Jump to content

Carryon Regardless

Members
  • Content Count

    1,590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carryon Regardless

  1. I'm inviting opinions, clarified if possible. My contract clarifies that, regardless of tenancy start dates, that following 6 months + however many days to enter into a periodic tenancy 'each tenancy period is a calendar month'. That is, during a SPT a tenancy period commences on the 1st of any month and ends on the last day of that month. The AST details that payment of rents are for these clarified periods. Under legislation that's the important bit as a tenancy period is stated to be the period that rent is paid for, so this is agreed by all when signing the AST. My recent example. T now in SPT texts 13th Feb "I'll be leaving at the end of the month". I reply 20th (having been in Italy), "please use last page on tenancy pack to serve notice". 28th Feb T informs by text he has gone and posted keys through property letter box. I visit flat 4th March and keys are in the flat as is the completed 'Notice of Tenancy Termination', as provided by me in the tenancy pack. I have invoiced for rents till the end of March, with copy information to guarantor. I would say if I were so inclined his notice would expire at the end of April, unless I re-let. Now I feel all that is compliant with legislation, and realise that T education is often required. They accepting this is another matter, so it strikes me that referring them to the Shelter website can have value. So today I've checked their, often changing, statements on this. https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/ending_a_periodic_tenancy So they agree that 1 month notice. They state that it must end at the end of a tenancy period, or at the start of the next and the T can choose. This is new to me, midnight on the last day is the regular understanding. Also no surprise they state if the tenancy starts on the (10th in this case) it can end on the 10th or the 11th. In this case that would give me an extra 10 days, but I don't intend to pursue that. But it could be problem if the situation were to the T's advantage. Also stated on their website is that merely posting keys back into the property does not constitute surrender, I concur with this view but wonder if a court would allow sympathy. Also stated is that a LL can continue to charge rent until a property is surrended correctly. On this one I have charged an absconded T 3 months extra, until I posted abandonment notices and let to the next. Most of us are aware of the risk of doing that, without damn good proof that departure can be demonstrated. Anyway that exT and G'tor make payments at £150 pm so I'm happy. Shelter also suggest obtaining proof of them serving notice, receipt or recorded delivery. Common sense but I haven't seen that yet. While I can appreciate that some LL's only have beautiful T's that comply ideally with requirements, those experiences won't help us sad individuals that don't enjoy such a sweet existence. Thoughts appreciated, I like many would benefit from a recognised policy for these situations.
  2. Works that are replacement or repairs aren't notifiable works, additional installations are. Kitchens and especially bathrooms get extra consideration. The only time non inspection becomes an issue is if there is an incident and the HSE are called in, or come sale time when the surveyor or solicitor might ask for certificates for recent works. The general and easy route is to use an NIC registered sparky. He can, obviously, do the work, but as local councils need a registered sparky to comply with their requirements, he can deal with them also. There are 3 organisations that should comply but, when I looked into this, the NIC were considered the ones. If there is work carried out by a non registered sparky he should inform you that an inspection is required, or arrange it. Since the inspection would, effectively, be carried out by an NIC sparky it makes sense that he should have done the work. I considered going back in to contracting to cherry pick work. The qualifications are no issue but the registration costs and meter's calibration costs make it far less of an attractive proposition. Then if I do work and the customer needs to employ a registered sparky for inspection where is the point in me?
  3. Any Ltd Co mortgage is likely to be covered by a personal assurance (underwritten effectively). The original directors would then be at risk of the new company owners / directors abusing the situation causing the originals to still be responsible for the payment of the debt.
  4. Nah, a £150K pa person wanting to rent my flats, only if he wants to run it as a brothel. I don't approve of people putting holes in any of my properties
  5. Floor covering, blinds and cooker is all I provide. Any other items that were left by previous are given to the new T's, if they want them. Years ago my first let was furnished but "I have my own" this and that made all lettings more complicated. The only potential T's that had nowt I wouldn't want anyway.
