Landlord frequently turning up unannounced.....

byjimini

You send it special delivery.

Anyways, change the locks, and next time he turns up unannounced, frog march him off the premises. If he complains, tell him you want the remaining 11 months of your rent refunded as well as the deposit, and you'll go somewhere else.

!!!!!-footing around the situation and dropping little hints isn't going to change things.

lovinituk

byjimini wrote: »

You send it special delivery.

Expensive, but yes, at least its guaranteed then.

looby75

lovinituk wrote: »

Expensive, but yes, at least its guaranteed then.

not it the LL refuses to accept delivery it isn't. Doesn't matter what service you use if the LL doesn't want to accept it then he won't.

byjimini

lovinituk wrote: »

Expensive, but yes, at least its guaranteed then.

If it's important then cost isn't an issue - we're taking a matter of pounds here, than tens or hundreds, so I'd advise everyone to send it by that.

I don't speak from experience; my boss is one of the largest landlords in North Yorkshire, both residential & commercial, so I'm just passing on what he practises.

lovinituk

looby75 wrote: »

not it the LL refuses to accept delivery it isn't. Doesn't matter what service you use if the LL doesn't want to accept it then he won't.

So none of the services are 100% reliable! Deliver it by hand and film it being handed over is probably the only indisputable method - but not the most practical!!

Yorkie1

The point is that the court procedure rules have a rebuttable presumption - they deem there to be satisfactory service if it is sent by first class post. You don't have to prove service by way of signature or receipt. A certificate of posting is sufficient legally.

The reason that two separate ones are recommended is not because that is required legally. It's because the presumption is rebuttable in law by the recipient. Their only real way to rebut the presumption is to say that it got lost en route. Where it has been sent from 2 separate post offices, courts are very highly unlikely to find that the presumption has been rebutted - and therefore allow the notice to stand.

If you send it signed for (either recorded or special delivery) then there is a risk that the LL will not sign for it. Then you cannot fall back on the rules.

I personally know of 3 people who have failed to serve notice in time because of reliance on recorded delivery which was not signed for. The notices had to be re-served in the usual first class post with certificate of posting, which delayed matters and led to increased expense.

Service in person is the most reliable, if you can get the person to personally accept the documents (it is known for them to refuse to accept them).

Hence the presumed service by first class post being more reliable than you were asserted, lovinituk.

lovinituk

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The point is that the court procedure rules have a rebuttable presumption - they deem there to be satisfactory service if it is sent by first class post. You don't have to prove service by way of signature or receipt. A certificate of posting is sufficient legally.

Hence the presumed service by first class post being more reliable than you were asserted, lovinituk.

Wow! I wish I could tell my customers that when they say their orders have not arrived!! Unfortunately in those cases, it is not legally deemed as delivered just because I have proof of postage!!

suited-aces

Different activities, different laws, different burdens of proof. If you don't like it, let your MP know.

lovinituk

suited-aces wrote: »

Different activities, different laws, different burdens of proof. If you don't like it, let your MP know.

LOL, its not troubling me in the slightest! I just made my previous responses based on what I am used to. Its good to learn new things.

michelle2008

Any update n this? Has creepy LL been back?