LandLord Sold Garden Which Was Under Tenancy

Pee

Do you live near a University with a Law Department and a Free Representation Unit?

I think that there advice will be do nothing or you will be given notice.

If I was you I would start looking for new houses and get a new deposit sorted. I have seen those bonds before. I thought they could be moved to another property as you contribute to them each week, but there may be different types.

I think your landlord is completely in the wrong morally, but completely able to solve the problem legally and please take this the right way, but if you were my tenant I'd think you were a problem. (Able to look up the law and look after yourself, good in a lawyer, not on my list of desirable attributes in a tenant.)

roundturn

My impression from the thread is that the OP is as interested in the 'battle' as in the outcome.

Point of principle; not letting the LL get one over on him; relishing the various (obscure) legal possibilities etc

Yes, morally theLL is out of order.

But the reality is that a S21 will head his way. Any attempt tomakea legalclaim for compensation will be complex, and expensive - the OP has baulked at spending £3 for LR Title: can he afford a complex, potentially lengthy, and uncertain legal fight?

Add to that regular 10% rent increases (!), and surely the solution is to move somewhere more peaceful?

TopQuark

cattie wrote: »

I have to admit that the post made by e2000 makes sense. If you have not been deprived of a garden, & it doesn't sound as if you have if there is still a small area available to be used by all tenants, then you all still have share of a communal garden.

Also, unless your rent is considerably higher than comparable bedsits/studios in the area that don't have gardens, then I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about with the LL deciding to sell a bit of their land when given the opportunity to do so & make a bit of money for herself.

I've lived in houses converted into flats with shared garden & no tenant has ever considered the garden as 'theirs'. It was always thought of as just an added bonus & certainly if a landlord had wanted to sell part of it on, it would never have entered any of our heads to kick up such a fuss about it if we were still being left with a reduced outdoor space to continue to enjoy should we so wish to do so.

You mention your rent is already very low, so I wouldn't hold my breath regarding getting a reduction in rent. Rather, you probably will get your marching orders at the first opportunity. You say you don't care, but with your finances in such a bad state, why have you even risked your current tenancy I wonder.

Just because you are willing to roll over and let people walk all over you, doesn't mean other people are. Do you doff your cap and tuck your forelock to your LL I wonder?

G_M

TopQuark wrote: »

Just because you are willing to roll over and let people walk all over you, doesn't mean other people are. Do you doff your cap and tuck your forelock to your LL I wonder?

Emotive language.

One makes decisions all the time in life, and often a pragmatic solution is more sensible than starting a war.

If a drunk outside a nightclub shouts insults at me, I can "doff my cap and tuck my forelock" to the drunk, and walk away, or I can square up to him, deny that I have ever copulated with my mum, and take him on.

Of course, each decision is personal. Only you can decide which battles to fight, and which to walk away from.

moneyistooshorttomention

Perhaps a bit emotive and I would have just put it as "being rather surprised" that someone would apparently be willing to let part of their home be taken off them (ie part of the garden) and not even be upset about it.

I cant see any home-owner accepting the next door neighbour just moving their fence over to their side and nicking some feet off their garden without at least being distinctly aggrieved about it.

It's just a matter of wanting to get what you are paying for after all.

martinsurrey

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

someone would apparently be willing to let part of their home be taken off them (ie part of the garden) and not even be upset about it.

but by choosing to fight (and fight from a starting position of not knowing the slightest bit about if they have a case or not), the OP might lose all of their home, and is in a position where getting another one might be a real problem...

lincroft1710

One point for OP to consider. If he goes to the local press and they do their usual "sob story" article with his name and a photograph showing him looking sad/angry/distraught, if he is evicted he may find it difficult finding a new place as some LLs/LAs will class him as an awkward tenant.

I am not suggesting he doesn't go to the press, but just to be aware it may have a negative effect on another part of his life.

silvercar

lincroft1710 wrote: »

One point for OP to consider. If he goes to the local press and they do their usual "sob story" article with his name and a photograph showing him looking sad/angry/distraught, if he is evicted he may find it difficult finding a new place as many LLs/LAs will class him as an awkward tenant.

I am not suggesting he doesn't go to the press, but just to be aware it may have a negative effect on another part of his life.

But then a comment by the landlord that he wasn't any problem, always paid rent on time, landlord surprised by current outburst could stand him in very good stead. Landlords who are not intent on ripping off their tenants may be delighted to have him.

lincroft1710

silvercar wrote: »

But then a comment by the landlord that he wasn't any problem, always paid rent on time, landlord surprised by current outburst could stand him in very good stead. Landlords who are not intent on ripping off their tenants may be delighted to have him.

Which is why I put the word may in block letters. The publicity may or may not harm his chances of a future tenancy.

I've just realised I typed "many" in my original post when I meant to write "some", shouldn't try to watch TV and type at same time. Original post corrected.

adrihd

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

The title register will reveal the written word pertaining ot the title/property searched against
The title plan will show the general boundaries
If you have a AST which is of less than 7 years then it will not be registered

How long is your AST for?

Hi,

Many thanks for your response on this as I would assume you are a really busy person!

The AST was formed late February 2010 BUT, I did kind of look into this and pre-empted this whole date thing when this was in its infancy.

I contacted planning to find out when the property: (fictitious address)

22 McGowan Road was Broken up into 22a, b, c and d McGowan Road and that was confirmed as having been done in the yearly 80's. It's scribbled down on one of my 10000 notepads I have archived away

Is this what you needed?