TV on wall

clutton_2

i am interested in who is looking after OP's child in the many many hours she has spent here arguing


i am so glad you are not my tenant - intransigent and unreasonable and i have to say obsessed........


BRB says - ""If LL gave his permission for you to put TV up and later find that his walls will not support the TV then he can be liable for any injuries to you, your family, your visitors, his workers attending the property. ""

she was told this days ago but just chooses to ignore it......

SingleSue

Old_Tug wrote: »

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

That was an old style one.....I do have a flat screen/lcd television too, again 32 inch which resides quite happily on its stand on a tv unit. So far, so good....not been knocked over despite having two autistic children in the house.

I too thought it was would be far more unstable, it certainly didn't look man enough for the job of staying upright with children around but it has surprised me how little attention the boys have given it (probably because I went into a mini panic when we first got it and the boys got near ). Wall mounting here was not possible, the wall it would have to go on couldn't even hold a small radiator, let alone a television and support stand.

And I would have been scared of it falling off during the night...I get a bit OCD about things like that :rotfl:

Old_Tug

clutton wrote: »

i am so glad you are not my tenant - intransigent and unreasonable and i have to say obsessed........

And yet that doesn't stop you from coming back to this thread again and again to comment.

You and others seem to have a problem with me continuing to answer the posts of others without changing my mind, yet keep posting yourselves.

If this thread bothers you so much, why do you keep coming back?

If you are allowed to keep posting without changing your opinion, why can't I?

evoke

^ Why ask the question in the first place then? If you've already made up your mind then 8 pages of discussion are a bit pointless aren't they?

If I was a landlord i'd serve you notice just for being an annoying tenant who is looking for trouble.

Old_Tug

evoke wrote: »

Why ask the question in the first place then? If you've already made up your mind then 8 pages of discussion are a bit pointless aren't they?

Because I wanted to hear other opinions and get advice. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, does it?

There have been plenty of posts that I have found very helpful.

evoke wrote: »

If I was a landlord i'd serve you notice just for being an annoying tenant who is looking for trouble.

Sounds like you might be a bit too emotional to be a landlord then.

Nixxx

Ok i'll bite.

From what I've read OP, it seems that the issue you have is with this bit "permission will not be withheld unreasonably". What I believe you fail to realise is that "unreasonably" is a subjective term. In my opinion this is subjective to the Landlord and not you. My reasoning is that the landlord is providing a service. Before you agreed to undertake that service you agreed to abide by certain terms and conditions laid forth by your landlord and not by you. It was not a mutually written contract where you provided terms under which you will live in his property. Hence why I believe a lot of people on here are saying "his rules". The only issue is that the landlord has not explained why he has refused the request (apologies if he has and I've missed that bit).


Furthermore, if it is fair to say that what may be reasonable for one person may be unreasonable for another, then defining reason is a very murky area. Usually, in Law, reason is defined by the actions of a "reasonable person" with regards to a situation.

Now, lets assume that everyone who replied to your post was a "reasonable person". Is it fair to say that the majority of the response who be what a "reasonable person" believes is reasonable?

For what its worth OP, this is not your home and I know this is a principle thing for you, but you are splitting hairs. You need to let this go and channel your energies to something more worthwhile. If you can find a way to have a "safe" stand and not mount anything on the wall then the rest doesn't matter no matter who is right or wrong.

All the best

lionelator

Youve had a lot of posts explaining why you are, without a shadow of a doubt, in the wrong. If you think you deserve the right to do as you wish with the STRUCTURE of a property YOU DONT OWN then you need more help than a forum can provide.
You have been called stupid or a troll because that is really what it comes down to, someone being this thickheaded unfortunately would fit into one of the two categories, its not an insult its an unbiased opinion. How else would you word it?
You will do as you wish, you will hopefully get a poor reference which will impact your future rental availability to only scum landlords and then you will gain a better insight into how silly you have been, and sadly your child may suffer for your stubborn outlook.
Tellingly, you have still not responded to my earlier post about how TV stands on the floor have been around far far longer than wall mounted TVs, nor the issues of wiring etc which would be more dangerous for your little one, which leads me to the conclusion you are doing this for cosmetic reasons and trying to justify it with the whole oh i care for safety spiel.
Im done posting in this thread, if you are a troll its not good to feed you, and if youre not a troll and you still cant understand what EVERYONE is saying, then you are beyond the sort of help this forum can provide.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

i am interested in who is looking after OP's child in the many many hours she has spent here arguing


i am so glad you are not my tenant - intransigent and unreasonable and i have to say obsessed........

....and this from the woman who says she does not get personal in her posts. Dear oh dear.

All posters - please account to Clutton for the whereabouts of your children..... mine are all fully occupied atm .;)

Thanks to SingleSue & a couple of the others for their calm posts.

Old Tug - good luck with getting resolve and a safe place for your telly

alfiesmum

clutton wrote: »

i am interested in who is looking after OP's child in the many many hours she has spent here arguing

Oh thank goodness. I thought I was the only one in the world wondering this.:)

paul1964_2

Nixxx wrote: »

Ok i'll bite.

Go on then. I'll have a little nibble back. Only because you seem to be one of the few on here polite enough to disagree with the OP without resorting to insults.

From what I've read OP, it seems that the issue you have is with this bit "permission will not be withheld unreasonably".

Agreed.

What I believe you fail to realise is that "unreasonably" is a subjective term.

Agree that it is a subjective term, but I think the OP realises this.

In my opinion this is subjective to the Landlord and not you. My reasoning is that the landlord is providing a service. Before you agreed to undertake that service you agreed to abide by certain terms and conditions laid forth by your landlord and not by you.

This is where I disagree with you. If the LL wishes to define what is "unreasonable", or wishes to be the sole arbitrator of what is reasonable, this should be written into the contract. As he has chosen not to, it would be for a court to decide what is "unreasonable". The OP has indeed agreed to the Ts&Cs in the contract, as has the landlord - they both should abide by them equally.

Furthermore, if it is fair to say that what may be reasonable for one person may be unreasonable for another, then defining reason is a very murky area. Usually, in Law, reason is defined by the actions of a "reasonable person" with regards to a situation.

We are back in agreement. As the contract is a legal document, this is how "reasonable" should be viewed. It is not for either party to determine.

Now, lets assume that everyone who replied to your post was a "reasonable person". Is it fair to say that the majority of the response who be what a "reasonable person" believes is reasonable?

From the insulting nature of many of the posts, I disagree that they were written by reasonable people.

For what its worth OP, this is not your home......

I totally disagree with this - but it may be a typo.

..... and I know this is a principle thing for you, but you are splitting hairs. You need to let this go and channel your energies to something more worthwhile. If you can find a way to have a "safe" stand and not mount anything on the wall then the rest doesn't matter no matter who is right or wrong.

I also think the OP should not waste much energy on this, but I think he/she should be allowed to chew the fat on a subject without being abused. I really don't see why some people are getting so troubled by such a minor matter that they lose the ability to behave in a civil manner.