My landlord is in massive debt, where do I stand?

TopQuark

I seldom post on this forum but often read the excellent advice given by some of the regulars on this subject. I've learned a lot, which I wish I'd known back when I was a tenant in the UK.

OP I feel terribly sorry for your situation and also extremely annoyed by it. Others more knowledgeable than I have posted helpful advice, but I just wanted to add my thoughts, I hope you don't mind.

Would-be tenants jump through ever-increasing checks into their life, finances and general suitability for renting a property, whilst landlords are subject to next to none. If there had been a legal requirement for your landlord to prove he had consent to let, had informed HMRC of his tax obligations and had sufficient finances to cover repairs, you would not be in this distressing and potentially expensive situation.

Asking the LL/LA for this type of information is usually met with an (to paraphrase) 'F-off, take it or leave it' type response (I know there are some decent LLs out there, but in my own experience, they seem to be in a minority). I'm very lucky now to be in Switzerland where the rental sector is very different (most people rent). Sadly in the UK, non-homeowners/bank-owned are viewed by society as some lower form of life.

I wish you all the best OP.

breadlinebetty

letitiaannaking wrote: »

We've kept the letters in a bag, as we used them as a way to try and meet with the landlord, but she wasn't in. We'll keep this lot, but if/when this gets sorted we'll be sending them right back where they came from. It's ridiculous the amount of post we get for them. I've known us have to sign for post, and there's been important letters from the hospital in regards to their kids.

We're feeling more positive knowing we're safe, but from what we've discovered today it sounds like they're up to some sort of fraudulent activities, and I don't feel comfortable living in a criminal's home, as I'm sure none of you would.

How do you know the content of the hospital letters for the children???? Are you opening them?? If you are (which I hope you're not!) that is illegal.

From what you say about the landlord and the condition of the place, I suggest you just MOVE....! Instead of fretting over their financial problems, and doing Google searches on how much they paid for the property and how much rent YOU think you should be paying them - if the place is as bad as you say and the landlord is as shifty as you say - just MOVE. There's plenty of places for rent!!

I'm surprised you chose to live in such a delapidated dump in the first place......

breadlinebetty

GDB2222 wrote: »

It is also possible that he is going to go bankrupt, and she is holding the rent money in a separate account to tide them over. In any case, if there is any doubt that the wife is resident, I would withhold the tax bit.

If your partner is doing a PhD, listen to him when he says that he does not need the stress of moving on top of everything else.

I'd say it would be MORE stressful living where they are, than moving is!! It's not as though they're having to sell the place....they can just up and go. Isn't that part of the point of renting?

BitterAndTwisted

breadlinebetty wrote: »

How do you know the content of the hospital letters for the children???? Are you opening them?? If you are (which I hope you're not!) that is illegal.

It's not illegal to open correctly-delivered mail. What is illegal is putting that mail to use which would be to the detriment of the addressee. A torn-open envelope and merely reading someone else's letter does count as detriment

breadlinebetty

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

It's not illegal to open correctly-delivered mail. What is illegal is putting that mail to use which would be to the detriment of the addressee. A torn-open envelope and merely reading someone else's letter does count as detriment

It's not addressed to HER, though - is it?! In which case it IS indeed llegal to open that mail! Check it out.

BitterAndTwisted

No it isn't, regardless of the named addressee. You check it out yourself but don't bother posting up a link to the usual Postal Services Act.

As I said before, it's only an offence if the opened mail is used to the detriment of the addressee.

This hoary old chestnut comes up regularly

breadlinebetty

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

No it isn't, regardless of the named addressee. You check it out yourself but don't bother posting up a link to the usual Postal Services Act.

As I said before, it's only an offence if the opened mail is used to the detriment of the addressee.

This hoary old chestnut comes up regularly

You're wrong.

And I choose to post up the link to prove it.

"
Postal Services Act 2000
Under the Postal Services Act 2000:
“A person commits an offence if he, without reasonable excuse, intentionallydelays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, orintentionally opens a mail bag.”


“A person commits an offence if intending to act to a person’s detriment andwithout reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonablysuspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.”
This, in essence, means that if you deliberately intercept, throw away oropen somebody else’s post you are likely to be breaking the law.
Convictions
It can, however, be very difficult to prove that somebody is “intending toact to a person’s detriment” and therefore there are not many people convictedsimply of opening somebody else’s post.
Often an individual who is intercepting or opening somebody else’s post willhave to then act on it to show that they did indeed “intend to act to a person’sdetriment”. This will often include the individual subsequently using theinformation they obtained from opening your mail e.g. opening somebody else’smail, finding a credit card and then using it for themselves running up a debton the credit card.
This would be a clear example in which opening the post would have shown anintention to act to a person’s detriment. In this example, any punishment would,of course, be on top of the more serious offence of theft and fraud in relationto the credit card itself.
However, sometimes people accidently open other’s post, and they should notface criminal punishment. For example, if somebody receives a lot of post andtherefore opens it quickly, it is quite likely that they may open another’s post(which may have been incorrectly sent to them) without looking at who the letteris addressed to.
Clearly, in this situation it would be wrong to face criminal punishment foropening another’s post. But this highlights the difficulties faced by those whowould attempt to prove someone’s intent to act to a person’s detriment.
Punishment
Every day, highly confidential and personal information is sent by post and,with a large number of identity fraud crimes being enabled by stealing thisinformation, it is in the interest of the pubic that it is a punishable offenceto open another person’s post.
The Postal Services Act 2000 states that any person who commits this offencemay be “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on thestandard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or toboth”.
Level 5 on the standard scale is a fine of £5,000.
If you believe that your post is being intercepted, you should contact asolicitor or the police. "

theartfullodger

“PostalServicesAct2000”
Section 84(3)

A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
see..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84


So, for example, opening (errr.. shall we say "oh gosh it fell open"..) something to find out the NI number, employer, date-of-birth {from for example payslips, tax-code notice..) & then using that to track them down & recover a debt from them... would be wrong...

BitterAndTwisted

Opening correctly delivered mail is not intercepting it. Then you've got the intention to act to a person's detriment AND without reasonable excuse.

As I have said several times now, you are utterly and completely wrong that merely opening mail delivered to the correct address but sent to a different named indiviual is illegal.

It's not kind to risk alarming the OP about this as they very obviously have far bigger fish to fry

antrobus

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Opening correctly delivered mail is not intercepting it. Then you've got the intention to act to a person's detriment AND without reasonable excuse.

As I have said several times now, you are utterly and completely wrong that merely opening mail delivered to the correct address but sent to a different named indiviual is illegal.

It's not kind to risk alarming the OP about this as they very obviously have far bigger fish to fry

Agreed.

The key words to note in s84(3) PSA 2000 are "incorrectly delivered". Postal operators deliver mail to addresses not individuals.