Forwarding landlord post

EachPenny

custardy wrote: »

We are digressing but I wouldn't count on the universal service continuing for long in its current form.

Agreed.

I'm also aware that 'occasional' doesn't fit the bill in many cases - but it isn't beyond the capability of a private company with a highly automated process to log the redirections it is asked to do and if the situation goes beyond 'occasional' send the person notice that no further redirections will be allowed FOC and they need to cough up for the paid service. If no payment is made then 'return to sender' rules will apply.

Marvel1

bertha337 wrote: »

Thanks - mixed bag of advise. I don't think the landlord is dodgy, and I do feel bad about not forwarding the post...but I also just forgot. I am a decent person so will perhaps meet half way if they take action. The clause actually says 'without delay' but no explicit limit of dates. I tried to get advise from landlords managing agent but they were a bit unhelpful...
Thanks, query sufficiently answered.

Don't be, it's their fault:
1. They know when ground rent is due.
2. They should have informed the companies of the new address.

custardy

EachPenny wrote: »

Agreed.

I'm also aware that 'occasional' doesn't fit the bill in many cases - but it isn't beyond the capability of a private company with a highly automated process to log the redirections it is asked to do and if the situation goes beyond 'occasional' send the person notice that no further redirections will be allowed FOC and they need to cough up for the paid service. If no payment is made then 'return to sender' rules will apply.

What regs are you basing this on?
This was all need to be done via the regulator.
IMHO its far simpler to be black and white and make redirections payable.

Mojisola

SerialRenter wrote: »

I would check your deposit is properly protected too. If they're prepared to break one rule, they're likely to break others.

bertha337 - definitely follow the advice above.

Pixie5740

Did your tenancy agreement give a timescale in which you were to forward post or did it merely say you were to forward the post without giving any timescale in which to do it. If it's the latter then you have complied with the clause. You did eventually forward the post. Not that I think, should this go to court, you will have to pay compensation because your landlord was too [insert adjective of your choice] to set up a Redirection or update his address with the freeholder, mortgage lender, etc.

Mojisola

bertha337 wrote: »

The clause actually says 'without delay' but no explicit limit of dates.

So there will be occasions during the year when you could be away on holiday so the LL has to expect that post won't always get sent on immediately.

theartfullodger

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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).....

... Now you mention it yes I think I recall a deposit scheme adjudication which found for landlord in such circumstances.. but no, absolutely not, my post was not facetious: I was genuinely asking for precedents - of a court, judge, nature: Sounds like there aren't any..

Just in case there is such a precedent out there, £25 to an agreed housing charity if anyone can come up with a published, court/judge, decision favouring landlord where tenant failed to comply with mail-forwarding clause: No, not a facetious offer.

Best regards to all, including those who disagree with me.

EachPenny

Mojisola wrote: »

So there will be occasions during the year when you could be away on holiday so the LL has to expect that post won't always get sent on immediately.

True, but in the situation the OP outlines there was some 'chasing' and it has to be assumed as part of this there was a promise of some kind made to forward the post within a timescale.

The OP could have objected to the clause before signing the agreement - leaving the LL free to let to a different tennant, or else to increase the rent by the cost of paying for mail forwarding (notwithstanding the LL's motives for wanting the post forwarded etc).

The OP agreed to do something, then didn't. And has acknowledged that they feel bad about doing so, which these days is a refreshing and creditable thing to do. Whether that extends to being required to compensate the landlord is a different matter.

I do wonder if the advice given on this thread would be different if the OP had said the landlord was seeking compensation because the OP went out and left the front door open allowing vandals to come in the house and do damage. Would anyone seriously be suggesting it was the landlord's 'fault' for not fitting the front door with a self-closing device?

The landlord's motives for having post sent to that address are only relevant to the question of how likely it is the landlord will seek to recover their 'losses', if the OP knows the LL is doing something dodgy and decided not to get involved by forwarding the mail that is one thing, but the evidence above doesn't support that argument.

I think theartfullodger's money is safe - I don't think anyone would be daft enough to allow such a case to get to court, and even if it did, it may not be of sufficient interest to anybody for it to be published.

bertha337

My deposit is protected. 👏🏻 as I said the landlord hasn't ever seemed dodgy but yes, I agree, there should really be no reason for important things to be coming to the flat... They are probably just !!!!ed by their own mismanagement

Heliflyguy

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

And would you be surprises

Is that you Gollum?