We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I think my Section 21 is illegal.
Comments
-
Pah. Professional landlords. Professional parasites more like.
You should get a fleet of dogs as is your legal right.0 -
Okay - I've found the TA - all it says is "pets would be considered on an individual basis".
So, given the email exchange prior to the application as detailed above, I took that as being that both the cat and dog were allowed.
However, given that a S21 can be issued for no reason, me breaking or not breaking the terms of the lease is irrelevant.
However, I did get an email from the LA this evening asking when would be convenient for a contractor to come and look at the window - so a small success.0 -
Very good point, because if it says "NO PETS", then this is deemed an unfair term, and can be over-ruled!!
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf
This is what the OFT actually says:
"Our objection is to blanket exclusions of
pets without consideration of all the
circumstances. Such a term has been
considered unfair under comparable
legislation in another EU member state
because it could prevent a tenant keeping a
goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term
prohibiting the keeping of pets that could
harm the property, affect subsequent
tenants or be a nuisance to other residents"
The usual term is for a prohibition on pets without the landlord's consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Pah. Professional landlords. Professional parasites more like.
If you don't want a landlord, save up and buy your own place.
"You should get a fleet of dogs as is your legal right."
Absolutely, and then when you move out you should whinge that the landlord has brought in professional carpet cleaners and deducted the cost from your deposit. Or when you move in you should post here complaining that the place smells because of the previous tenants' dogs.
And on no account should any tenants take any account of any restrictions in their landlord's own lease.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I think most people are decent (be they landlord or tenant) so I think most people would man up and accept their own mistakes without taking it out on the other party and the invalid S21 was the landlord's/agent's mistake. Clearly there are exceptions. E.g. as you have so ably demonstrated some landlords are right grumps. Still in the OP's case giving the OP a bad reference would be the landlord harming his own interests since he hasn't served a valid S21 so the eviction clock isn't ticking yet so he'd be silly to hamper the OP's leaving.I see that you thanked RT's post about the smallest violin, yet here you are expecting most landlords to be decent. Well, which is it?
Here we have a shining example of a simply wonderful tenant:
a) Someone who nit-picks the S.21 notice (which she is perfectly entitled to do) mainly to put the kibosh on the landlord's sale, so she can get him to pay her to leave.
b) Has (I suspect, but don't know for sure) contravened the clause in her tenancy agreement about pets.
Clearly, all of our sympathy should be with the tenant, and the landlord is an oaf who should be taken advantage of and blackmailed.
When depriving someone of their home the least that should be expected is a valid notice to be served. I hope next time the OP finds a landlord in it for the long term as being kicked out for a sale is a pain.
As for your sarky remarks about the OP's credentials as a tenant, I think her previous history speaks for itself.
No one is claiming the landlord is an oaf, your violins are doing overtime there.
Robsia, If you do have any problems with getting a reference can you ask any of your prior landlords to give a reference. Theirs should carry weight as they no longer have a vested interest and as you parted on good terms they may oblige.0 -
Robsia, If you do have any problems with getting a reference can you ask any of your prior landlords to give a reference. Theirs should carry weight as they no longer have a vested interest and as you parted on good terms they may oblige.
That's a good point - I may do that. My last LL was the one where I was there for five years. I only moved out because I was moving in with my fiance'.
Then the reason I had to rent again was because the marriage didn't work out and I split with my husband.
We've had a lot of upheaval in a fairly short space of time .0 -
I think most people are decent (be they landlord or tenant) so I think most people would man up and accept their own mistakes without taking it out on the other party and the invalid S21 was the landlord's/agent's mistake. Clearly there are exceptions. E.g. as you have so ably demonstrated some landlords are right grumps. Still in the OP's case giving the OP a bad reference would be the landlord harming his own interests since he hasn't served a valid S21 so the eviction clock isn't ticking yet so he'd be silly to hamper the OP's leaving.
When depriving someone of their home the least that should be expected is a valid notice to be served. I hope next time the OP finds a landlord in it for the long term as being kicked out for a sale is a pain.
As for your sarky remarks about the OP's credentials as a tenant, I think her previous history speaks for itself.
No one is claiming the landlord is an oaf, your violins are doing overtime there.
Robsia, If you do have any problems with getting a reference can you ask any of your prior landlords to give a reference. Theirs should carry weight as they no longer have a vested interest and as you parted on good terms they may oblige.
So, do you approve of the blackmail, or not?
Just to make this clear, as apparently I'm a grumpy, nasty landlord, I'm objecting to the dual standards. The tenant doesn't bother with following the tenancy agreement, but pounces on a trivial mistake in the S21 notice as a means of blackmailing her landlord. Furthermore, he's expected to give her a nice reference 'as it's his fault'. Sheesh, and then she says that he's a bad landlord!No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Eh??? Agreement says "pets would be considered on an individual basis". OP has an email exchange with the agent which covers this. So your 2 legged stool of 'dual standards' is apparently missing a leg.So, do you approve of the blackmail, or not?
Just to make this clear, as apparently I'm a grumpy, nasty landlord, I'm objecting to the dual standards. The tenant doesn't bother with following the tenancy agreement, but pounces on a trivial mistake in the S21 notice as a means of blackmailing her landlord. Furthermore, he's expected to give her a nice reference 'as it's his fault'. Sheesh, and then she says that he's a bad landlord!You might as well ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a big number as pay a Credit Referencing Agency for a so-called 'credit-score'0 -
Either you move out more or less in line with the (invalid) S21, or you don't get a good reference.So, do you approve of the blackmail, or not?
So, do you? Or is it a seemingly decent tenant 'getting above their station' and knowing their rights in the face of a landLORD that you don't approve of?Remember Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
32 and mortgage-free
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards