landlord wants to come round and collect his mail

tbs624

Naf wrote: »

It's not an imposition if they were asked politely, and it was clear that no pressure was applied to consenting, and they agreed. ..............

Unfortunately, though, it is a fact of society that declining to go along with it could possibly mean your LL wants you out at the end of your AST. It wouldn't be fair, wouldn't be nice, and most LLs wouldn't do it; but its certainly a possibility - and likely to be the case if he doesn't have CTL.

So yep, there is no "pressure" for Ts to comply with their LL's request...........none whatsoever.

Come on Naf, make your argument add up.

LL to T " want to have my post delivered here and to pick up on a regular basis. Would you be okay with that? Little "think bubble" "you better had be, because otherwise a s21 may be heading your way at the earliest opportunity and you don't want the hassle/cost of moving again do you?"

T to LL "erm yes, of course, no problem" Little "think bubble"
[got no option really because otherwise a s21 may be heading our way at the earliest opportunity and we don't want the hassle/cost of moving again..... ]

Fire_Fox

propertyman wrote: »

"I want to complain about this banana not tasting like an orange."

Confused? well the post made about as much sense.

Renting is the right to use it for a time, pay the bills and not destroy it- it is not yours. Privacy in itself or in the terms of quiet enjoyment is not absolute.

Don't agree. A rental property is your home (sole use of the space) so you have all the rights associated with that - privacy, living as you see fit within the law. It is not your house (building) so the landlord has all the rights associated with that - for his property to be returned undamaged at the end of the tenancy, to be able to access for essential repairs and maintenance. The tenants right to quiet enjoyment of their own home encompasses most scenarios save access for emergencies and gas safety checks and the like. The only people receiving mail at the property should be the legal residents, it's easy for the landlord to redirect his mail he does not need to rock up at the property.

tbs624

propertyman wrote: »

How would you like to be put in by your tenant?

Easy way for a LL to avoid the possibility of that happening - meet all your legal and contractual obligations to both T and Lender.

propertyman wrote: »

Life is too short-.

For a T who may unknowlingly have rented a mortaged property without BTL financing in place , or without CTL having been sought and obtained by the LL , the tenancy of their new home may be "too short" when/if the LL defaults on their mortgage payments.

propertyman

cwcw wrote: »

Wrong. A tenancy agreement means the property is the tenant's home for its duration, much in the same way as an owner occupier with an outstanding mortgage, who would not expect their lender to pop round and collect post as and when they wanted to.

Nonsense and drivel it is merely the right to use it.

When you own a house you can complain, and it has no comparison to a mortgage at all! :rotfl:

The house is owned by the person owes the mortgage debt, which is only secured on the house in the event of default.

For every "dodgy landlord" there is a tenant with a chip on their shoulder about renting and having to stamp their foot "it's mine" boo hoo wah wah, when it's not.:cool:

propertyman

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The only people receiving mail at the property should be the legal residents, it's easy for the landlord to redirect his mail he does not need to rock up at the property.

That is merely an opinion, mine is based on the law. It is the landlords property and he is under no obligation to have notices or communication elsewhere. In fact several sections of the LPA and the CPR involve service at such addresses.

He might be at risk for a breach of quiet enjoyment or even harassment, but in most cases it is only a minor nuisance or inconvenience.

That's why rather than go to the cost and disruption of !!!!ing off the landlord or litigation the LL and T work something out.


http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/6238041.htm

seriousDFW

propertyman wrote: »

Nonsense and drivel it is merely the right to use it.

When you own a house you can complain, and it has no comparison to a mortgage at all! :rotfl:

The house is owned by the person owes the mortgage debt, which is only secured on the house in the event of default.

For every "dodgy landlord" there is a tenant with a chip on their shoulder about renting and having to stamp their foot "it's mine" boo hoo wah wah, when it's not.:cool:

It was a very relevant analogy, not drivel.

Just because there are dodgy landlords and tenants out there, doesn't mean this particular tenant has to suffer by acting as her landlord's PA.

seriousDFW

propertyman wrote: »

That is merely an opinion, mine is based on the law. It is the landlords property and he is under no obligation to have notices or communication elsewhere. In fact several sections of the LPA and the CPR involve service at such addresses.

He might be at risk for a breach of quiet enjoyment or even harassment, but in most cases it is only a minor nuisance or inconvenience.

That's why rather than go to the cost and disruption of !!!!ing off the landlord or litigation the LL and T work something out.


http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/6238041.htm

This really is ridiculous. The tenant should not have to provide an external post box. If the LL would be !!!!ed off, as you put it, with the very reasonable request to redirect mail, then, legalities aside, the LL would be a complete idiot.

I would not be able to enjoy living in a rented property knowing the LL wanted to pop round to pick up mail all the time.

propertyman

paul1964 wrote: »

The post made perfect sense. Try reading it again when the effects of the dodgy banana wear off.

No it did not make sense as it based on faulty premise.

Your rebuttal makes it clear that you are either unable to understand it, do not agree but are unable to express your disagreement, or more likely come under the "tenant with a chip on their shoulder about renting" category. The Jeremy Kyle level of response makes me suspect that it is the latter.

seriousDFW

propertyman wrote: »

No it did not make sense as it based on faulty premise.

Your rebuttal makes it clear that you are either unable to understand it, do not agree but are unable to express your disagreement, or more likely come under the "tenant with a chip on their shoulder about renting" category. The Jeremy Kyle level of response makes me suspect that it is the latter.

Well you're certainly coming off as the "I'm a landlord so own the poor peasants renting from me so I can treat them without any respect" type of landlord.

propertyman

seriousDFW wrote: »

It was a very relevant analogy, not drivel.

Just because there are dodgy landlords and tenants out there, doesn't mean this particular tenant has to suffer by acting as her landlord's PA.

Firstly its not an analogy as they bear no relation to each other and is easily rubbished - one is "in return for rent you get to stay in my house for a bit" and the other is" we'll lend you the money to buy somewhere. We don't really care where or what except that if you don't pay us back, we'll take it off you".

Secondly I am not saying that they should be a PA, but that the indignant "not right" posts, bloviating about privacy and quiet enjoyment and " it's my house if I rent it" are ludicrous.

I am responding in kind but have suggested all long that for a number of reasons you work it out. Life is too short.