  6. A thought, if you declare yourself as self employed, and charge the property for your efforts, as say administrator, agent, or such, you reduce the shared net profits and end up with personal profits to be taxed on. Any issues with that theory?
  7. That's interesting information Duck. Firstly if I were to use an agent for my properties 80 miles away in N. Wales I would need to attend the agents office prior to attending my properties. In other words a very small part of the overall journey would be tax deductible. It effectively removes any incentive for me to use and agent. Then if I go to N. Wales for property business, but continue to my boat (moored in Anglesey for obvious reasons) for leisure purposes again the whole journey wouldn't be deductible. What the tax man don't know don't hurt him as far as I'm concerned, and to learn more he'll need to follow me.
  8. When providing promotional material to contractors/ clients the promotional material should carry company identification/ logo. Perhaps mugs and biscuit packets would be considered to be compliant if carrying the words "Compliments of the Scum Landlord", I can't imagine any MP arguing with that.
  9. You must decide which method of tax allowance you will claim for a vehicle at the offset, and stick with that method during the usage of that vehicle. The business mileage log is 45ppm for the first 10,000 miles and then 25ppm there after.
  10. Hopefully things haven't changed for my style. I continue to claim for business mileage. As I intentionally don't drive high value cars it gives advantage, and no consideration for capital write down or other motoring expenses.
  11. Thanks, Grampa, I'll look into that company. One issue with the RTM route is that there is 1 other owner, abusive, and wouldn't pay his share. He is a major management problem but the overall advantage could still be worth it. Notices were served on me, but as 1 flat is owned by my limited company no notices were served on it. Compton / Tapestart have been requested to serve these but no response. My limited company will defend CC action on the basis that they have not been served and aren't due to pay until this requirement has been met. Of course the money will need paying eventually.
  12. Comptons are on the offensive again. 3 CC claims for my 4 flats, for charges that I will defend as should be offset by my costs of defending the 1st lot of claims that they dropped. They are also citing, again, that some charges are applicable in advance. The lease, as clearly as these things are, states that all charges are in arrear. They have cited HA2002. I intend to state all charges are due in arrear, but just in case I've missed anything, is anyone aware of any case history or legislation I'm unaware of that would enable the freeholder to charge in advance in contradiction to the lease?
  13. I can't dig out the regulation right now. What is relevant is the period the rent is contracted to be paid for. Start dates and payment dates may well become irrelevant due to that. The main problem is judges are confused, as are many, by the ever changing and misquoted legislation, so if an appearance is required it makes sense to be able to quote the actual legislation being relied on. As Grampa, using a 'savings clause' should allow for a judge to decide on the date he / she believes to be applicable. I would be worth high lighting its presence in the court claim. What I have written into my contract is clarification as to what each rental period is, it is the same for each of my tenancies regardless of tenancy start date. Now though, after October 2015, we only need allow 2 months after service of S21, other dates are irrelevant. As long as we can demonstrate correct service the savings clause, and my clarification of a rental period, become irrelevant. I would serve your S21, with savings clause, and wait some time beyond the last date that may be seen by a judge as relevant, before proceeding with a court claim. It may not get that far. "After the expiry of this notice. Or the last day of a period of the tenancy next occurring following expiry of this notice. This notice expires AFTER: _________________" This is what use, it allows a judge to decide.
  14. Aye, I liked her style yesterday. I see her stance though as a starting point for negotiations. If the EU continue to be so arrogant I hope she holds her nerve.
  15. Aye, I heard the comment of a cynicist that we might become like the Cayman Islands or Singapore. That'l save on flights. Sounds good to me.
  16. Not quite true RL, Buy a Honda and likely as not it needs only fuel and service, buy a Hyundia and you might well be replacing the turbo each year. As for Germans, I have driven Mercs for years for the better engineering but they are so complicated there is more to go wrong. And their recent engines don't fill me with confidence (especially the Renault engines I've heard will be going in some MB's). I'm with Mel in that you get what you pay for, hopefully.
