such circumstances even if they are unconvinced that the tenant has done a 'runner'. This is because by virtue of S5 (2) of the Housing Act 1988 a tenancy can only be brought to an end by the Landlord obtaining a Court order for possession or by a surrender or similar act by the tenant. If the courts are convinced that the landlord intended to re-instate the tenant after a discussion about rent arrears it is likely the landlord will be prosecuted for Harassment, if they believe the intention was the eviction be permanent then the landlord will be prosecuted for unlawful eviction.

Landlords should always give the tenant as much notice a possible if they are to visit the property to avoid any potential claims of harassment. At least 48 hours ideally unless there is an emergency. In wording the notice it is always a good idea to couch the notification in the negative. That is to say "I will be visiting the residential investment property at 1pm on Thursday 6 June. If this is not convenient please notify me ASAP."

A landlord should never approach a tenant for rent or matters relating to a potential conflict involving the tenancy outside the scope of the premises they are letting as this could constitute harassment.

If problems arise a landlord should remember to keep dated notes about their actions and the tenants response in case the matter does go to court and the tenant tries to claim harassment.

A landlord needs to be realistic about losses including loss of rent.

This is because the financial penalties of being convicted for harassment could be far worse.

'Harassment':

http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/index.php?pa...ible&id=207

Harassment legislation

It has been a criminal offence since 1964 for a landlord to harass or unlawfully evict an occupier who is legally entitled to be on the premises. This can include trespassers.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 was introduced to toughen the protection for tenants which were not considered satisfactory. This Act created an offence of harassment under S1 (3). If convicted a landlord could be subject to a penalty of up to a £5000 fine and 6 months in jail at Magistrates Court and an unlimited fine and up to 2 years in jail at Crown Court.

Definition of harassment

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 defines harassment as: any act(s) likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or any members of his or her family, or the persistent withdrawal of services reasonably needed for occupation. Offences under S1(3) can only be committed by the landlord or his agent who intend to cause the person to leave. There is no requirement to prove that the landlord intended the occupier to leave. Under S1(3A) the same offences can be committed by any person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that this will make the occupier leave. There is a defence to S1(3A) if a landlord can prove that they had reasonable grounds for carrying out the acts.

The Criminal Law Act (1977) under section 6(2) of this act states that it is an offence for anyone 'without lawful authority' to use, or threaten to use, violence to gain entry to a property where someone is trying to prevent him form doing so. The police will normally prosecute a landlord under the Criminal Law Act.

However, criminal courts are not empowered to order a landlord to allow tenants back into a property. The 1988 Housing Act extended the offence of harassment, introducing a right to civil action for damages by wrongfully evicted occupiers. This piece of legislation introduced granted the tenant the right to sue for damages in the County Court.

This act allows tenants to either seek an injunction to restrain a landlord or to regain possession of a property. To bring proceedings a 'cause of action' is necessary which means that a landlord must be shown to have broken some rule of law by his actions and to have caused the tenant to suffer loss or harm because of this.

Compensation

The basic remedy for breach of contract or tort will be damages or compensation for loss. These damages can amount to considerable sums of money. For actions under section 27 of the Housing Act (1988), (where a landlord commits acts resulting in a tenant giving up a property) section 28 requires that damages be assessed on the basis of the gain to the landlord, in an attempt to prevent landlords from profiting from their actions.

Claims in respect of harassment and illegal eviction have been deemed not suitable for the small claims procedure. Claims up to £15,000 will normally be referred to the new fast track procedure which aims to bring these claims to trial within 30 weeks of being allocated with only a limited amount of pre-trial preparation. The costs awarded at trial (which will not normally exceed one day) are fixed at no more than £750 for the advocate. A claim exceeding £15,000 will normally be allocated to the 'multi-track' which is a more flexible procedure where costs are recovered on the traditional standard or indemnity basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read recently that only HRMC and landlords have the law of destraint, where they can take your goods in place on money owed, without going to the courts.

Interesting, had not heard of that. It doesn't sound likely, but then i don't know.

Not at all surprised by the police; they know their job and it's protecting property and the propertied classes, not tennants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read recently that only HRMC and landlords have the law of destraint, where they can take your goods in place on money owed, without going to the courts.

Distraint

I think that the Landlord will find themselves in significant bother if that is indeed what they have done.

