completely agree!! I wouldnt say you come across as agains the OP but with respect I think you were a little defensive to Planner when he questioned your clause 3.5 I dont read Planners post as a personal attack - just that his opinion differed from yours. I have read a large number of planners posts and he doesnt normally make personal attacks, but he does offer his opinion, even if it conflicts with previous posts (and I have to say I have found him to be very knowledgable) In such a forum as this - there are bound to be disagreements and it is important that when they happen they are not seen as personal (unless they are direct verbal assaults which should be strongly discouraged) but as debate and learning for all concerned. I personally have learned many things from other members like planner, sidewinded and eiche and hopefully will learn many things more. Good luck and thanks for taking time to assist.

These are normal AST terms and conditions. With regards to the fixings - I have been living in rented accommodation for over 10 years and some landlords are more flexible than others. But bear in mind that although this is going to be your home for the next x months - the property belongs to the LL and you would be surprised at the mess some people can make with a bit of blu tack or sticky tape - let alone a hammer and nails. Again if you want to change the locks I see no reason why a reasonable landlord would object - provided you supply him with a set of keys for the new locks (to which he is entitled) and the locks are of a standard comparable with the locks removed. Remember that the original locks are the landlords property and must be retained in the property or returned to him. Only discard them if you have his written permission to do so. Remember that you do not have to accept this contract just because the LL sticks it under your nose and says sign. If there is something you are not happy with then ask for it to be changed to something you are more comfortable with. However again this is a standard term and condition and the LL needs to be able to have people view the house. You might ask for the period to be reduced to the FINAL month of your tenancy. Also I would ask for the last sentance to be removed - what would happen if you had planned a function and they decide they want to view the house. Next.... Basically what this means is that if the house is reposessed by the mortgage company (and the mortgage was taken out before your tenancy started) the mortgage company can apply to have you vacate the house so they can sell it. And with regard to the notice to quit - I am fairly sure that it is the LL that signs it - why would YOU be signing a notice that you require posession of the property at the end of the period of letting. I wouldnt worry about this- it is fairly standard and is there to make it easier for the landlord to regain posession of his property at the end of the tenancy. It does not affect your rights during the tenancy and should the landlord wish to evict you at any time during the tenancy and for whatever reason, this notice to quit will have no effect at all on the procedures he will have to follow. Hope this is helpful

Sorry HBC I partially disagree with you. In an AST both the tenant and the landlord have specific rights and obligations which are enforceable - but I am not aware of any particular requirement in the legislation that says that the contract even HAS to be written, let alone what format it must take. Granted there are guidelines but they are guidelines and nothing more. Now if there IS a tenancy agreement, and IF it breaches the housing act in some of the things it says then it MAY be voidable or unenforceable but that is not something I would hold my breath about. IMHO the OP has not sublet her room, nor had someone else living with her. A "reasonable man" given todays society would expect that a single women may at some time have friends or boyfriends over to stay and In the absence of any undue disturbance to the other occupants of the house she has done nothing to breach her lease. I know we only have the OP point of view - and with the best will in the world and the greatest of respect to the OP these can be not entirely impartial, but it seems to me that the other occupant of the house is more likely to be in breach of an AST by interfering with the OP's "quiet enjoyment" of the property.

I am roundly confused about the timescales here and had a look at the Direct Gov website. According to this the landlord MUST provide details of the deposit protection scheme within 14 days of payment of the deposit. Landlords and letting agents: Tenancy deposit scheme : Directgov - Tenancy Deposit I am still unsure how a landlord could retrospectively protect a deposit AFTER the tenancy has ended and even more curiously AFTER action has been instigated for non protection - surely that would be no different than taxing your car AFTER you have been stopped for no tax. This is not meant as any kind of disagreement or attack on any opinion here - merely a question as I am personally about to move out of my house and my deposit may or may not be protected, but its also relevant to this thread

paving

There is little need to "represent" yourself - the case would hinge on whether or not he protected your deposit. If he did - no case if he didnt - guilty as charged, you need form N208 from your local court which you fill in and file at court at a cost of £150

