Warning For All LL's Re Illegal Eviction and Not Protecting Deposit

Guest101

cloo wrote: »

I think there should be landlord registration to protect LLs as much as tenants. Yes, people should do their research, but there's no reliable way of an LL know that a law has changed which may affect them, or a legal precedent had been set. - Yes there is, join a LL association. If all LLs were on a central register, they could be sent notification of changes and action points. - Or they could just keep up to date with the law, like all people have to day to day.


I was actually affected by the Superstrike judgement. My tenant moved in about 5 months before deposit protection came in, on a 6-month AST. I checked at the time whether I should protect the deposit and at the time the answer was 'no'. Had it not been for the fact that I started a job in a property organisation a few months before I needed to sell my rented house, I would never have know about it. I know my tenant asked for housing advice as she wanted to delay leaving, so had I not returned her deposit with the sec21 as seemed the only way around it, she would have been told to use that judgement against me and invalidate the sec21, thus shafting the sale. I can't see how even a fairly sorted LL would have known about that ruling.

They'd have known by keeping an eye on news outlets such as websites which affect their business. Like any good business person does.

FBaby

benjus wrote: »

No, you are not correct. You don't become a landlord by default. You might choose it as the least worst option in a difficult situation, but it's still a choice. If you are receiving money and providing a service, it is in some sense a business. There is simply no excuse for not bothering to find out your responsibilities. It is a fundamental legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a defence.

I never said you shouldn't bother finding out about your responsibilities read again I said that doing so was often a process. Even the 'experts' here constantly argue about the interpretation of the law.

Of course ignorance isn't a defense in the law and I never said it should but it is getting boring that every time a LL comes to ask a question hence trying to educate themselves about their responsibilities they are being shut down in a patronising for not knowing already.

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are obvious and easy to access, others are less so. That's not taking into account the fact that most letting agents will sell their rip off services letting LL believe that they are protecting their responsibilities. It is shocking to see how many of them know so little about LL responsibilities.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

I never said you shouldn't bother finding out about your responsibilities read again I said that doing so was often a process. Even the 'experts' here constantly argue about the interpretation of the law. - Actually the 'experts' don't argue about the law per se, there's debate when two conflicting rights exist. That's the same debate a court would have. However most responsibilities are crystal clear.

Of course ignorance isn't a defense in the law and I never said it should but it is getting boring that every time a LL comes to ask a question hence trying to educate themselves about their responsibilities they are being shut down in a patronising for not knowing already. - This typically happens on the basics. Often this information is available very readily, so asking a question about a fundamental responsibility is just lazy.

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are obvious and easy to access, others are less so. That's not taking into account the fact that most letting agents will sell their rip off services letting LL believe that they are protecting their responsibilities. It is shocking to see how many of them know so little about LL responsibilities.

That's to do with choosing an agent wisely. Again some basic research would help with this

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

That's to do with choosing an agent wisely. Again some basic research would help with this

* Letting agents: how should a landlord select or sack?

cloo

FBaby wrote: »

I never said you shouldn't bother finding out about your responsibilities read again I said that doing so was often a process. Even the 'experts' here constantly argue about the interpretation of the law.

Of course ignorance isn't a defense in the law and I never said it should but it is getting boring that every time a LL comes to ask a question hence trying to educate themselves about their responsibilities they are being shut down in a patronising for not knowing already.

My point is that there are some responsibilities that are obvious and easy to access, others are less so. That's not taking into account the fact that most letting agents will sell their rip off services letting LL believe that they are protecting their responsibilities. It is shocking to see how many of them know so little about LL responsibilities.

Exactly, what may be 'obvious' to some people is not to everyone. Some LLs are crooked, some naïve, but most trying to do their best. But to my mind the way it's been allowed to evolve so that there is no necessity for someone renting out their property to sign onto some sort of service or organisation that will ensure they get the right information seems ridiculous, especially when their actions (or inactions) can have a very big impact on their tenants or on their bank balance and stress levels if they get something wrong.

iantojones40

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I don't think that it is very worthwhile to watch sensationalist TV shows.

I fully agree, nothing worse than than the fantasy figure costs and potential profit margins in HUTH or the endless market ramping and buy buy BUY it now hysteria of LLL... shows made for gullible morons.