Forwarding landlord post

Miss_Samantha

davidmcn wrote: »

I doubt the tenant would be liable for all consequential losses, and as pointed out the landlord ought to know when and where to pay their ground rent without having to be prompted by an invoice.

The point of such clause is for the landlord to get any important mail, and penalties or other financial losses are a very direct, foreseeable consequence of not getting mail.

I don't have them on hand but they are precedents, including deposit schemes.
Whether a specific loss was avoidable is another issue.

This forum is usually very quick to deem any and every clause unfair without references, but the reality is rather different.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

This is a clause that is not intrinsically unfair and you knowingly breached it so I would say that you are liable for any loss that the landlord could not avoid.

Whether the tenant has to pay for stamps does not in itself make the clause unfair.

As for "time limits", I think it has to be implied in any such clause that the tenant must forward mail within a reasonable time. I would think within a week unless there is a good reason not to.

No not in itself, it's a test a court would ultimately make.


But it's an indication of intention. If the LL didn't supply these things, the tenant would be disadvantaged, so may argue that forwarding post once every few months was reasonable.


If the LL supplied 12 enveloped and 12 stamps (or whatever required to post that amount of post) he or she could argue they intended post to be forwarded monthly - which would be perfectly reasonable.

agrinnall

I would simply have returned all mail to sender marked 'not at this address' - factually correct, and then at least the sender knows that they have to try to find the LL at some other address.

The other thing to consider is why the LL didn't come to the door and ask to be handed any mail that had arrived, rather than rely on someone to forward it?

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

No not in itself, it's a test a court would ultimately make.

But it's an indication of intention. If the LL didn't supply these things, the tenant would be disadvantaged, so may argue that forwarding post once every few months was reasonable.

I will not get into another useless argument based on someone's personal opinions.

aneary

I thought redirection was free eg if you put redirect - then the address the royal mail will send it.

The amount you pay to the royal mail is for labels and extra sorting not actually for postage.

theartfullodger

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

The point of such clause is for the landlord to get any important mail, and penalties or other financial losses are a very direct, foreseeable consequence of not getting mail.

I don't have them on hand but they are precedents, including deposit schemes..................

Samantha, I & I'm sure many others would be very interested in any valuable precedent that you might direct us to, please.

I can certainly see a landlord could sue for tenant breaking contract, but would be surprised if many judges would award anything, beyond say a nominal £1..

Would a similar liability on a landlord to forward ex-tenants mail also stand? If not, seems a tad unfair...

Of course, any landlord relying on a tenant to forward mail is laying himself open to identity fraud and should probably get help, possibly of a prescription nature, for being so daft, but that does not change any legal liability

Cheers!

Miss_Samantha

theartfullodger wrote: »

I can certainly see a landlord could sue for tenant breaking contract, but would be surprised if many judges would award anything, beyond say a nominal £1.

And would you be surprises?

I remember a deposit scheme's case whereby the landlord was awarded several hundreds. (I'm sure, though that you understand what "I don't have them on hand" means, so your post was no doubt facetious).

theartfullodger wrote: »

Would a similar liability on a landlord to forward ex-tenants mail also stand? If not, seems a tad unfair...

Why would it be any different?

You just need to find a landlord to agree to such undertaking.

G_M

aneary wrote: »

I thought redirection was free eg if you put redirect - then the address the royal mail will send it.

.

I believe that writing "Please forward to [address]" is effectively re-posting the item and therefore requires normal payment.

In practice RM often deliver the item without additional stamps being added but they are within their rights, and sometimes do, deliver a card to the new address advising of under-payment and requiring collection from/payment at the local sorting office.

EachPenny

EachPenny wrote: »

Why didn''t you forward the post when it arrived?

EachPenny wrote: »

...The first question I'd ask is if you understood this term of the contract, then why didn't you perform as required? (especially having been 'chased' by the LL)

There could be very good reasons - which may turn out to be far more important than whether the LL was morally/legally correct to include such a term in the contract.

And I was just hoping the OP would volunteer the fact they didn't forward the mail, despite the LL chasing, because they thought they were dodgy/on the fiddle - without being prompted that that would be a good excuse

If the OP does get sued then hopefully they won't get themselves in more of a mess by falsely claiming the LL was dodgy, some evidence may be required

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I would hope a judge would throw this out of court for being a waste of its time. If redirected mail is so important to the LL, they should pay for the Post Office's service, or just properly inform the most important people; bank, mortgage provider, DVLA, doctor, utilities etc- you know like everyone has to do when they move house.