Asked to move out by landlord - now being let out again!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Guest101 wrote: »

Whoa there, stop a second and re-read it:

This is typical of the type of comment that contributes to giving landlords a bad name.

Doesnt matter if it is a landlord or not. That is a typical type of comment that contributes to giving landlords a bad name. It just is, whether it s a comment from a landlord, or a tenant, or a chap in a pub.

The original comment:
Or you can just be a normal human being and find a new place to rent when the owner of the house you were living in decides he wants it back.

Suggests:
1: It's abnormal for a tenant to use the rights given to them by law
2: that the owners rights override that of the tenant
3: that the landlord retains all the decision making powers

- Makes landlords out to be pretty bad....

You don't have a right to be taken to court, have the bailiffs sent round and be evicted. That's idiotic. The court process is there to deal with people who do not act in a reasonable way. Claiming you have a right to use all these avenues before leaving is like claiming you have a right not to pay for any meal in a restaurant, or any work you have commissioned from a tradesman, until you have been taken through small claims court. There are people who behave like this, but they are unusual and unreasonable.


I am not a landlord.

Guest101

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

You don't have a right to be taken to court, have the bailiffs sent round and be evicted. - A tenant has the right to have the tenancy ended correctly. The ONLy ways a tenancy can be ended is either by the tenant themselves, or by the court. A section 21 notice, is exactly that, a notice that the landlord intends to go to court.

That's idiotic. - That's the law.

The court process is there to deal with people who do not act in a reasonable way. - The court process is there so that the tenancy is legally ended. Civil law does not 'deal with people' as such. Certainly not in the context of a possesion hearing.

Claiming you have a right to use all these avenues before leaving is like claiming you have a right not to pay for any meal in a restaurant, or any work you have commissioned from a tradesman, until you have been taken through small claims court. - Not quite. Aside from this not going via small claims channel. The examples you give are not covered by their won seperate legislation, tenancies are!

There are people who behave like this, but they are unusual and unreasonable. - If it's unusual and unreasonable to use the protection granted by law, Then i suppose the very basis for our whole society is unusual and unreasonable. I presume you also waive other rights as easily?


I am not a landlord.

It's probably a good thing you're not a landlord, I dont think you'd be a very good one.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

JencParker wrote: »

This is typical of the type of comment that contributes to giving landlords a bad name.

When I sign a contract that says the landlord needs to give me a month's notice to leave, then when he gives a month's notice to leave, I leave in a month. Because I am a reasonable person. If I were an unreasonable person who had no regard for the contract I had signed and the undertaking I had given I would ignore the terms of the contract I willingly signed and force him to take expensive legal action that would result in me leaving in the end.

In the same way if I agreed with you to buy a car for $1000 and you gave the £1000 I would give you the car. No doubt you feel it would be reasonable for me to keep the £1000 and hold on to the car until you had taken court action to force me to hand it over. I hope people bear this in mind in future dealings with you.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Guest101 wrote: »

It's probably a good thing you're not a landlord, I dont think you'd be a very good one.

I know what the law is. The law is there to deal with people who do not do what they are supposed to do. That is why landlords win these cases.

Guest101

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I know what the law is. The law is there to deal with people who do not do what they are supposed to do. That is why landlords win these cases.

This I highly doubt.

The Landlord 'wins' these cases becuase there is no defence to them. The law is there to protect tenants. Nothing to do with 'dealing' with people in this context.

Can i suggest you go post on https://www.landlordzone.co.uk , where you will likely get more sympathy for your rather extreme views. This is a consumer website, and the tenant in this context, is the consumer.

P.S great how you expect everyone to conform to your morals, and anyone who doesnt is basically... scum ? (not sure what word you would like to use)

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Guest101 wrote: »

This I highly doubt.

The Landlord 'wins' these cases becuase there is no defence to them. The law is there to protect tenants. Nothing to do with 'dealing' with people in this context.

Can i suggest you go post on https://www.landlordzone.co.uk , where you will likely get more sympathy for your rather extreme views. This is a consumer website, and the tenant in this context, is the consumer.

