landlord wants to come round and collect his mail

sniggings

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

So now this property has two delivery points :eek: I hope this extra letter box you suggest is registered as a separate address, as Royal mail are not paid and do not have to stand at a door and sort the mail addressed to one property, into different letter boxes for the convenience of a lazy LL, who either doesn't want to pay for a redirection or change his address on his mail.

seriousDFW

propertyman wrote: »

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.

In my view, it is analagous so we will have to agree to disagree.

I agree, they should work it out, by the LL doing the right thing and stopping wasting everybody's time!

paul1964_2

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.

I did understand it, but did not agree.

I must have expressed my disagreement somehow, or you would not have felt the need to respond in this way.

I am not a tenant at the moment, but I do not feel that this makes me in any way superior to those that are renting.

I don't know much about Jeremy Kyle, so I will bow to your obvious expertise on that subject.

Perhaps you should keep off the funny bananas for a while - they seem to make you rather irritable.

Fire_Fox

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.

He can certainly have his mail delivered there ..... if he does not want or need it until the end of the tenancy. That in itself does not breach quiet enjoyment, it is the texting and collecting nonsense. Why should the landlord p1ss off the tenant by being too tight or lazy to redirect his mail? Who said anything about the tenant starting litigation? It's not the tenant's actions that are the issue here, the tenant is not asking to receive the mail nor texting the landlord nor asking for him to visit.

And please don't assume everyone who takes the part of the tenant is a tenant themselves, many of us are owner-occupiers or landlords ourselves.

seriousDFW

Fire_Fox wrote: »

He can certainly have his mail delivered there ..... if he does not want or need it until the end of the tenancy. That in itself does not breach quiet enjoyment, it is the texting and collecting nonsense. Why should the landlord p1ss off the tenant by being too tight or lazy to redirect his mail? Who said anything about the tenant starting litigation? It's not the tenant's actions that are the issue here, the tenant is not asking to receive the mail nor texting the landlord nor asking for him to visit.

And please don't assume everyone who takes the part of the tenant is a tenant themselves, many of us are owner-occupiers or landlords ourselves.

Reasoned and sensible perspective as usual Fire Fox, and put across in such a cogent way! Thank you!

cwcw

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:

Right to use it as a HOME for the period of the tenancy. It is the landlord's property, and the tenant's home. The tenant is not owned by the landlord and is not employed by them to sort their mail. They have the legal right to quiet enjoyment without having to be hassled for post collections frequently and indefinitely.

As for the somewhat condescending "when you own", not that it is relevant but I owned a property for several years and I'm currently in the process of buying another. The only reason I'm renting for a few months in between is because the first purchase fell through. Thankfully, we landed on a professional landlord and reasonable agent, who have not bothered us once in almost 5 months other than their legal obligation to do a gas safety check, which was arranged with notice and when we were in. I'm so glad we got lucky rather than landing ourselves with a "Mr Big" type of unprofessional landlord who thinks it's acceptable to treat tenants as lower class citizens to be trampled all over.

Despite all that, I have no qualms about having changed the locks from the start of the tenancy, because whilst the landlord and agent know everything there is to know about us, we do not know the first thing about the landlord, any employees working for the agency, or any of the previous tenants and tradesmen that may or may not have a copy of the key.

cwcw

propertyman wrote: »

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.

Why should the tenant have to put up with even the slightest inconvenience at the hands of a lazy and incompetant landlord who cannot get their post redirected after 10 months? They are customers paying for the right to use the property as their home for a period of time.

Here's another analogy for you... if you rent a car for a week whilst on holiday, is it acceptable for the hire car company owner to keep turning up at your holiday home and making sure the car is ok? Or do they just leave you to it and check the condition at the end of the rental agreement? If you're as possessive and unable to let go as you come across, perhaps being a landlord isn't for you.

cwcw

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.

Your arrogance is breathtaking. Someone is a tenant, ergo they must be beneath you and can only spend their days watching Jeremy Kyle.

cwcw

propertyman wrote: »

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.

That all depends if you consider legal entitlements and rights as being ludicrous.

skivenov

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Welcome! Your landlord should not be texting you, it's unprofessional.

How? Why? We used to have a student let or 3 and it was the best way to get in touch without interfering with their delicate sleep patterns or sending them letters they never read.