Investors Only?

Landofwood

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Sitting tenants is the informal term for protected tenants, because they cannot be dislodged. Obviously, there as been some drift in terminology if you regard the eminently dislodgeable AST tenants as 'sitting'.

You are entitled to consider your use of the term as correct, but you must remember that there are other conflicting definitions which are also correct and probably more so.

A sitting tenant is and always has been a tenant occupying the property being sold, OR a protected tenant. I used the term entirely within the correct context, and simply objected to the arrogant correction from G_M.

G_M

Putting aside my disputable arrogance on terminology (OK, substitute 'assured' for 'sitting') you might have the politeness to acknowledge that all 5 of my points are valid reasons "to stop someone buying the property and then immediately issuing a section 21"

The 'Thanks' button is centrally located beneath the post.

I note the term 'sitting tenants' originated from you, not the advert itself, so without further investgation we don't know if they are AST tenants, sitting tenants, assured tenants or obnoxious tenants.

Lord_Baltimore

Landofwood wrote: »

My use was correct.

Imho it's a little bit churlish to argue semantics with someone who has offered you free advice, perhaps especially so when it is one of the forum's best-informed and most helpful contributors.

Strewth .

Landofwood

G_M wrote: »

Putting aside my disputable arrogance on terminology (OK, substitute 'assured' for 'sitting') you might have the politeness to acknowledge that all 5 of my points are valid reasons "to stop someone buying the property and then immediately issuing a section 21"

The 'Thanks' button is centrally located beneath the post.

I note the term 'sitting tenants' originated from you, not the advert itself, so without further investgation we don't know if they are AST tenants, sitting tenants, assured tenants or obnoxious tenants.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you had politely pointed out "sitting tenant could also mean protected tenant, so we should use a different term to avoid confusion".

Instead you made an abrupt correction, highlighting - once again - a gap in your knowledge.

I thanked those that provided accurate and polite contributions to this thread.

Landofwood

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Imho it's a little bit churlish to argue semantics with someone who has offered you free advice, perhaps especially so when it is one of the forum's best-informed and most helpful contributors.

Strewth .

He argued semantics by attempting to correct my use of the term.

I am perfectly entitled to respond with an explanation. I did nothing wrong.

Landofwood

G_M wrote: »

I note the term 'sitting tenants' originated from you, not the advert itself, so without further investgation we don't know if they are AST tenants, sitting tenants, assured tenants or obnoxious tenants.

I should probably highlight that once again you have shown that you don't understand what a sitting tenant is in the context of this thread.

A sitting tenant can also mean the tenant occupying the property during a proposed sale. Notice that my post referred specifically to this context.

I hope I have helped to enhance your knowledge.

agrinnall

Landofwood wrote: »

" a gap in your knowledge"

You should be on the stage with jokes of that calibre.

Landofwood

agrinnall wrote: »

You should be on the stage with jokes of that calibre.

Well it's not the first time he's made some pretty basic mistakes.

It's nice that you defend him though.

G_M

Good grief! you wanted some information - you got it.

You now have a host of reasons from myself and others explaining why a seller/agent might stipulate 'investors only'.

clearly the seller/his agent does not want to waste his own time, or the time & expense of potential buyers, attracting people who are unlikely to ultimately want or be able purchase.

Getting yourself in a tizz over a perceived slight, and insulting someone who has taken the trouble to give you the answers you sought is pretty,....well...... arrogant.

For myself, I'm moving on.

Landofwood

G_M wrote: »

Good grief! you wanted some information - you got it.

You now have a host of reasons from myself and others explaining why a seller/agent might stipulate 'investors only'.

clearly the seller/his agent does not want to waste his own time, or the time & expense of potential buyers, attracting people who are unlikely to ultimately want or be able purchase.

Getting yourself in a tizz over a perceived slight, and insulting someone who has taken the trouble to give you the answers you sought is pretty,....well...... arrogant.

For myself, I'm moving on.

I am not in a tizz. I corrected your mistake and then had to react to a bunch of posts supporting you.

It's a strange situation when I post a topic, sometime mistakenly tries to correct me, and a bunch of people then jump to his defence. I didn't ask for any of that.

I know for sure you learned something about sitting tenants, it's a shame you didn't acknowledge that.