P.S great how you expect everyone to conform to your morals, and anyone who doesnt is basically... scum ? (not sure what word you would like to use)

There's honestly nothing extreme about suggesting that reasonable people move out of rented accommodation when given proper notice. it's what 99% of people do.

If you want to make up things that you think I might say, I'm going to start doing the same for you, and I can probably think of a lot more insulting things you haven't said than you can think of insulting things I haven't said so be careful there.

Guest101

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

There's honestly nothing extreme about suggesting that reasonable people move out of rented accommodation when given proper notice. it's what 99% of people do.

If you want to make up things that you think I might say, I'm going to start doing the same for you, and I can probably think of a lot more insulting things you haven't said than you can think of insulting things I haven't said so be careful there. - Sir I'm an absolute and total sociopath with no morals whatsoever. It is literally impossible for you to insult me. Especially with things I might say? I mean that whole sentence you wrote doesnt make any sense. By all means though, please feel free to carry out your threat (i assume it was a threat - still confused by what your intentions are), im intrigued

Let's work through this:

1: LL gives tenant a section 21 notice. Which says the landlord will go to court after a certain date
2: The tenant either gives their own notice, or awaits to hear from the court
3: The LL has made no attempt to mutually end the tenancy. IE with flexible end date, or some other incentive for the tenant. Bearing in mind most periodic tenancies are SPT (IE creates by law, not by contract) it seems only fair that the tenant have the protection of the law.

I still dont see what you mean when you say 'when given proper notice'. What is 'proper notice'? notice of what?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Guest101 wrote: »

Let's work through this:

1: LL gives tenant a section 21 notice. Which says the landlord will go to court after a certain date
2: The tenant either gives their own notice, or awaits to hear from the court
3: The LL has made no attempt to mutually end the tenancy. IE with flexible end date, or some other incentive for the tenant. Bearing in mind most periodic tenancies are SPT (IE creates by law, not by contract) it seems only fair that the tenant have the protection of the law.

I still dont see what you mean when you say 'when given proper notice'. What is 'proper notice'? notice of what?

This really isn't difficult. Just like in the original post, the landlord asked the tenant to leave, how we don't know, because he doesn't specify. he left, reasonably. This is how things normally work.

Then someone told him that regardless of what had happened (or even whether he wanted to) he should have stayed until bailiffs were sent round. That is unreasonable and not how things normally work.

As to your stuff in red, it would be fairly clear to most people that that reply was aimed at you ridiculous sentence assuming that I might possibly call some people scum and trying to say it would be wrong of me to do this, even though I had made no attempt so to do. But you seem to have problems in comprehension.

Guest101

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

This really isn't difficult. Just like in the original post, the landlord asked the tenant to leave, how we don't know, because he doesn't specify. he left, reasonably. This is how things normally work.

Then someone told him that regardless of what had happened (or even whether he wanted to) he should have stayed until bailiffs were sent round. That is unreasonable and not how things normally work.

As to your stuff in red, it would be fairly clear to most people that that reply was aimed at you ridiculous sentence assuming that I might possibly call some people scum and trying to say it would be wrong of me to do this, even though I had made no attempt so to do. But you seem to have problems in comprehension.

I'd better get a new job then, working in PR and all that... I did strangely enough understand what you were referring to, just not the threat itself. I have no idea what you're threatening to do.

That aside. Asking someone to do something has very little meaning. For 1 it's a question which obviously has the possibility for 2 answers: yes and no.
Secondly, legally, it has zero basis.
Thirdly, and crucially, there is a clear law which dictates how a LL ends a tenancy. By not following this and harassing the tenants, telling them to leave. The LL opens himself up to criminal charges.

Since often local authorities give the same advice to tenants, it is safe to say the advice of waiting to be evicted is widely used and deemed correct by the 'powers that be'. No reason it shouldn't apply to a public forum.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

That advice is given to tenants in situation where moving out presents a difficulty. That is a tiny minority of cases. There as no suggestion that moving out presented any difficulty to the original poster yet he was still advised he should have waited for bailiffs to arrive despite that having no relevance to his question. Do you or do you not think that it is unreasonable to assume that this should be every tenant's default behaviour?