Served Notice

Werdnal

Ulfar wrote: »

Wow Brand0, so you have admitted too - benefit fraud, tax evasion and failure to comply with deposit regulation.

Well said!

As I previous stated Brand0 - Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but now I see you actually IGNORE the law - that is down right utter and inexcusable stupidty! And then to openly admit it on a public forum and try to preach to those of us who do abide by the rules ... This doesn't give any credibility to any advice you have given the OP in this thread at all.

So you believe in Karma coming back at you ... I hope you get all thats coming in spades!

Werdnal

Ulfar wrote: »

No, that was one of the loopholes the localism act changed. Any deposits taken prior to the act becoming law should have been protected within 30 days to prevent a breach and the ability for the tenant to sue for damages.

I am not even sure the schemes will take a late deposit now, they used too before the changes.

The best the Landlord could do is give the money back and hope for the best.

Indeed, if the LL wants to evict using an S21, followed by court application, then in order to issue a valid notice, he should return the deposit in full before issuing the new notice.

Brand0

IRON-BREW-KID - if landlord puts it in protective scheme now it will be treated as if always there. Tenants only get back what they put in - I.e. Tenant doesn't earn interest. Nor is LL defrauding the scheme. There are no losers (it isn't a requirement to take a deposit so the scheme has no 'right').

FRANKLEE - it was always a question of which saddo (with twanged nerves) would be first to dig the quotes out. Simple fact is that the welfare of my family comes first. I chose not to pay what was due (but rather lay it aside for as long as possible, for emergency cover) and in the meantime thought "I wonder what kind of loopholes there are out there?",hence my post to this moneysavingsexpert forum. I know what I did and I know what I posted - you'll have to look elsewhere if you seek a hypocrite.

I managed to find experts. Elsewhere. I eventually paid what I had to when it suited me and my family - when the dark clouds parted and let the sun shine. No individuals were put out and I'm better off for it thanks. I sleep sound.

N79 - you said it the right way. PALMSKI - listen to N79, if you don't like my style of delivery.

MRS IMP - I'm a landlord and have a job. But not as a landlord.

FIREWYRM - cannot believe so many have thanked you - I'll put it down to you having a bad day. It IS a question morality if OP hasn't suffered by the hands of the LL. This the point that you and others choose to ignore. You search for a reason to attack the LL in question but have only found an excuse. It's not a good one.

Brand0

WERDNAL - I take it you never ignore the 30 mph law - the law designed to save lives. Glass houses. Neither do I btw. I choose to ignore other laws too. Am I a 'bad' person? Is it 'good' people who make laws and control society? No flies on them I suppose. If life was only about following rules, sites like this wouldn't exist. Or we'd be living in China. Or the matrix....(cue eerie music)

FireWyrm

Brand0 wrote: »

FIREWYRM - cannot believe so many have thanked you - I'll put it down to you having a bad day. It IS a question morality if OP hasn't suffered by the hands of the LL. This the point that you and others choose to ignore. You search for a reason to attack the LL in question but have only found an excuse. It's not a good one.

I'm having quite a good day thank you. You however come across as a raving lunatic. Your 'advice' to the OP is both misguided and downright wrong. Your every silly post demonstrates your inadequate understanding of life, the law and reality in general.

The OPs first duty is to his family, no one else. The LLs duty is to his business and the law. The LL has demonstrated his grasp of the law is even more tenuous than yours and as such, the tenant does not have to obey his illegal and amateurish attempt at a section 21. Even if the OP were feeling generous enough to place his family in even more financial trouble just to help the LL out, the COUNCIL would take a dim view, turn their backs on the tenant and leave him standing in the cold with his wife, children and all their worldly possessions at their feet. The OP would be homeless.

Do you finally grasp the magnitude of your ignorance Brando? You are advocating that a family voluntarily make themselves homeless just because the LL cant be bothered to read and understand the law. The irony is, if he HAD issued the S21 on time, correctly and legally, this would all have been pretty much painless for all parties involved. As it stands, the tenant can and must follow the guidelines that the council have set out.

Oh, and Brando, karma has nothing to do with it, neither does going to hell, which is something you seem to enjoy eluding to.

