TV on wall

moromir

I'm often quite confused by these threads, when an OP asks for advice and in the face of lots of posts from knowledgable landlords contrary to what they want to hear, the OP continues to insist their way is right.

Therefore my only suggestion is for you to seek professional legal advice.

You don't seem to be seeing 'the wider picture' (if you'll forgive the tenable t.v. pun).

If you ask your landlord to put a television on the wall and he does not give consent, then you go ahead and do it anyway, this indicates far more to your landlord than you seem willing to comprehend.

It shows a complete lack of respect for his wishes and his property, you may well be served with a section notice but it won't be for 'putting a few holes in the wall', it will be for your attitude of 'to hell with anyone else, I'm doing what I want' especially if you approach him like you have some of the landlord posters in this thread.

BitterAndTwisted

Old_Tug wrote: »

So, are you saying that if a contract uses the word reasonable ("reasonable charges" from a bank, for instance) then it is up to the other party (the bank) to decide what is reasonable? Or are you suggesting that landlords have some special protection, where they get to decide what reasonable means in a contract?

No, I am not, I have no interest in discussing contracts with banks or any parties other than ones between landlords and tenants.

And no, I am not suggesting that landlords have some special protection I am stating categorically that the landlord has an absolute right to decide what is reasonable when asked to give their permission to a tenant where any alterations could cause potentially ruinous damage to their very valuable asset.

Ruinous damage which you would be charged for. And taken to court to recover if your deposit wasn't sufficient to pay for it.

Would that be a risk worth taking? In my opinion it would not.

Old_Tug

moromir wrote: »

I'm often quite confused by these threads, when an OP asks for advice and in the face of lots of posts from knowledgable landlords contrary to what they want to hear, the OP continues to insist their way is right.

I do appreciate all the input (well maybe not some of the stuff that got a bit personal with all the troll/moron stuff).

However, I obviously don't agree with a lot of the opinions and felt that I wanted to respond to them.

I'm sure you'll agree that just because a majority of people say the same thing, it doesn't make it right.

I'm not interested in an argument, just answering the comments that have been made.

moromir wrote: »

Therefore my only suggestion is for you to seek professional legal advice.

Thanks. Although I don't think now is the right time. I don't want to spend money on legal advice, for something so trivial. The advice might cost me more than getting the holes fixed.

moromir wrote: »

You don't seem to be seeing 'the wider picture' (if you'll forgive the tenable t.v. pun).

If you ask your landlord to put a television on the wall and he does not give consent, then you go ahead and do it anyway, this indicates far more to your landlord than you seem willing to comprehend.

It shows a complete lack of respect for his wishes and his property, you may well be served with a section notice but it won't be for 'putting a few holes in the wall', it will be for your attitude of 'to hell with anyone else, I'm doing what I want' especially if you approach him like you have some of the landlord posters in this thread.

Yes, I take all of that onboard.

If it sours the relationship, even to the point of the landlord wanting me out, that is down to him.

As for how I approach him, I think it has been very softly, softly so far. But that doesn't mean that I won't push to protect what I perceive to be my rights.

It is always a two way street of course. I found his outright refusal disrespectful towards me and my needs as a tenant.

SingleSue

We had a big old 32 inch television on a stand....despite middle son having the strength of 10 men, even he was unable to knock it over.

Give the same scenario but wall mounted, he would probably have been able to rip the support off the wall by jungle gyming it (prime escapologist and wall climber he is).....combined weight of telly, plus support plus middle son.

I know I would prefer the television safely on the floor on a chunky stand, less far to fall, harder to knock off.

Old_Tug

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

And no, I am not suggesting that landlords have some special protection I am stating categorically that the landlord has an absolute right to decide what is reasonable when asked to give their permission to a tenant where any alterations could cause potentially ruinous damage to their very valuable asset.

So you are stating that they have some special right to ignore clauses, because they are the landlord.

In fact, the courts have the absolute right to decide. The landlord and tenant can just give their opinions.

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Ruinous damage which you would be charged for. And taken to court to recover if your deposit wasn't sufficient to pay for it.

Would that be a risk worth taking? In my opinion it would not.

I think that runinous damage is perhaps somewhat overstating matters. I have already said that I am prepared to make good any damage.

I understand that you might not want to take on the risk, but I am prepared to.

After all, if I owned the place, I would put the TV on the wall and risk the same "ruinous damage", as millions of homeowners do.

Old_Tug

SingleSue wrote: »

We had a big old 32 inch television on a stand....despite middle son having the strength of 10 men, even he was unable to knock it over.

Was that a flat screen TV Sue?

The only reason I ask is that the flat screens are obviously are much less stable, than an older, more "boxey" TV

tattycath

Old_Tug wrote: »

I think that runinous damage is perhaps somewhat overstating matters. I have already said that I am prepared to make good any damage.

I understand that you might not want to take on the risk, but I am prepared to.

After all, if I owned the place, I would put the TV on the wall and risk the same "ruinous damage", as millions of homeowners do.

And that is exactly the point-In YOUR OWN property you can do just that-but this is not your property-it belongs to someone else

Catblue

OP, you are being ridiiculous here. You seem to think that the worst that can happen is that the landlord gets rid of you as soon as the fixed term is up. Wrong - the landlord can get rid of you and then write a terrible reference to all future landlords. None of whom would touch you with a bargepole.

This would put you and your child in a very vulnerable position. I cannot stress this enough.

Just seems strange to me that your child could end up living in a hostel or a B&B and all because you thought you had a "right" to put a TV on someone else's wall.

Stop thinking about yourself and your own perception of your rights so much and start thinking about what's really best for the interests of your child.

Annabee

moromir wrote: »

I'm often quite confused by these threads, when an OP asks for advice and in the face of lots of posts from knowledgable landlords contrary to what they want to hear, the OP continues to insist their way is right.
.

The term 'knowledgable landlord' is usually an oxymoron. IME.

Old_Tug

Catblue wrote: »

OP, you are being ridiiculous here. You seem to think that the worst that can happen is that the landlord gets rid of you as soon as the fixed term is up. Wrong - the landlord can get rid of you and then write a terrible reference to all future landlords. None of whom would touch you with a bargepole.

This would put you and your child in a very vulnerable position. I cannot stress this enough.

I don't have any concerns on the reference front.

It seems that you are suggesting that I should allow the landlord to get out of his contractual obligations, just because he could pressurize me with the threat of a bad reference.

Which other contractual rights should I be prepared to give up because of this threat of a bad reference?