  17. I've found that the self sealing PRV's have a tendency to weep when a few years old as the heat has hardened the rubber sealing ring. As you'll know Mel only around £20 for a new valve but can be knuckle destroying to replace (that ignores the back twisting shapes we have to get into). I view the PRV as there for safety as for convenience it's not convenient in the long term.
  18. Another method that can be useful is to have payments made from the G'tors bank account. I've never opted for this and it can't be policed, but if operating like this then the G'tor is carrying the responsibility of chasing the T. It also continually demonstrates the G'tors involvement and situation awareness.
  19. Please remember I'm just some guy on the internet, but my further thoughts. By now you should know your maximum exposure, but that assumes that you won't become liable for your ex T's legal costs and you can be sure his vulture will attempt to make you so. In court you should be prepared with your response, possibly at summing up. Now there is a vulture on the go this will have its own momentum. The vulture will want as much meat from this as can be had, an easy result isn't in his interest. Your employing your own vulture could easily run up your own costs that outweigh the present exposure. Two vultures play a lovely game each feeding off the developing conflict. You may find paying up any award is cheaper, far less time consuming and less stressful. His vulture may not realise you are up for the possible effective 4x, in any negotiation that could help some. It seems he realises that you are liable for non protection, and non serving of prescribed info (but that makes no difference so don't be harassed if that argument comes up). Considering the deposit has been returned in a fashion that was to the T's advantage, and as this was by you being very compliant to the T's wishes and supporting his life development the Court may well give you sympathy. It isn't difficult to see an ex T who now sees an opportunity for an easy buck to buy his new sofa. Already you you have shown your agreement to extend the tenancy, on a daily basis, so no double rents there (distress of rents).You can claim for any unpaid rents though, and it wouldn't harm any to claim for cleaning and repairs required at the end of tenancy. I'm not expecting you carried out a 'check in' and 'check out' to give that any credibility though. It doesn't seem likely the exT would listen to your education but just rely on the vulture. A little satisfaction might be that any award will just pay the vulture, not the ex T. Don't get too stressed, let his vulture claw and squawk, just be prepared to cough up when need be. Let us know where this goes though, cos this is just theory so far.
  20. Nowadays I use gut feeling as my 1st decider. I might drop in to the present address 'at teatime' with an extra application form to check their life style. Requesting to use the loo can reveal much. I check the G'tor for ability to settle, in the event, at a cost of £3. The Land Registry will show when their property was bought and for how much. You will see outstanding charges (Mortgage) but not how much. It isn't difficult to assess, with online property prices, if likely to be negative equity or if they have equity for you to claim against. You might run a check for bad credit history on both. I tell them I shall (bluff) and suggest a bad report will mean they lose their admin fee if they don't declare any adverse history beforehand. I usually get a list of mobile phone company issues, Sky, occasional bank, or I scared them and I don't see the admin fee or them again.
  21. It's the court that decides how much of an award the T should get, not his vulture solicitor. I also have the view that as the claim should go through the County Court there is no need for your ex T to employ a solicitor so any costs for that shouldn't be a penalty to you. I would consider creating your defence in preparation for court, however minimal that might be. You have the 2 confusing letters and might use them to show the poor confusing effect of the solicitor anyway. Be ready to make settlement after the hearing and there should be no adverse marker against you. You might reduce your final outlay by negotiation (pre Court), that at max is 3 x deposit value + return of deposit (so 4x effectively), but be cautious that this would actually remove the right of the ex T to claim anyway. It is now a game that solicitors like to play for revenues, don't be harassed.
  22. Guarantor, in good financial situation. Home owner preferred.
  23. Mel perhaps you could confirm that the fill loop (with it's non return valve) isn't supposed to be left fitted. Some years ago I plumbed a copper filling loop, thinking it removed some faff, on inspection my 'engineer' told me it was naughty.
×
×
  • Create New...