Landlord wants to evict me and move back in!

Person_one

silvercar wrote: »

It's not a burden, but the landlord is not obliged to continually answer tenants questions, particularly if they consider that they have already answered the question. LL is obliged to provide an address in E & W once.

If they have supplied an E&W address already, why would they not just say so? "The address is in the tenancy agreement/welcome pack/the letter we sent you on x date" so easily sorted.

I can't figure out why people are so keen to give the benefit of the doubt to this obviously bad, unprofessional landlord. Surely good landlords are just embarrassed by this kind of clown who makes the profession look so bad?

Arleen

Person_one wrote: »

If they have supplied an E&W address already, why would they not just say so? "The address is in the tenancy agreement/welcome pack/the letter we sent you on x date" so easily sorted.

I can't figure out why people are so keen to give the benefit of the doubt to this obviously bad, unprofessional landlord. Surely good landlords are just embarrassed by this kind of clown who makes the profession look so bad?

Lack of faith in courts I guess. Because this would take a judge (who I presume are reasonable people) on extremely bad day to rule in LL favor in that particular case as we see in this topic.

silvercar

Person_one wrote: »

If they have supplied an E&W address already, why would they not just say so? "The address is in the tenancy agreement/welcome pack/the letter we sent you on x date" so easily sorted.

I can't figure out why people are so keen to give the benefit of the doubt to this obviously bad, unprofessional landlord. Surely good landlords are just embarrassed by this kind of clown who makes the profession look so bad?

Just trying to point out possible outcomes. Maybe LL has had a word with solicitor, said that tenant is threatening to not pay rent. Solicitor said to let them go ahead and not pay, as a way of taking them to court to evict speedily.

itchyfeet123

silvercar wrote: »

Just trying to point out possible outcomes. Maybe LL has had a word with solicitor, said that tenant is threatening to not pay rent. Solicitor said to let them go ahead and not pay, as a way of taking them to court to evict speedily.

How would the LL explain their non-provision of a local address in that scenario? The tenant has the tenancy agreement with an email address where the local address should be, and an email trail asking for a local address. Sure, anything *could* happen in court, but one hopes "we failed to meet our legal obligations and acted in bad faith all in order to trick a tenant into being evictable" wouldn't win the day.

bouicca21

Entranced as I am by the direction this thread has now adopted, I can't help but recollect dealing with my youngest child who did her best to derail any conversation with a string of what ifs.

FBaby

Agree with bouicca. The tone of the thread has totally changed and all posters have done is encouraged OP to make a situation that could have been easily resolved into a conflicting, and inevitably stressful one.

The first email from the LL was directive, but expressing some kind of apology for putting OP in a situation he thought he had a right to do. It's now reached the point of total willingness to co-operate.

I assume this is why judges are fed up with people using the courts to battle their stand up for matter of principle. OP never had an issue before, and without this email, would continued to have stayed there and pay the rent. So why not just continue to do this. It would have been easy to just email back as was originally suggested that although there is a term in the contract, it doesn't stand in the law and OP can stay until the summer. LL had already indicated that in the worse case scenario (for them), they will ask OP to leave in the summer.

Instead, it's now fuelled to unnecessary dispute about grey matters which have now been debated for over 10 pages. Pointless.

itchyfeet123

FBaby wrote: »

So why not just continue to do this.

Because the OP has discovered he has a legal duty to make deductions for HMRC. Shockingly, some people's default position is to what is required of them by law.

Is the continued back and forth of whether the OP's emails were too hostile going to resolve the situation? No, but that seems to have reached a stalemate anyway. In the meantime, there is genuine disagreement. Of course it's futile because we're on the internet and no one is going to change their mind over where the OP's emails fell on the line from assertive to aggressive. But apparently we're all optimists and think that if we can explain where we're coming from, others will see things as we do.

If the OP receives another email from the LL, I'm sure we'll all find ways to reply where we're actually saying the same thing but will claim the one word difference between what Poster A and Poster B suggest will greatly affect the outcome AND show make the difference between the OP definitively being the hero and the villain of the story.

FBaby

Because the OP has discovered he has a legal duty to make deductions for HMRC

He has discovered that he MIGHT need to do so and even if that is the case, that doesn't mean he HAS TO stop paying all the rent. Considering the LL has confirmed that he is coming back to the UK regardless, is threatening to withhold all rent from now on really going to help matters?

Ozzuk

I think withholding the rent is a step too far, but for the rest the OP is fine (IMO). The LL started off by threatening to make the OP homeless. Apologising before hitting someone doesn't make it better. The OP offered a solution in line with their rights. The LL then accused the OP of holding them to ransom, and not even entertaining the counter offer that was made.

The OP was then made aware of all the other (potential) issues - including the fact they could be liable for the LL tax, so they've made the LL aware. This has probably all hit the LL pretty hard, but it has made them back off and the OP can now stay in the house until August.

If the LL had shown even a ounce of willing to talk then it could all have gone very differently, but they didn't.

FBaby

. The LL started off by threatening to make the OP homeless.

That's excessive again. He didn't threaten to make OP homeless, he informed him that he wanted the property back on three months time. That's wrong, but it's neither threatening, not making OP homeless, since actually OP said he was prepared to do so upon payment.

It did sound that the LL did offer a solution since he said if need be, he would just ask OP to vacate in August. That's the solution if he is not prepared to accept to pay OP to leave early.