LandLord just gave me notice.

Pixie5740

justjohn wrote: »

not always true West Lothian council (Scotland)do not wait for court eviction. They rehome before the landlord notice date.

Councils are supposed to wait until a court ordered eviction but many seem to.

justjohn wrote: »

This is one of the many reasons a landlord should give tenants nothing more than they are legally entitled to by law.

You mean like a protected deposit and correct notice. :rotfl:

Letting property is a business. Tenants are customers and it's wise to keep good tenants (pay the rent on time, don't trash the place, report repairs in a timely fashion but don't contact the LL every time a lightbulb needs changed) happy. Just the same that it's wise for tenants to keep good landlords (repairs things quickly, doesn't wonder into your home whenever they feel like it, complies with the law) happy.

Guest101

justjohn wrote: »

Could I just clear up something ...deposit protection was set up to protect tenants from rogue landlords. It was never setup to penalise legitimate landlords.


However it now seems to be used and abused by tenants to gain compo from a non compliant landlord, even if the landlord is legit but just does not reg the deposit.


Deposit registration is a con provide no benefit to legit tenant or legit landlord. However yet again it does line someone's pocket somewhere.


This is one of the many reasons a landlord should give tenants nothing more than they are legally entitled to by law.

So the LL should protect the deposit? Glad we agree.

jjlandlord

Deposit protection is meant to protect tenants and to free the courts by offloading deposit disputes to the private sector.

Tenants are not entitled for compensation if their deposits is not protected, but rather landlords have to pay a penalty if they breach regulations.
Cunningly the legislator has made the penalty payable to the tenant.

In any case, don't be fooled by over-virtuous posturing of some: Tenants who go after their (ex-)landlords for non-protection of deposit don't do so because of morals or ideals, they do so because it is easy money.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

Deposit protection is meant to protect tenants and to free the courts by offloading deposit disputes to the private sector.

Tenants are not entitled for compensation if their deposits is not protected, but rather landlords have to pay a penalty if they breach regulations.
Cunningly the legislator has made the penalty payable to the tenant.

In any case, don't be fooled by over-virtuous posturing of some: Tenants who go after their (ex-)landlords for non-protection of deposit don't do so because of morals or ideals, they do so because it is easy money.

Most of the time this is true. But it's easily avoidable. Just protect the deposit. Surely complying with the law is a straightforward no-brainer

nodiscount

This thread looks like it should be renamed. 'How to screw a hapless landlord' sounds more apt.
The OP is being railroaded into punishing the landlord.

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Most of the time this is true. But it's easily avoidable. Just protect the deposit. Surely complying with the law is a straightforward no-brainer

What did I mention about virtuous posturing?

Deposit protection regulations have been a shamble. It is easy to get caught on a technicality.

jjlandlord

nodiscount wrote: »

This thread looks like it should be renamed. 'How to screw a hapless landlord' sounds more apt.
The OP is being railroaded into punishing the landlord.

Why of course. This is MSE after all... Greed under a thin veil of virtue.

Missko

Error.
Error.

SeduLOUs

jjlandlord wrote: »

Deposit protection regulations have been a shamble. It is easy to get caught on a technicality.

Getting caught on a technicality and just not bothering at all are two pretty different things though.

Who's to say the LL even has the money to give back to OP now if he's having a tough time himself?

Pixie5740

nodiscount wrote: »

This thread looks like it should be renamed. 'How to screw a hapless landlord' sounds more apt.
The OP is being railroaded into punishing the landlord.

The OP has clearly stated that she doesn't intend to sue the LL. The importance of the deposit not being protected in this case is that any section 21 served would currently make the notice invalid which buys the OP some time to find a new home.

There have been several times I could have sued previous landlords but I havent. I've found that just letting the LL know you could is enough to get your deposit back when a LL tries to play silly !!!!!!s.

I have little sympathy for hapless landlords as they are quite happy to collect the rent each month.