Letting agent won't give me the landlord's details

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

Take another guess at what I meant when I referred to your daddy's "swimmers".

I know you struggle with this, so let me say it again. The system is flawed if it does not represent everyone equally. If I was Simon Cowell, I would have been able to gamble and the system may have worked for me. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have been a great loss. As I am not Simon Cowell, I have to balance what I can possibly achieve against what I can lose.

Do you know how the legal system works? Do you know that no matter the outcome, a solicitor is entitled to payment? Do you know that if you win, you can sometimes (not always) claim your costs from the other side. Keep that in mind. Now we have that settled in your tiny mind (are we sure?), I can tell you that my litigation solicitor advised me NOT to risk turning down the offer. Why? Why would she do that even though it potentially lost her money? She would have been paid more no matter how it turned out if I had proceeded. She informed me to accept because given her 30 year knowledge of litigation, she believed it to be my best option. There was no "being scared", there was no being a "fool", it was the deemed the best decision by someone who is a lot more qualified than someone who trolls forums looking to try and assert his intellectual superiority.

Now, why don't you go away and figure out what I meant by my "daddy's swimmers" comment. It has nothing to do with your breast stroke.....although your mum's my have been involved. Mores the pity for the rest of us......

I gathered that you were referring to sperm. My comment was meant ironically, as in to say not only was it the slow swimmers, but indeed I was a slow swimmer in the pool, and therefore bullied for it, at school, by my dad.

If that was lost on you then I am beginning to see how this mess you find yourself in came about.

jekyll79

Guest101 wrote: »

I gathered that you were referring to sperm. My comment was meant ironically, as in to say not only was it the slow swimmers, but indeed I was a slow swimmer in the pool, and therefore bullied for it, at school, by my dad.

If that was lost on you then I am beginning to see how this mess you find yourself in came about.

Well done! You figured it out and only needed a little prompting. The force is strong with this one.

Now, where is the condescending comment desperately trying to save face by speculating on whether the litigator I used actually knew what she was talking about?

Where is the comeback on the comment on the flawed legal system that only works for you if you have money? Imagine a criminal justice system where you get mugged, but have to pay a fortune before even getting the mugger arrested, let alone convicted. Would that be a fair and un-flawed system in your eyes?

On a less sarcastic note, if you want to share advice with people who have been wronged, the worst way to do it is to do what you did. You basically were just putting the boot in. What you didn't bank on was that I would fight back and put you in your place. Your understanding of this situation is very much like mine was before I started fighting it. I was under the impression that I was completely in the right and would win. Then I discovered that the law IS flawed. Just referring to the issue with my conveyancer missing the insolvency petition. Because there is no requirement to immediately advertise insolvency petitions, how can there be a watertight law to say that conveyancers are wrong in not finding a petition?!?! Particularly when, in this case, there was a window of two weeks between the petition and me completing. Do you even know when searches take place during the conveyancing?

So, the legal system IS flawed. That is not an opinion, it is fact. It is a fact that anyone who has had any interaction with it will likely understand. Another reason it is flawed is that the average solicitor charges more than most people take home in a week....PER HOUR!! I am very lucky in that I earn considerably more than the average and I found it to be ludicrously inhibiting when it came to my options.

Anyway, thanks for your opinions and thinly veiled insults. As I said, I have figured out what I need to do from an earlier poster who actually misread what I was posting about and suggested that the tenant has the right to the information I need. As I said, I will ask the new tenant.

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

Well done! You figured it out and only needed a little prompting. The force is strong with this one.

Now, where is the condescending comment desperately trying to save face by speculating on whether the litigator I used actually knew what she was talking about?

Where is the comeback on the comment on the flawed legal system that only works for you if you have money? Imagine a criminal justice system where you get mugged, but have to pay a fortune before even getting the mugger arrested, let alone convicted. Would that be a fair and un-flawed system in your eyes?

On a less sarcastic note, if you want to share advice with people who have been wronged, the worst way to do it is to do what you did. You basically were just putting the boot in. What you didn't bank on was that I would fight back and put you in your place. Your understanding of this situation is very much like mine was before I started fighting it. I was under the impression that I was completely in the right and would win. Then I discovered that the law IS flawed. Just referring to the issue with my conveyancer missing the insolvency petition. Because there is no requirement to immediately advertise insolvency petitions, how can there be a watertight law to say that conveyancers are wrong in not finding a petition?!?! Particularly when, in this case, there was a window of two weeks between the petition and me completing. Do you even know when searches take place during the conveyancing?

So, the legal system IS flawed. That is not an opinion, it is fact. It is a fact that anyone who has had any interaction with it will likely understand. Another reason it is flawed is that the average solicitor charges more than most people take home in a week....PER HOUR!! I am very lucky in that I earn considerably more than the average and I found it to be ludicrously inhibiting when it came to my options.

Anyway, thanks for your opinions and thinly veiled insults. As I said, I have figured out what I need to do from an earlier poster who actually misread what I was posting about and suggested that the tenant has the right to the information I need. As I said, I will ask the new tenant.

As I said I figured this out immediately and was simply making the situation light hearted with a dose of humour. To clarify I wasn't bullied at school, not was I a slow swimmer, and ( aside from the 2 year old boy - ie my youngest) none of those things actually happened.

I'm sure the litigator knew exactly what they were talking about. I'm sure they presented you with the options. Suggesting that a quick win would be the easiest thing to do. Given our discussion, I would imagine the thought of working with you and having to listen to the woe is me, the world owes me a living, the system is so unfair, childish whining, was enough to put them off. Given how much they charged, they were willing to savrifice that money so as to not deal with you again speaks volumes.

