Tent thread

sequence

Maybe the piccies have been photoshopped

Even the worst possible phone camera would take higher resolution pictures than that! Why else resize such an important picture so small.....

mynameisdave

Hmm. Favourite Page - David Cameron.

I wonder if the Conservative PArty are aware they are being, um, promoted(?) in this campaign

john539

sequence wrote: »

Maybe the piccies have been photoshopped

Even the worst possible phone camera would take higher resolution pictures than that! Why else resize such an important picture so small.....

You'd think they don't want to be recognised anymore, and after all that tv & media coverage, what a shame.

And they're old news from last week anyway.

Come on, this is a campaign that is going to rock the world.

With his twittering & tweeting & iPad paradigm bs, you'd have thought he'd posted those piccies next day at least, hot off the press or tweet or ipad.

tbs624

mynameisdave wrote: »

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

Thanks for posting that excerpt from Tessa Shepperson's most recent blog update. I particularly welcomed the comments I've highlighted in red below.

Seems to be a pretty clear comment on recent events, and a direct response to those bleats from amateurs about how things "should be different for those who let out their own home"

It will still be the tenant’s property, even though he or she may not be paying the rent. The fact that they are not paying the rent will normally entitle you, the landlord, to go to court and ask for the tenancy to be brought to an end. But (for residential leases/tenancies) it does not allow you to end it yourself, now, without a court order, and to physically evict the tenant. That would be unlawful.
This is the way it is. If you don’t like it, tough.

The same rules apply to all landlords, whether they are professional investor landlords, ‘accidental’ landlords letting a property because they can’t sell it, or someone renting out their home while they are abroad for a year.
After all, so far as the tenant is concerned, it is their home.

Why should two identical families, paying the same rent for identical properties, be treated differently, just because one is renting from an investor landlord and the other is renting from a home owner working abroad for a year? That would be unfair.


So if you are thinking of renting out a property and feel unhappy about this, there is only one answer. Don’t rent. Because if you do rent to a tenant, you will be bound by these rules. Whether you like it or not.

Round of applause for Tessa:T because, other than her comments and those from Nearly Legal, the silence from those who would normally be expected to knowledgeably speak up on LL&T issues has been deafening.

lynzpower

I love tessa

She is brill !!

mynameisdave

Why are individual posts being removed from this topic?

My post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36152841&postcount=718 was originally at the top of the page then one day
AL's was there http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36153977&postcount=719 This morning that post itself is now at the end of a previous page

lily_livered

tbs624 wrote: »

Tessa:


Why should two identical families, paying the same rent for identical properties, be treated differently, just because one is renting from an investor landlord and the other is renting from a home owner working abroad for a year? That would be unfair.

Especially so if say the tenant is promised it's a long term let because, to take a random example, the owner said they're relocating to Spain, only for them to change their mind and want the tenant out right now.

Any such scheme would also mean the landlord has to declare their status wouldn't it, so the tenant knows what they're getting? Then it would be a matter of good tenants avoiding the amateurs like the plague. Leading to homeowners who can't sell or want to live abroad for a bit moaning they can't find a reputable tenant to rent to either. A case of be careful what you wish for on their part.

mynameisdave

5 hours ago 'an update to come later'

1 hour ago 'online petition launches tomorrow'

Brb

lily_livered wrote: »

Especially so if say the tenant is promised it's a long term let because, to take a random example, the owner said they're relocating to Spain, only for them to change their mind and want the tenant out right now.

Any such scheme would also mean the landlord has to declare their status wouldn't it, so the tenant knows what they're getting? Then it would be a matter of good tenants avoiding the amateurs like the plague. Leading to homeowners who can't sell or want to live abroad for a bit moaning they can't find a reputable tenant to rent to either. A case of be careful what you wish for on their part.

Actually I'd welcome such a scheme. It'll fast become known as the list for long-term good tenants of LLs to avoid.

Of course for such a scheme the accidental LL would first have to acknowledge to themselves they are a business with legal implications and do research first to realise they'd need to put themselves on list to begin with.

tbs624

mynameisdave wrote: »

5 hours ago 'an update to come later'

1 hour ago 'online petition launches tomorrow'

I expect that M Mouse and Annette Curtain will be signing up to that one.........;)