Jump to content

Carryon Regardless

Members
  • Content Count

    1,585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carryon Regardless

  1. AXA Insurance PO Box 182, Glasgow G2 8JF 0845 600 5822 Check to be sure, but I'm fairly sure this is good for 90 days unoccupied, btw most are 30 days in my experience.
  2. For what it's worth, my bit. From now on don't waste time and effort dealing with your LA, put it behind you, too complicated too expect pursuing to have benefit. BUT KEEP THE THREAT OF LITIGATION APPARENT. Find out if the T's gave a deposit, is it protected ? Threaten and sue the LA for the deposit if not, but protect the deposit for your own protection. Decide if you wish to keep the new T's, if so organise for a new AST at 6 months, or sooner if they are compliant. T's from now pay you direct. The LA would be foolish to claim against you as the counter claim would leave him out of pocket, create evidence just in case. If he wishes to make claim it's my opinion that it is better for you as he goes or it and pays. Essentially sort deposit, ditch LA, decide on future with T's.
  3. A fairly standard term in an AST is that the T's are responsible for utility bills. Sometimes utilities will require sight to accept you aren't responsible, this assumes that the accounts were transferred into the T's name /s. I assume the 'protected' deposit is available to claim some of the losses of rent. However losses of rent will be a little more complex than just assuming you may claim the remaining 3 months.
  4. I was lucky enough to refinance when the banks were competing like hell. I've complete flexibility on mine (offset style) at 0.98%. Till April this year I was paying £4.46pm for a £57,750 mortgage, now it's up to £111.59 pm what a bitch I can only get £386 in rent.. All this was when surveys and legals were free and surveyors didn't really survey. Self cert made getting mortgages a breeze, and lets face it without low interest rates many, many more would have gone under by now. I see banks are again starting to promote their mortgage products, a sign that their attitude is relaxing. The interest rates aren't fantastic bearing in mind the base rate, otherwise not bad. The charges are what effectively boosts the rate and makes the deal more profitable for them. They are also going to be cautious in their lending. On saying that I'm aware of someone who, in partnership, without good secure foundation (either of them), are still able to raise mortgages for BTL buys. The possibilities are there, just not cheap any more, so the purchase has to be attractive. I wonder how many are going to struggle as the interest rates climb. I would expect a base rate of 3.5 - 4% within 18 months, in fact I am surprised we have been so lucky for so long.
  5. Proof of 'service' is required. Those with experience find proof of post (no signature required) to be preferable to proof of delivery, as knowledgeable recipients refuse to sign and then you have nowt. If you delivered by hand 'only' then really it's your word against theirs, being precise about date and time may help. Apart from errors on the S21 about the only defence is the defendant saying it wasn't served. In the past I have been fortunate that one of the interfering bodies (such as Shelter) have made contact confirming service. If there is demonstrable evidence of the T responding this is good also, previously I have felt confidence in a text asking what this is all about. This has far greater use if other texts from the same number show the T has 'most likely' written them. When I serve face to face I usually have a witness and ask the T to sign my copy. Other methods are usual post, adhering to an obvious part of the property, front door is my favourite. I have been known to use many of these for one notice. They call it harassment, I call it belt and braces.
  6. The County Court is supposedly not about proof positive but 'most likely. Can't say I'm sure about the practice though. Last time in court I was claiming a small amount for a door that had fallen off it's hinges, as they do. The G said he wasn't aware of this (he was). The judge said I would have to prove it anyway. Sorry Irina I'm not sure what to say to help you in honesty. To my mind your evidence should suffice, maybe the fact that there was no bed prior to your T and appeared as he did ??
  7. Melboy you could develop a business here. That's 2 of us you've got, any more ?
  8. Considering you can't remove it seems easiest to apologise to the management co and pay them to do the job. I wouldn't authorise the removal as it could be seen as theft, if the management co remove they carry the risk. Yes pass the invoice on to the T, in case you have to chase the debt I would think of having some evidence that the bed belongs to the T. Further I would now be concerned with the condition of the flat, this lack of consideration may be a risk to you in other ways.
  9. Thanks for the tip. I've found different councils have different policies. With some it is possible to negotiate extensions to the original exemption period, or at least a discount.
  10. If you are careful to give correct information on the forms, as you must have been on the S21 (or it will likely fail), you should be alright doing this yourself. Double check your S21 detail, including proof of service, and post to reach the court for the 'expiry' date.
  11. I would contact the freeholder to at least manage the situation. After a very short period of opportunity I would then contact the Environmental Health of the local council passing on the freeholder details.
  12. I would only consider this as joint T's with guarantor(s). I would make them aware that they are both responsible for the full rent, it's then up to them how they arrange this. It sounds like they are 2 young females ?? That would scare the hell outa me.
  13. Mel I'm sure we agree that the laws regarding property rental are a farce. The way they have evolved it's no wander there are mistakes made by T's and LL's. Then of course the legal profession can attack the reputed greedy LL. My concern is that unless we have documentation demonstrating surrender, or a repossession order as LL's we run the risk of a claim. (Even with the possession order you may require a Bailiff the give actual possession.) We clearly have the imposed greater responsibility to manage situations within the ridiculous confines of the law or there is risk to us. This risk more often means we shall suffer financial disadvantage, or worse criminal charges. Success in a court will invariably mean the LL still loses, time, effort, cost, and certainly not to be understated STRESS. It is intelligent to be cautious from the very point we take ownership of a rental property. Inconsideration of your last question, -ya got me there.
  14. Really it's a judgement call as you know the situation better, and of course your trying to understand your exposure. Just because they ask the questions doesn't mean they are entitled to the answers. They have no additional position of power (unless things have changed, which I doubt) but it does sound like they may have confidence that they have you on the run. My thoughts are that in your shoes I would be reluctant to expend dosh unless very necessary. Expending my efforts just because they are causing me to would p*ss me off. Should this end up in front of a judge it becomes important that you look as though it shouldn't have, or you have taken reasonable steps to prevent it. That is you weren't awkward. It may be worth some research to see if Shelter have a damaged reputation in some cases and lost some credibility as an honourable organisation fighting for the little man. My experience was that they got a good ear in court, I didn't. A clear disadvantage. I perceive that there is also a trend to take from the rich and give to the corrupt nowadays. I believe Shelter operatives are there mainly to gain experience for use in developing their career ?? They will be knowledgeable in tenancy law but your initial step to involve the Council Housing Office sounds good but I would consider the validity of the advice, but yor evidence sounds as though you were considerate of the T rights. Your danger of illegal eviction comes from whether you have prevented your T from gaining access, it can be more complicated especially if your actions are perceived to cause the T to not want to occupy. Record events chronologically and you may develop an overall view more easily, to show strengths and weaknesses of each argument. See how you can demonstrate that the T has been able to attain access (if you changed the locks). Also how easily access has been facilitated when required. Is there a possibility that the T lost his own keys, as an example some T even post them back through the letter box. As you will be I'm interested in the opinions of others on this. Grampa has good experience of dealing with our courts. Richlist may show how a lack of forethought, management and organisation may be a part cause.
  15. They have a solicitor that will advise on the more technical issues, but my experience with them, in the county court, are that the case worker will assist the client as a 'layperson'. Shelter, in my case, acted in favour of the client even though 'errors' in the story were obvious. The case worker, at a face to face meeting, then supported 'errors' and was clearly not accurate with his own statements. I organised the meeting in attempt to progress in an adult fashion, and reduce / prevent wasting time and effort. It was a waste of bloody effort in itself. In court the 'errors' were clearly shown as such by me, I was claimant, sympathy went to the defendant. My view is that Shelter is very dangerous and should not be trusted as an ethical organisation, exercise caution. You may learn much of them by looking at their website, I haven't for many years, but they claim successes against the evil LL. Prior to DPS they enjoyed recovering deposits, and claims for harassment, dis repair....... They show the rental market to be full of abusing LL's. My perception was that they write very one sided with a bias to justify their cause. Of course maybe I am just bitter at them costing me approx £3k. By the way the defence offered was my agreement for T to do works in lieu of rent, coincidentally the value of works, w/o a chronological balance, had been calculated to match the claim. Some businessman I would have been.