Reform

In the United Kingdom, there have been proposals to reform the remedy of distraint. Concerns have been expressed that the use of the distraint remedy may result in violations of human rights, such as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private life. The Lord Chancellor's Department (now the Ministry of Justice) in May 2001 issued the consultation paper Enforcement Review Consultation Paper No. 5: Distress for Rent, which proposes abolishing distraint for residential leases, but retaining it for commercial property subject to certain safeguards to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Distraint will be abolished in the UK when the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s.71 comes into force, replacing the remedy, solely for leases on commercial property, by a statutory system of Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR).[4][5]

Magna Carta

Article 61 of the 1215 document extended the law of distraint to the monarch's properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all surprised by the police; they know their job and it's protecting property and the propertied classes, not tennants.

No, the police only want to do things which require no investigation and no proof of guilt, such as catching people speeding (even when the speeding is not excessive or dangerous), undertaking stop and search, issuing fixed penalites that require no court appearance, lording it over people at demonstrations and other similar matters. They also like to undertake high speed chases in police cars, as an excuse to try out the car. However, when it comes to boring police work like tracking down thieves, and traditional detective work, they cannot be bothered. It takes them too long to keep the stats looking good. Solving that one crime would take as long as booking 1000s of motorists.

Edited by BalancedBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the police only want to do things which require no investigation and no proof of guilt, such as catching people speeding (even when the speeding is not excessive or dangerous), undertaking stop and search, issuing fixed penalites that require no court appearance, lording it over people and demonstrations and other similar matters. They also like to undertake high speed chases in police cars, as an excuse to try out the car. However, when it comes to boring police work like tracking down thieves, and traditional detective work, they cannot be bothered. It takes them too long to keep the stats looking good. Solving that one crime would take as long as booking 1000s of motorists.

Yes 1000% true. We can blame Labour for that one completely. The coppers on the ground aren't too impressed by it but their bosses will do anything to achieve the government targets as they are all now on a bonus payment system.

Good init?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the incidents and landlord's conduct are as described then it's a clear case of harassment -- a serious criminal offence.

Maybe an HPCer registered at MSE could post these links up...

'My Landlord wants me out - protection against harassment and illegal eviction':

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications...mylandlordwants

'Harrassment by Landlords':

http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/index.php?pa...ible&id=140

'Harassment':

http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/index.php?pa...ible&id=207

Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very difficult to pick the bones out of that, knowing just one version of events.

No doubt the LL would relate a different version.

Looking at it from another angle ( not more accurate, just different) he may indeed be very tight for funds himself and is perhaps a reluctant landlord.

He has a tenant who is changing her name ( not illegal, but a bit odd ) , has ceased to pay the rent on time, and and has cited a string of calamitous events as the reason she has broken their agreement. No wonder he is worried. If he then defaults on his mortgage, it will probably have major implications for him.

Not all landlords are evil exploiters. Not all tenants are upstanding honest individuals. Things are seldom what they seem, especially if you have just the 'spin' of a single party on which to base your judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he then defaults on his mortgage, it will probably have major implications for him.

Not nearly as major as getting a criminal record for harassment and theft.

Not all landlords are evil exploiters. Not all tenants are upstanding honest individuals. Things are seldom what they seem, especially if you have just the 'spin' of a single party on which to base your judgement.

In this case, it seems unlikely that the tenant would have gone to the police if they had been acting dishourably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....html?t=1943505

Christ this makes me angry. Will those f**king politicians (in both parties) ever deal with tenancy law? My gut feeling is that we're heading towards an era (if we're not already there) where success is determined by the wealth of your parents, not how hard you work. Countless thousands without the benefit of a large inheritance or parental deposit currently face being consigned to life-long renting, with the constant threat of eviction or a ******* landlord overshadowing your life. A highly unsettling prospect should you wish to have kids.

That's right. All landlords are evil.

xxxk off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's right. All landlords are evil.

xxxk off!

Agents are worse.

My landlord seems just fine. lives next door...any probs, I pop round, have a cuppa and things get sorted. luvly jubbly.

xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, had not heard of that. It doesn't sound likely, but then i don't know.

Not at all surprised by the police; they know their job and it's protecting property and the propertied classes, not tennants.

no, their primary role is to protect Life, then property.

thats not landlords property, but your property,,,your mobile phone, your biro, your safety pin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.