HELP - tenant has done a moon light flit

oki_2

thanks tbs - I have all gas safety certificates. The last one he done and I paid him more than I usually pay!! He is bluffing - almost like a counter claim! Anyway I will write to him wth the estimated cost and if he does not respond favourably the next step will be to take him to court.......watch this space!1

Thanking all of you for your valuable advice - that is whats got me through.

emsywoo123

The tenannt did his own gas cert?

oki_2

emsywoo123 wrote: »

The tenannt did his own gas cert?

when the certificate expired - I contacted tenant to arrange a mutual time for a new one to be issued. His reply was -'I'll do it - so that I don't have to wait in for someone'. That was fine by me except I thought there was a standard charge - but I was wrong because he charged me £60 and I normally pay £20.

oki_2

*UPDATE* For those who helped with their advice. The Loss Adjuster is coming out on Thursday and they will pursue the tenant for recovery. I will not be contacting the tenant again - he can deal with my insurance company and as for his deposit - I will use £100 for my excess and have already informed the insurance company that I am holding that.

ONCE AGAIN THANKING ALL OF YOU

prudryden

Tinsle wrote: »

We were getting dodgy mail sent to our house for the old owner and the police told me it was an offence to open it.

You can't expect every policeman to know the Postal Regulations. That policeman was definitely wrong.

tbs624

Think it would depend on the interpretation of the term "reasonable excuse" :
Postal Services Act 2000, Section 84: Interfering with the mail: general

Section 84(1) provides for it to be an offence if persons intentionally delay or open postal packets without reasonable excuse. It amalgamates the content of offences previously included in the Post Office Act 1953.

Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

but in Oki's case the mail was already open.

LittleTinker

All is not as it seems. You dont get mould like that in a house that has had some food left in a room.

And if the LL has allowed that to happen without fixing it, what else has he neglected?

skintchick

LittleTinker wrote: »

All is not as it seems. You dont get mould like that in a house that has had some food left in a room.

And if the LL has allowed that to happen without fixing it, what else has he neglected?

what is this referring to?

kazd

Oki

Gladly exchange photo's of what our tennants managed to achieve in three months in a brand new house. Whole house had to be redecorated, de fleaed, new carpet and don't even ask about the kitchen and bathrooms. Plus we had cat pooh everywhere.

We didn't even have the deposit as the dodgy agent with the rent guarantee had it, we lost about 6 months rent so are many pennies down. Sued agent in small claims and won but he did a bunk. However, we have now tracked him down, chances of getting our money back nil but the satisfaction of setting the VAT man on him PRICELESS.

To top it off, new tenants great, new agents good and reputable, house worth less than we paid, new mortgage not available now having to go onto to NR SVR and top up mortgage payment with £420 per month.

Altarf

neas wrote: »

Isnt opening someone elses letters illegal?

Despite what many people think, it is not illegal to open mail that does not have your name on it once the post office have put it through the door, unless your intention is to do something bad with it.

Postal Services Act 2000 section 84 -

Interfering with the mail: general

(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he

(a) intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b) intentionally opens a mail-bag.

(3) A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

Section 84(1) covers the letter up to the point in time that the letter is put through the letterbox, section 84(3) covers that point in time onwards.

People on here have argued that a letter has not been 'delivered' until it has reached the person that it was addressed to, but
(a) the Royal Mail doesn't offer a 'delivery to a person' service, just 'delivery to an address' services; and
(b) if that was the interpretation of the act, then a letter would still be in transmission until it was delivered and thus 84(3) could only apply to the person who's name was on the letter, and that would be stupid.

In other words, section 84(1) is to cover the situation when people steal letters from the postman, and 84(3) after the letter has been delivered, such someone in a shared house deliberately opening others mail with the intention to do bad things, such as steal their new credit card or bank details.