What recourse do I have against bad landlords

tbs624

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I think you will find that the law has changed. The tenants can have the LLs address if they request it .........

Tozer wrote: »

In fairness guys there does seem to be a provision .....but you can ask the letting agent for details of the landlords address and they appear required to provide it.....

What you're presumably looking at is the LL&T Act 1985, S1 so not a particularly recent change

1. Disclosure of landlord’s identity.
(1) If the tenant of premises occupied as a dwelling makes a written request for the landlord’s name and address to—

(a)any person who demands, or the last person who received, rent payable under the tenancy, or

(b)any other person for the time being acting as agent for the landlord, in relation to the tenancy,

that person shall supply the tenant with a written statement of the landlord’s name and address within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request.

(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Just interested to know if N79 still stands by his original interpretation, either for service of notices, or other purposes, and UK/non UK based LLs?

neverdespairgirl

Tozer wrote: »

Nice one. Much better suited to things like this than me. That said I try to help and look what happens...

I don't think I was nasty about your help?

I agree that confrontation shouldn't be the first step, but I would be pretty upset at the LL and an estate agent sneaking in when I was out to take photos, wouldn't you be?

Tozer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think I was nasty about your help?

I agree that confrontation shouldn't be the first step, but I would be pretty upset at the LL and an estate agent sneaking in when I was out to take photos, wouldn't you be?

Not you. I was referring to certain others!

To your point - absolutely. Its what to do about it though.

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

What you're presumably looking at is the LL&T Act 1985, S1 so not a particularly recent change

1. Disclosure of landlord’s identity.

(1) If the tenant of premises occupied as a dwelling makes a written request for the landlord’s name and address to—

(a)any person who demands, or the last person who received, rent payable under the tenancy, or

(b)any other person for the time being acting as agent for the landlord, in relation to the tenancy,

that person shall supply the tenant with a written statement of the landlord’s name and address within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request.

(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Just interested to know if N79 still stands by his original interpretation, either for service of notices, or other purposes, and UK/non UK based LLs?

I will think about it and get back but I am 99% of the way to waving a white flag! Thanks for taking the time to post.

moneysavinmonkey

Tozer wrote: »

Nice one. Much better suited to things like this than me. That said I try to help and look what happens...

Tozer. I agree that the approach you have advised the OP is probably the best course of action and I have congratulated you on your professional approach with your own tennant.

However you have also given out information that is either wrong or misleading. For some reason you have taken exception to me challenging this. The main comment I have said that seems to offend you is "the kind of landlord you are" it is still my opinion that you are the kind of landlord who doesn't understand fully the rights and responsibilities of the job. That is based only on the contents of this thread. I have not called you any names or insulted you personally, I note you have not extended this courtesy to me.

By your own admission you are not qualified in this area of law but earlier in the thread you made a point that you were a law student and now a solicitor of 12 years. Why bring this up then?? I also hold a law degree and work in the legal profession, but it's totally irrelevant as not in an area relevant to the advice contained in this thread.

I personally think, whatever our differences it has made for a healthy debate and it seems the OP has gotten a lot out of it and is taking a sensible approach. Sorry if you have taken my comments personally, but really I know nothing about you so you don't need to worry about my opinion of you!!

prudryden

All of a sudden, there seems to be a lot of barristers, solicitors, lawyers, attorneys, quasi-legal helpers running around - business must be tough, not enough continguency insurance policies to sell no doubt.

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

I'd agree with you but there is also a tendency for some posters to leap in with half a picture in front of them: it is possible to make a point without being aggressive.

You have been a tad selective with your quotes from Shelter - let's also consider this bit:

There is also a tendency for people to thank posts that give the incorrect information

If you read my post again, you will see I was giving shelters take on harassment as there seem to be some doubt what constituted harassment. I did give the link to the page so people could read more if they chose to read about shelters views. At no time in that post, did I say what I thought the OP should do. It might have helped in your reply, if you had quoted my post in the order I said it as I did clearly say right at the beginning of my post “Shelter on Harassment:-“

tbs624 wrote: »

This info has already been given to the OP both here and in another thread

Again, that was a direct quote from Shelter and referenced, so that the OP could see that what she was being told was true.

Even if posters don't post direct quotes, is there now something wrong with other posters confirming that what the OP has been told is correct?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Sisyphus

solventblackbird wrote: »

Wow - I can't believe there have been so many replies, and so much of it really useful to me, and others I am sure. Thank you all for taking the time and getting involved.

From this discussion I have learned that yes, the landlord has legal right of access but I have the right to have 24 hours notice, and if this is not granted to me I have the right to decline entry and report the landlord to the Tenancy Relations Officer.

...

Blackbird

You still have the right to reasonably refuse a time does not suit. For instance, other than in an emergency, I would always insist on being present during a visit to keep an eye on my personal belongings. Therefore no visits while I'm on holiday etc...

I remember, as a prospective tenant, visiting properties with an estate agent ,where I was left alone in rooms with the previous tenants' personal belongings.

Tozer

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

Tozer. I agree that the approach you have advised the OP is probably the best course of action and I have congratulated you on your professional approach with your own tennant.

However you have also given out information that is either wrong or misleading. For some reason you have taken exception to me challenging this. The main comment I have said that seems to offend you is "the kind of landlord you are" it is still my opinion that you are the kind of landlord who doesn't understand fully the rights and responsibilities of the job. That is based only on the contents of this thread. I have not called you any names or insulted you personally, I note you have not extended this courtesy to me.

By your own admission you are not qualified in this area of law but earlier in the thread you made a point that you were a law student and now a solicitor of 12 years. Why bring this up then?? I also hold a law degree and work in the legal profession, but it's totally irrelevant as not in an area relevant to the advice contained in this thread.

I personally think, whatever our differences it has made for a healthy debate and it seems the OP has gotten a lot out of it and is taking a sensible approach. Sorry if you have taken my comments personally, but really I know nothing about you so you don't need to worry about my opinion of you!!

To be fair, I was recounting a situation when I was a student in suing 2 landlords. I said that I was an "eager law student". You then said "as a law student, you should know...". I then said that I wasn't a law student any more but had been a solicitor for 12 years.

It would be really good if you could not take my comments out of context.

I have never professed to being an expert of providing professional advice. If you actually look, it is quite the opposite!!!

My tenants love me and I comply with ALL requirements under law. They would not have been in the property for so long otherwise. Really confused why you say that it is your opinion that I do not understand the role of the landlord (why you say this is beyond me - just because I think it is stupid to call the Police, tax authorities...) and then say you know nothing about me.

Something of a contradiction. Anyway, like you say, lets not get personal. You are wrong in your opinion of me but please do keep to what has ACTUALLY been written.:j

moneysavinmonkey

Tozer wrote: »

It would be really good if you could not take my comments out of context.

ditto :beer: