The Perfect London Nightmare

[MrShed]

Again, wholly disagree with what you have said. However, not getting into it again.

*EDIT* actually, I am - briefly - as I feel some of these are points that can not go unanswered.

- I have never - ever - said that a (or the) landlord can do no wrong. What I have said is that in this situation I believe he has done the best he could in a bad situation. The law bears this out.
- I am not quick to judge, I have attempted(nicely I may add) to steer you in the correct direction with this several times in this thread - all attempts have been basically ignored.
- I am being considerate - I sympathise, genuinely, as it is not an easy situation. However, that does not mean that the landlord has acted particularly badly in this case, and you seem to mistake being "inconsiderate" with "not agreeing with you", just because I think the landlord has in fact attempted to resolve the issue.
- My last post I'm afraid was not unwarranted in tone and attitude. You have SHOWN that you do not agree with me - that is your perogative. You have also shown that you wish to make moral and emotional arguments about it - again, up to you. However, I do not need to keep posting to have you make these irrelevant points - that is my perogative. I also genuinely wished you luck. I think that me saying that I felt I could no longer partake in the thread, due to what I have construed as "stubbornness" on your part to accept what I am saying, is not "unwarranted".
- I know you do not know the HA - there is absolutely no problem with that. What there is a problem with is being in this position and quoting your opinion as fact(and here I talk about your post #9 above, where it cannot possibly be questioned that you state things as fact, not your opinion). Taking up such a position leaves you open to being chastised on a forum I'm afraid.


Anyway I REALLY am backing out now - because, out of "consideration", I do not want to muddy this thread any more, nor do I have any intention of getting personal. I have said my bit.

[Resoli]

I'm raising a post in defence of Mr. Shed and in defence of his remarks.

From what I've read, Mr. Shed's responces have been grounded in his understanding of the law distilled from the emotive argument. He has attempted to counsel from his knowledge. It has been rebuffed because his opinion is not agreed with.

In defence of his remarks, I believe the landlord has done all he could within his power. He has offered alternative accomodation. He has offered reasonable accomodation at that. It isn't the property the tenancy relates to, but is of a comparable nature when the discount offered on the rent is factored in.

It is important to note that the rent is decreased to reflect that the orginal property has changed. There is no profiteering, nor is there any fraud upon the OP's friend. What has happened is that both the landlord and the proposed tenant are victims of circumstance.

Also important is that the OP's friend accepted the alternative offer. He/she/they considered their position and chose to accept the studio.