LandLord just gave me notice.

molerat

TBeckett100 wrote: »

On one hand landlords are slated for profiteering out of letting and on the other, the landlord is made to jump through hoops and expenses to get his rightful property back

Why not just let the landlord have his property back hassle free? It isn't his fault you can't afford to move, you have a child you cannot support self sufficiently or run your own life without help from the state

Why do you believe that the banks should be financially penalised for not doing things correctly yet a landlord should not be inconvenienced because he failed to do things by the book ? They have failed to issue the correct paperwork on 2 occasions and failed to protect the deposit as required by law - no difference as far as I can see.

TBeckett100

molerat wrote: »

Why do you believe that the banks should be financially penalised for not doing things correctly yet a landlord should not be inconvenienced because he failed to do things by the book ? They have failed to issue the correct paperwork on 2 occasions and failed to protect the deposit as required by law - no difference as far as I can see.

Not sure I have said the banks should be penalised for doing things incorrectly. I don't believe the words have fallen off my thumbs onto the keyboard. I'll probably spend my 1k shopping in New York. What will you be doing? Fighting for a blaupunkt TV at Tesco on Boxing Day?

The end result is that the landlord can legally give two months notice (in a certain way) and if he passes back the deposit then what is the actual difference? OP has to leave. She will leave and whether she does that in a reasonable way to protect the child or end up in a b&b unable to sleep with all the other violin players is her choice.

I'm actually surprised nobody has really raised the child issue? Imagine you have a child to bring up alone, probably with a loser father who can't provide. A parent should protect and secure their child, not create stress and uncertainty in the house.

If the landlord turned up tomorrow with a removal lorry and refused to hand back the deposit, the law is there to avoid that situation or at least protect against it, but the LL is not being wholly unreasonable.

All this talk of proper forms is great if you want to keep the property for longer and play the system but that isn't really the moral high point. The man wants his house back and has asked for it back in two months. All this goading the OP down the legal line won't help her when you are sat here looking for bargains and commenting on other posts whilst the OP and her child are answering the door to bailiffs.

We are all entitled to an opinion, just because it isn't always the correct opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion. I don't come on here to pat people on the back and join in the clique.

Pixie5740

TBeckett100 wrote: »

The LL has given two months notice we read later. Just because it isn't S21 doesn't morally change the fact the guy wants to give 2 months notice

If you don't purchase a family home, one should expect to not have the security

This site seems to be about people having sod all and expecting to be spoon fed their entire lives. A rental isn't a right to live somewhere your entire life. Sounds as though the LL could have made the tenant pay renewal fees every year. Least tenant could do is be more respectful to the person who has provided a roof

No the LL has not given 2months notice. A phone call announcing he is moving back into the property in 6 weeks time is not the same as giving notice. Even if he had got the notice right it still wouldn't have been valid because the deposit wasn't protected. I don't know why you're banging on about morals. The LL has both a moral and legal obligation to protect the deposit and serve notice correctly. £5 says this chump hasn't been declaring the rental income to HMRC either.

Spoonfed? It sounds like the LL is the one needing spoon fed to successfully secure an eviction order. The OP pays rent to live in the property. Is that not enough, should tenants get down and kiss the feet of their landlords too? Just because people rent that doesn't make them 2nd class citizens to home owners. There are housing laws in place regarding rental properties and any LL worth their salt would know what they are. Owning a property doesn't give you the right to flout the law.

I doubt the LL could have made the OP pay renewal fees every year because he sounds like he couldn't find his !!!!! with both hands. Besides any half-decent LL realises that long term tenants paying their rent on time and keeping the place in order aren't worth losing over a few hundred quid for renewal fees every year.

TBeckett100

Pixie5740 wrote: »

No the LL has not given 2months notice.

Please refer to post 40.

Pixie5740

TBeckett100 wrote: »

The end result is that the landlord can legally give two months notice (in a certain way) and if he passes back the deposit then what is the actual difference? OP has to leave. She will leave and whether she does that in a reasonable way to protect the child or end up in a b&b unable to sleep with all the other violin players is her choice.

supposing the LL does return the deposit and manages to serve notice correctly. The OP doesn't have to leave at the end of the notice period. Only a T or a court can legally end a tenancy. Certainly the OP will have to leave at some point but as she has a child in school and needs to find another suitable home within that catchment area, this can buy her time to do so.

The council have also, incorrectly, told her that she needs to wait for it to go to court before re-homing her and her child. This is Horlicks, but unfortunately some councils put tenants in a holding pattern like this.

TBeckett100 wrote: »

I'm actually surprised nobody has really raised the child issue? Imagine you have a child to bring up alone, probably with a loser father who can't provide. A parent should protect and secure their child, not create stress and uncertainty in the house.

You're making a lot of assumptions there about the child's father.

The very fact there is a child involved and at school is exactly why people are suggesting the OP hold out for social housing and a secure tenancy. It's also why explaining the legal situation helps the OP as she could easily spin this out to the summer holidays when she could find a new home as moving then would be a lot less disruptive to the child than moving during term time.

Pixie5740

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Please refer to post 40.

I did read post 40 and post 44. Did you? 2 months notice has not been served.

TBeckett100

Post 40 states two months notice

Post 44 states two months notice bar a few days for Xmas post

OP may be able to string it out until the summer but I'm not sure I'd sleep peacefully at night

I can only suggest OPs ex is useless. Poor girl is working long hours to support herself and child

TBeckett100

topdaddy wrote: »

Maybe a loser father served it? Beckett hasnt answered which business or service he would accept poor performance for whilst paying the going rate for the priviledge of unprofessional conduct. So instead of guessing at loser fathers lets apportion the blame correctly, loser landlords.

Beckett hasn't answered what? I didn't see a question asking that?

Not sure OP is paying the going rate, the earlier posts infer that she can't find somewhere for the same price

TBeckett100

So the landlord hasn't served S21. The request for two months is the same isn't it?

[Deleted User]

*It isn't the tenant's responsibility to help the LL to do his paperwork correctly*

Exactly. When he phoned me to ask me to move in 6 weeks I had to tell him to give a written notice and he asked ME what to write in the notice.
Really?