I set up an account - go to https://recoverymedia.thetechguys.com/Default.aspx click LOGIN at the top of the screen email is set to [email protected] pass is set to consumer click on my account and then change address, email address and password. then click home and find your recovery disk - you should be able to buy then....

if your tenancy agreement was signed after april 6th 2007 then he was legally obliged to put it into a deposit protection scheme. If he didnt then he not only is liable for returning the full deposit you can sue him for 3x the deposit in compensation

Welcome to Recovery Media this link works fine for me

In my opinion what you want is for him to say Wear and Tear. if so then I would say that you have a case, as you would expect that a 1800 telly should last you more than 4.5 years and they used inferior components in the manufacture. If he says it failed because of some other cause then they could say TOUGH it was power surge/ kiddy pushing pen in slot or whatever cause attributed to it and therefore not their problem. to my mind Wear and Tear is the only outcome that may give you some return.

huge

wave

I think you mean estoppel here. On a different note I do agree that if these people are here fraudulently, then ANY evidence that they offer in support of any kind of penalty has to be suspect. And to answer G&M, no the legislation does not say that they must be UK passport holder, but nor does it say that they cannot be chimpanzees. The implication has to be that anyone WORKING in the UK should be doing so LEGALLY and as these people were not doing so then any penalties they have issued should be called into question.

second

This is nothing short of demanding money with menaces. Also we apparently here are starting to stray into the realms of contravention of article 6 of the human rights act (right to a fair trial) It would appear that they have acted as judge and jury in this event and have imposed a fine upon your daughter when they have not gone through any legal process at all. Can you post the exact circumstances of what happened with your daughter so that we can look at it. thanks

lets say its kind of how McGee gets records quickly........

I am upto about episode 18 of season 6 NCIS - it is shown ahead of us in the US and if you know how you can get the episodes. (I have season 1-5 also )

I think we have gone off topic here by a large amount. I must admit if I ever see a sign saying Parking 4 hours max no return within 1 hour, I have previously assumed I could buy upto four hours of parking in whatever incriments i chose. I now find that not to be the case - and i also feel that this is nothing more than revenue raising. If you expect to be somewhere like a Drs surgery for an hour, why should you pay 2 3 or even 4 hours in case it runs over - if you extrapolate the situation, if you pay 1 hour - and your dr is delayed that would mean you would have to LEAVE so you could find somewhere else to park and forgo your appointment. As usual common sense does not apply - the onus, as always seems to be how much can they screw out of you at any given time. whether or not it if fair, just and reasonable to do so.

She has no recourse to do anything legally IMO. Your having your BF to stay over perfectly acceptable, dont forget this is your home and it would be unreasonable (unless it were specifically noted in the terms of the lease ) to think that you would not have visitors or friends over.

Can you post the circumstances of her alleged offence and what happened to her. Nobody has power to detain anyone, let alone a minor UNLESS they are excercising a citizens arrest under s24a(1) PACE Even if you accept that he had a powe of arrest (which I dont) the arrest was not carried out in the correct manner under s28 PACE Far from defending this from RLP I would be considering hitting them with a lawsuit.

They do still have to produce a copy of the CCA but I dont really see the point. My feeling is that since your application was taken out in 2008, even if one of the prescribed terms was missing since a court can now rule on the enforceability of any agreement a court, seeing you have had the money, will enforce even an incorrect agreement.

A verbal contract is every bit as binding as a written one, the only difference here is proof. If they have a transcript of the conversation and can prove that they told you about the 12 month contract then you have no recourse. If the transcript doesnt support their case then I think you will find that they deny its existance. Sadly - BT like many other providers, instigate a new 12 month minimum term practically every time you make any change to your contract.

castle

This number is for a company called Interum Justica.. They are a debt collection company who amoungst other things call and collect on behalf of Ebay and Paypal.. I think the call centre is based in Liverpool..

can you publish the source of this?