This isn't criminal justice. It's civil law. So I don't see how that applies.

I have you my opinion and you didn't like it. You certainly didn't 'put me in my place', but I suspect given your situation, anything you perceive as a win keeps you going. So Ye, uhm... 'Sorry sir?' - dunno what place you put me in so not sure what response you want. I'm sure you're not this rude in reality and the anonymity provided by these forums allows you to vent the frustration and anger you are no doubt feeling. ( I am this blunt in reality )

Typically searches take place twice, though you can pay to do this as many times as you like. The second time right before completion.

The law clearly doesn't cover your exact circumstances, you would be arguing that the solicitor had been negligent. - they were or they wouldn't have paid you anything.

I'm sorry you found my insults thinly veiled, I try to be blunt and to the point. Your feedback is appreciated

kinger101

Can't you just agree to disagree, and wind this up?

jekyll79

Guest101 wrote: »

The law clearly doesn't cover your exact circumstances, you would be arguing that the solicitor had been negligent. - they were or they wouldn't have paid you anything.

I'm choosing to ignore most of your childish insults about my character. I feel yours has been weighed, measured and found wanting on this thread....and many others.

But that aside, I would like to highlight the quote above. Earlier you were calling me foolish for not throwing money at this as you were certain I would have won. Now you are saying that the law clearly doesn't cover my exact circumstance?!? So this "perfect law" isn't so perfect is it? To be clear, if something isn't perfect, it is by it's very nature, flawed.

By the way, I don't believe the world owes me a living at all. I believe the world owes everyone the same opportunities and the same rights. Money should never come into it. As such, I believe that the civil law that we use is not only an @ss, it is an @ss' @rse. You, on the other hand, obviously believe in "the system". I suspect that you believe in "the system" because you are a middle class white man who has lived a life benefiting from the fact that "the system" has been tailored to you. I imagine you had the advantages of "the bank of mum and dad" in your early years, yet think you have "done it for yourself". Well done my friend. You keep thinking that. Meanwhile some of us are quite happy to work for everything we have and take pride in NOT relying on others to give us a living.

OK. I'm done. You can go on and have the last word and throw as many insults at me as you like.

topdaddy_2

jekyll79 wrote: »

I'm choosing to ignore most of your childish insults about my character. I feel yours has been weighed, measured and found wanting on this thread....and many others.

But that aside, I would like to highlight the quote above. Earlier you were calling me foolish for not throwing money at this as you were certain I would have won. Now you are saying that the law clearly doesn't cover my exact circumstance?!? So this "perfect law" isn't so perfect is it? To be clear, if something isn't perfect, it is by it's very nature, flawed.

By the way, I don't believe the world owes me a living at all. I believe the world owes everyone the same opportunities and the same rights. Money should never come into it. As such, I believe that the civil law that we use is not only an @ss, it is an @ss' @rse. You, on the other hand, obviously believe in "the system". I suspect that you believe in "the system" because you are a middle class white man who has lived a life benefiting from the fact that "the system" has been tailored to you. I imagine you had the advantages of "thxe bank of mum and dad" in your early years, yet think you have "done it for yourself". Well done my friend. You keep thinking that. Meanwhile some of us are quite happy to work for everything we have and take pride in NOT relying on others to give us a living.

OK. I'm done. You can go on and have the last word and throw as many insults at me as you like.

What a quuality person you are. Good luck fixing your problem, couldnt wish it on a nicer bloke.

Nobbie1967

topdaddy wrote: »

What a quuality person you are. Good luck fixing your problem, couldnt wish it on a nicer bloke.

Are you Guest101's alter ego getting the last word in?

Good luck Jekyll79 on getting somewhere with this. It was good to read someone taking the time to call someone out on here. It's sad that there are so many people who rely on this forum to gain some sort of 'status', rather than actually helping others.

Guest101

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Are you Guest101's alter ego getting the last word in?

Good luck Jekyll79 on getting somewhere with this. It was good to read someone taking the time to call someone out on here. It's sad that there are so many people who rely on this forum to gain some sort of 'status', rather than actually helping others.

No, clearly someone who agrees with some of the things I said.

I don't have a status. Not do I wish to obtain one.

I thought I'd let OP have the last word, he needed a 'win'. He's still wrong, but I'm not the one living in a dodgy building, with dodgy neighbours. So... Ye

G_M

Look - could the two of you either shut up or communicate by PM instead of filling a thread with personal insults and disputes?

My finger's been hovering over the 'report' button for a while now, but I've refrained as actually you each have useful knowledge to contribute.

The advantage of a forum like this is that if one poster makes an asertion/gives advice which is, or may be, wrong, another (others) can correct. It's happened to me - no biggie.

Once the OP sees the two competing viewpoints, perhaps supported by other contributers, it us up to him to decide which he believes/what course of action to take, or how to seek clarification.

An endless slanging match helps no one.

Just stop.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Look - could the two of you either shut up or communicate by PM instead of filling a thread with personal insults and disputes?

My finger's been hovering over the 'report' button for a while now, but I've refrained as actually you each have useful knowledge to contribute.

The advantage of a forum like this is that if one poster makes an asertion/gives advice which is, or may be, wrong, another (others) can correct. It's happened to me - no biggie.

Once the OP sees the two competing viewpoints, perhaps supported by other contributers, it us up to him to decide which he believes/what course of action to take, or how to seek clarification.

An endless slanging match helps no one.

Just stop.

Fair enough.
OP - Goodluck - sincerely.