  16. Not knowing the result of this situation and it's complications I would seriously consider serving a S21 notice for repossession. If they both surrender then you have the result, if they don't and you desire repossession you are closer to that result. If you create a new AST then the S21 is void. From this situation I am not sure I would see the gf as a desirable future T. The inspection might well help you develop your opinion.
  17. The bf does have rights as a T, as we see with another thread where a T is in jail he is still T. Working away, backpacking round the world no matter until the is tenancy closed out there are responsibilities toward a tenancy from both L and T. This is often where I have found use of a guarantor, in situations of abandonment, failure to communicate by T, I effectively pass the problem to G by reminding them of the G's responsibility. The reasons for the bf wishing access are his business. My guess is he wants his things and she may be afraid he will take more than is right. Their problem. Your concern is the loss of emotional control that may result in damage to your property. I would remind him of his responsibilities as T in advance. I apologise for my earlier statement. To surrender both T's need to agree. They do verbally, apparently, but you need it documented. (I shall edit my earlier mistake). I would guess that he will sign such a declaration when his needs are satisfied ?? I also see a complication in that he won't know what he's signing. For your protection you may want someone who can assist him to understand. You and the gf have an interest so aren't really suitable.
  18. The only issue with '2' is that if the bf hasn't surrendered he is still T (bearing in mind that people change their mind to suit the need). There are no rights to exclude him as T until the existing tenancy is 'closed out', of course the gf may surrender the tenancy. At this point you have no rights to exclude him from the property, I view however the fact that he has mislaid his key is his problem, he does have the right to employ a locksmith to gain entry (or other chosen method).
  19. My view. If new T's are considered by 'the partnership' and there is no disadvantage to the remaining partner then the ins / outs (financially) of the departing partners room should be his. As you have agreed to split the pros and cons of the rest of the house 50 / 50 and you both have a benefit from the areas 'allocated' to each individual partner then each of the individuals areas surely must be the benefit / responsibility of that individual. The individual should enjoy any benefit of his area, but any downside (repairs, repossession cost for example) should be born by the individual. Where that areas T causes issue it should be managed or paid for by the departing partner.
  20. I would let them resolve their present differences before considering the next step. If he gets silly he still has responsibility toward the tenancy and property. Both are required to terminate the present tenancy, then you are free to create a new AST as you please. A difficulty with the young single female is that you are unable to assess future likely 'guests'. You are then just hopeful that the next chap doesn't have desire to mark his scent, some feel the need to demonstrate the rights of the little lady. I hope you have / will have a guarantor, and possibly other things on the Richlist list. PS. Don't get involved with their 'seperation' and who has rights to what you can't win in that situation. Also the bf's difficulties aren't your problem.
  21. Some years ago a council, Wandsworth I think, knowing their T was doing 5 years for sex offences, took possession of their property. I would guess that as the property was no longer his primary residence they had just cause. The serving convict got legal aid to sue the council for illegal eviction. There were no criminal proceedings here which could have fined the council £5,000 max, as for the 6 months in jail that would be interesting to see how the Magistrate would accomplish that. The damages would amaze you, I don't intend to divulge on an open forum for any corrupt git to design for their own advantage. More recently I have been aware of greatly reduced awards for illegal eviction, but I would still say be very careful to avoid the resultant crap from any such action. S21, be sure all is correct, let the process run it's course.
  22. Greetings Julles, I've haven't tried that one but probably will next time Only downside I see is taking calls from those that I can try to exclude in a local paper ad, eg no DSS, over 25's..... I don't see these types reading the window ad well enough, worth a try though
  23. Don't set up sham situations, that is likely to compound any bad situation. You can repossess without a contract as it's still an AST.
  24. I can't imagine any court seeing the occupant, with keys and permission to occupy as any other than a T. You say there is no evidence of granted tenancy but in 2 months no one, you or LA, has done anything to assert otherwise. In practice he is T. As many of us learn T's don't have to pay any thing to have T rights. I also view that repossessing from a T is more straight forward anyway, possibly because I have understanding of the procedure. Allowing your friend to stuff you is your choice, in effect the actions of your LA are your responsibility anyway, as they are under your instruction. It would be for you to claim your losses from the LA later, to reduce the potential it may be intelligent for a negligent LA to take actions to aid resolution.
×
×
  • Create New...