Giving Tenant correct notice. What should it be?

Pixie5740

In the landlord/tenant relationship the tenant is the consumer and this is a forum for consumers. The landlord is running a business and therefore should know what they're doing before taking the action of finding a tenant and accepting that tenant's money.

If I decided one day to start a catering business without looking into my legal obligations until after I'd given all my customers a dose of the green-apple-splatters would that be acceptable? Of course not so it's not really acceptable for landlords (who are all landlords out of choice, it's not something that has been thrust upon them) to go steaming in without doing some kind of research beforehand.

As for the deposit, 9 years the deposit protection legislation has been in place in England & Wales. 9 years...and still some landlords aren't doing it for some inexplicable reason.

FBaby

Considering all the arguments you 'experts' regularly have that can go on for pages and pages about how you each interpret the law, it makes me laugh when you think you are in a position to say that landlords should know everything about their business in advance of starting it, especially when most businesses of any nature will admit they many aspect of the it is learnt as they go along.

Often the advice is simply start a single claim with the DPS. The advice extends when the LL FAILS to protect the deposit.

Just to comment on this, and not citing you particularly, but this is not true. I have read many times when a tenant has posted about being given notice and the first post is about whether their deposit has been protected and if not, they could take their landlord to court. I remembered one poster saying that they were not interested in suing them and still the posts went on about how they could do it easily without much cost.

I wont give the same comment. Because a tenant isn't provided a roof over someone's head, they're paying of that persons mortgage

And that's what it comes down to, that resentment that some people are getting their 'mortgage paid for'. The fact that they are good landlords there who thanks for their decision to be so is allowing families to live in decent accommodation that they can't afford to buy becomes irrelevant.

Without a doubt there are many landlords in the business just to make money, but many are not, yet they get treated just the same here.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Considering all the arguments you 'experts' regularly have that can go on for pages and pages about how you each interpret the law, it makes me laugh when you think you are in a position to say that landlords should know everything about their business in advance of starting it, especially when most businesses of any nature will admit they many aspect of the it is learnt as they go along. - Learning the BASICS, which are not disputed, is certainly a prerequisite. Sure there can be debate about access rights, sure there can be debate about specialised clauses. But this is basic stuff. (most businesses will know the basics though - to use Pixies example of catering, a food hygiene course would probably be a good investment before starting catering as a business.)


Just to comment on this, and not citing you particularly, but this is not true. I have read many times when a tenant has posted about being given notice and the first post is about whether their deposit has been protected and if not, they could take their landlord to court. I remembered one poster saying that they were not interested in suing them and still the posts went on about how they could do it easily without much cost.



'without much cost'? It costs approx. £1,000 to sue for non protection. (costs reclaimable sure, but the initial fee is there). But yes ofcourse check if the deposit is protected as that is a key defence of a s.21 notice. And if it isn't protected (9 years since it became law...) then yes, do sue. As the LL is running a gamble with the tenants money.

And that's what it comes down to, that resentment that some people are getting their 'mortgage paid for'. The fact that they are good landlords there who thanks for their decision to be so is allowing families to live in decent accommodation that they can't afford to buy becomes irrelevant.


Resentment? It's not resentment at all, it's the facts of the relationship. One person gets a roof, the other gets their debt paid. The priorities of the tenant supersede the LLs, one will be homeless, the other will have some angry letters.... "Good LLs" have nothing to worry about, as they will have followed the procedure correctly....

Without a doubt there are many landlords in the business just to make money, but many are not, yet they get treated just the same here.

ALL private landlords should be in the business to make money - otherwise they are stupid, and I don't want to rent from a stupid person.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Consumer or not, there are people salivating at the bit on this forum, that whenever an ignorant LL crosses their paths can't wait to unleash their outraged erection and depth of knowledge at them. Perhaps they should get out more.

marksoton

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Consumer or not, there narenpeople salivating at the bit on this forum, that whenever an ignorant LL

To be fair that ignorance can have far reaching consequences for the tenant. I suspect that's why people have a far lower tolerance.

As i stated previously it's in everyone's interests for the LL to be au fait with the business they're running.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

marksoton wrote: »

To be fair that ignorance can have far reaching consequences for the tenant. I suspect that's why people have a far lower tolerance.

As i stated previously it's in everyone's interests for the LL to be au fait with the business they're running.

There are ignorant people throughout society. Hell, there are evil ones too - go out onto your local street corner - you'll soon find [EMAIL="cr@ck"]cr@ck[/EMAIL] and heroin.


The OP came here looking for help on how to do things properly, and there are certain people here who get a great feeling of accomplishment from admonishing them. Go and have a beer and make some friends.

marksoton

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

There are ignorant people throughout society. Hell, there are evil ones too - go out onto your local street corner - you'll soon find [EMAIL="cr@ck"]cr@ck[/EMAIL] and heroin.


The OP came here looking for help on how to do things properly, and there are certain people here who get a great feeling of accomplishment from admonishing them. Go and have a beer and make some friends.

I don't disagree on the former.

The latter is your personal opinion.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

marksoton wrote: »

I don't disagree on the former.

The latter is your personal opinion.

It's not my opinion that the OP came here looking for help - that much is entirely evident.

FBaby

The issue here is that OP hasn't done anything wrong. There are no requirements to know all the legality of being a landlord before becoming one, what is required is to follow the rules, and there are no reasons to believe that OP hasn't done so so far. He is now seeking advice to be sure to continue to do so.

It is one thing to criticise landlords who have failed tenants through their lack of business acumen, but to do when they are trying to ensure that they don't is unnecessary and just ego boosting to do so.

In the landlord/tenant relationship the tenant is the consumer and this is a forum for consumers.

Says who? I haven't seen any warning that landlords should not post to seek advice in the stickers.

ALL private landlords should be in the business to make money - otherwise they are stupid, and I don't want to rent from a stupid person.

Private landlords are entitled to become so for whichever reason suits them. If you find them stupid, that's your problem, you are free to only accept to rent from landlord who are in for the money, which of course might mean them investing as little as possible in the property as long as they do the strict minimum and therefore can't be challenged in court.

bikingbarney

I didnt choose to become a landlord, I had to otherwise it was a case of selling a house in negative equity and then going bankrupt.

This was always a temp situation