Brand0

IRONBREWKID - if you mean can tenant sue LL, he can try. In my case the case wasn't even heard once the judge learned the deposit was paid back on time in full and that i'd never given any grief about anything. I spoke with the judge privately and was told that many laws are passed as preventive measures and generally only enforced where a clear link between defendant and VICTIM can be identified. They aren't there to be used as money makers, especially if puts someone else out of pocket. There has to be 'reasonable' grounds when dealing with small claims and small claims judges are generally normal and look for a victim first and foremost. But even these judges have moody days. On the day, my tenants were made to feel like the scumbags they always were deep down.

Werdnal

Brand0 wrote: »

WERDNAL - I take it you never ignore the 30 mph law - the law designed to save lives. Glass houses. Neither do I btw. I choose to ignore other laws too. Am I a 'bad' person? Is it 'good' people who make laws and control society? No flies on them I suppose. If life was only about following rules, sites like this wouldn't exist. Or we'd be living in China. Or the matrix....(cue eerie music)

I think this thread is starting to drift away from its original purpose. OP came here asking for advice on whether the notice that their LL has issued is correct, and what if anything they could do in these circumstances.

You came in with a rant about the fact that the OP should just roll over at the LL's invalid request to leave, uproot their family at considerable personal expense and move! But you still cannot seem to justify that point, other than chastise me and other members, and waffle on about how you got away with all!

You are suggesting that the fact that the LL doing things wrong doesn't matter, when it does. OP has a legally binding agreement, and in signing that the LL has effectively given up possession of his property to the OP for the duration of that tenancy. If the LL does not know how to legally end it (or cannot be bothered to find out), why should the OP comply? Who has the greatest right to a roof over their head here????

Yes, your analogy of the 30mph limit is correct, and if I were caught by the police speed trap that regularly haunts my village, I would have to take whatever penalty they see fit. In this scenario, the LL has been caught out by his lack of understanding of the rules, as borne out by the OP's own enquiries to the local council etc, and the LL is being penalised for not observing said rules. The "punishment" in this case, is for the OP to stay until LL gets his act together.

Werdnal

Brand0 wrote: »

IRONBREWKID - if you mean can tenant sue LL, he can try. In my case the case wasn't even heard once the judge learned the deposit was paid back on time in full and that i'd never given any grief about anything.

Please keep up Brand0 - deposit protection rules were tightened in May this year - Localism Act. Recommended penalty for non-protection/late protection is return of the full deposit value and up to 3x deposit value as compensation.

Another rule to add to your every growing list of things to ignore ;);)!

franklee

Brand0 wrote: »

FRANKLEE - it was always a question of which saddo (with twanged nerves) would be first to dig the quotes out. Simple fact is that the welfare of my family comes first. I chose not to pay what was due (but rather lay it aside for as long as possible, for emergency cover) and in the meantime thought "I wonder what kind of loopholes there are out there?",hence my post to this moneysavingsexpert forum. I know what I did and I know what I posted - you'll have to look elsewhere if you seek a hypocrite.

Well at least I admire your honesty in writing that down. However it's a shame (hypocritical even) that you criticised the OP for looking after their family even though they aren't committing fraud and have the law firmly on their side.

Still it stands as a warning to readers here that some posters who sound off do have vested interests and are therefore giving the OP bad advice, which thankfully in your case the OP saw right through.

Zorz_2

Brand0 wrote: »

The problem with all you regulations queen's is that you are treating the LL as an experienced businessman who is purposely bending rules to take advantage.

Brand0 wrote: »

IRON-BREW-KID - if landlord puts it in protective scheme now it will be treated as if always there.

You know what, why don't you admit you are wrong and let it go quietly?

Instead you keep spewing nonsense and dig yourself a bigger hole. What you say is not only factually incorrect but also an insult to the good LLs out there who make the effort and do everything by the book. When I started working here, I spent time and money out of my own pocket (before I began advertising) to study about compliance (mostly taxation and record keeping, as my industry doesn't have more specific regulations).

Surely, it's not much to ask landlords to do the same now, is it?

You think you're a good LL? You still don't know about your business!