Served Notice

Mrs_Imp

Brand0 wrote: »

MRSIMPSON - I have a job and a second format of income - not two jobs. I declare all to the authorities. Actually I have three forms of income - all - declared, yet I have one job. An investment is not a job. I am a landlord by definition, not by occupation.

Oh, and even your best friend won't believe you don't exceed speed limits. I'd guess that even those backing you here will be distancing themselves from that comment.

Not sure who MRSIMPSON is? Are you confused?

Being a LL is a job not an investment. If you treat it as purely an investment then you are doing a diservice to your tenants, who are people living in their homes, not numbers on a bit of paper. And if you are treating it like an investment, why are you in a position where one late rent payment puts you in mortgage arrears? That's not good planning.

Actually, my friends think I'm quite 'sweet' for not breaking the speed limit. Not sure why the comment about people 'distancing themselves' from me was necessary. How I choose to drive has nothing to do with your lack of knowledge about being a LL.

Ah yes. Now I see why you're making personal attacks on people. Please, go and deal with the Billy Goats Gruff who are trip trapping over your bridge.

Jellybean_Jo

Brand0 wrote: »

OP may not be squatting now, but many are encouraging him to be just that from the LLs perspective, even if 'technically' or legally it won't be. Someone living in YOUR house against your will who has been requested to leave in good faith is what then? I'm pretty comfortable calling them a squatter. Could think of other labels of course.

In this instance they would continue being what they've been since the beginning of the legal agreement...a tenant. Until that contract is terminated legally by the LL then it still stands, so they are, and will remain, a tenant.

This is getting ridiculous!

Brand0

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

Not sure who MRSIMPSON is? Are you confused?

Being a LL is a job not an investment. If you treat it as purely an investment then you are doing a diservice to your tenants, who are people living in their homes, not numbers on a bit of paper. And if you are treating it like an investment, why are you in a position where one late rent payment puts you in mortgage arrears? That's not good planning.

Ah yes. Now I see why you're making personal attacks on people. Please, go and deal with the Billy Goats Gruff who are trip trapping over your bridge.

Just noticed the MRSIMPSON thing. BlackBerry playbook tries to preempt. When I type 'OP', it prints the word 'option'. Personal attacks? Where? Show a neutral this thread and ask who's subject to personal attack. Won't be you. Don't get the Billy goat thing. Sorry.

I notice that you're no longer insisting that being a landlord is a job. So you try to pick holes elsewhere. I'd hold my hands up here rather than take the 'wrong and strong' approach. It's an investment, not a social service. My tenants want a place to live and a LL that stays away and keeps rent down. I do both - this how I look after my investment. It works and I don't need a law or business degree.

All I ask of my tenants is that they respect my property and pay what they owe me. I get that too. Again knowledge of inner workings of law not required. The court case for the deposit came well after tenants had left and we're given full deposit on time. There was no problem during the tenancy and they actually left before S21 requested them to do so.

You're not reading your tea leaves properly. I suggest you get your head up and live a little before it passes you by.

Oh and it sound like your friends are patronizing you Imo. Still don't believe you though, and if you have committed the 'crime' even ONCE, you're no better than anyone else. Makes you worse in my book.

Brand0

Jellybean_Jo wrote: »

In this instance they would continue being what they've been since the beginning of the legal agreement...a tenant. Until that contract is terminated legally by the LL then it still stands, so they are, and will remain, a tenant.

This is getting ridiculous!

From homeowners perspective or yours. You are not the law. And you have ignored the words "good faith". Why? For a hollow victory?

Not one of you have showed compassion for telling who by the OPs own admission only let the property due to financial problems. I may be ignoring the law, but you and many others are ignoring right and wrong. LL has made honest mistake. You all see it as an opportunity to take advantage, just because law says you can. I just hope none of you are parents, or mentors. Or religious.

I'm not religious but take some notice of many religious laws and rules, like doing unto others etc. It has served me well.

Jellybean_Jo

Brand0 wrote: »

Just noticed the MRSIMPSON thing. BlackBerry playbook tries to preempt. When I type 'OP', it prints the word 'option'. Personal attacks? Where? Show a neutral this thread and ask who's subject to personal attack. Won't be you. Don't get the Billy goat thing. Sorry.

I notice that you're no longer insisting that being a landlord is a job. So you try to pick holes elsewhere. I'd hold my hands up here rather than take the 'wrong and strong' approach. It's an investment, not a social service. My tenants want a place to live and a LL that stays away and keeps rent down. I do both - this how I look after my investment. It works and I don't need a law or business degree.

All I ask of my tenants is that they respect my property and pay what they owe me. I get that too. Again knowledge of inner workings of law not required. The court case for the deposit came well after tenants had left and we're given full deposit on time. There was no problem during the tenancy and they actually left before S21 requested them to do so.

You're not reading your tea leaves properly. I suggest you get your head up and live a little before it passes you by.

Oh and it sound like your friends are patronizing you Imo. Still don't believe you though, and if you have committed the 'crime' even ONCE, you're no better than anyone else. Makes you worse in my book.

Do you actually have anything constructive to add to this thread or are you just going to carry on your little personal vendettas against other, more helpful, members of this forum?? I started following this thread with interest, hoping to see a happy outcome for the OP and maybe learn something in the process but it's getting nearly impossible to read now, it's so nasty!!

You started this silly little game of personal insults by making huge sweeping assumptions about people who had commented on this thread. People who I have witnessed time and again (including on this thread) giving invaluable guidance and information to people who have needed help and information. Completely unnecessary comments about how people spend their time; comparisons to 'serial killers' I mean, please, get some perspective!
All you've contributed is a whole load of completely useless, mostly factually incorrect information and basically encouraged this poor OP to make themselves voluntarily homeless; good job!

Jellybean_Jo

Brand0 wrote: »

From homeowners perspective or yours. You are not the law. And you have ignored the words "good faith". Why? For a hollow victory?

Not one of you have showed compassion for telling who by the OPs own admission only let the property due to financial problems. I may be ignoring the law, but you and many others are ignoring right and wrong. LL has made honest mistake. You all see it as an opportunity to take advantage, just because law says you can. I just hope none of you are parents, or mentors. Or religious.

I'm not religious but take some notice of many religious laws and rules, like doing unto others etc. It has served me well.

This is just nonsense. Most of it doesn't even make sense, and the bits that do are just stupid.

jjlandlord

Brand0 wrote: »

I notice that you're no longer insisting that being a landlord is a job.

At one point people may just have reasonably concluded that there's no point arguing with you any longer...

Brand0

Neat, but predictable sidestep, JELLYBEAN.

I'm not encouraging OP to make his family homeless - I'm discouraging OP from making his problem someone else's. If OP takes your advice, LL will be seeking your advice in 6-8 months time. The irony seems to lost on you all.

Your way ensures two families could be without a home rather than one. Again you ignore the LL who has done absolutely nothing to harm OP. It's 2012. You really believe that OP will sleeping rough with family if they leave when they should - with a months deposit in hand and a months rent ready to go (on basis that they don't owe back rent). One wonders what is wrong with society. This thread is prime example.

Jellybean_Jo

jjlandlord wrote: »

At one point people may just have reasonably concluded that there's no point arguing with you any longer...

Yes, and the 'ignore list' is a wonderful function on this forum for such occasions!

Brand0

Ignore list? Perfect way to limit freedom of speech. You guys are too good!