Ifyou bought it on a credit card, you may have a claim against the credit card company. However (in my personal opinion, and I am not a furniture specialist!) I would say that I would fully expect a wooden (or wood-type materials, including laminates and veneers) table to suffer water damage easily. It is the nature of the material, not the manufacture of the item. In my opinion!

This was kind of the driver behind my questioning re: it being a unique dwelling, as you can be a tenant with a residential landlord in certain circumstances (as Aequitas has stated above). You dont neccessarily have less rights than a tenant re: deposit if you are a lodger, you simply have a different route of reclaiming it - i.e. not tenancy deposit scheme, just through the courts.

But why are you having no contact with her? Off the back of this incident I presume? Are you wishing to remain in the property, or are you now keen to leave?

With the greatest respect, no. I'm not your lawyer, and I am not going to run off to do your homework for you. Yes, I can 100% guarantee you that is your position as a licencee.It really is up to you if you choose to believe this or otherwise.

In the nicest possible way, you seem as if you are making yourself out to be a victim here. In reality, although her behaviour is inappropriate, your reaction is wholly disproportionate. Moreover, your comments re: your rights are both short sighted and misinformed, and you seem to bear no responsibilty yourself for not having checked into your own legal position, nor for the fact that you feel that the contract you yourself signed is inadequate - it was your own choice to sign it and agree to the terms within. I would suggest that, before you do something you regret, or ensure that the LL/lodger relationship completely blows up, that you calm down, take stock, and discuss the situation calmly and rationally with your LL. It may not feel like it, but I can promise you that the breach, and the issue, is nowhere near as big an issue in reality as it seems to you right now. This is friendly advice, not a dig - please take it in such a fashion.

Because it changes the usage of the property. It is fair and equitable that the property is treated differently in such a scenario. It means that the LL can give you whatever the notice is in the contract. Is it an independant dwelling? Does it have its own address? is the living quarters "self contained" - i.e. can you go between your living quarters and hers without going outside? Why do you feel you should have greater rights than you signed up to voluntarily? No you could not call the police in such a scenario. It would be a civil matter.

Thats fine Feebee I appreciate your input. they are simply kerbs to allow access to the garage and driveway - there is no kerb across the other side of the road. I believe my local council refers to these as "crossovers" or "motor crossings" rather than dropped kerbs per se..whether there is any legal difference I have no clue Should add as well, yes both areas are shown on the deeds as being my property.

I should add as well (sorry!) that I have no grudge or issue with the neighbours, and to be fair to them the drive area in particular really isnt clear with regards it being private property. All I want to know is how, should it get to that stage, I can try and legally prevent them from parking there. All I want is access to my property, nothing more

What I should also say is that I am not even sure that it classes properly as a dropped kerb, as it is a very steep "drop".

Hi all, Wonder if you can help me regarding the legality and enforceability of dropped kerbs. I have out the front of my house, a garage, and just to the side of it there is what I can only describe as a drive - although it looks like an extension of a footpath, it is actually my property. Both have a dropped kerb in front of them. My issue is that I regularly have two cars at the property, and so I park one on the "drive" then the other over the front of the dropped kerb over the front of both drive and garage. However, a visitor to one of the neighbours regularly parks across the dropped kerb of both when I am not in, meaning that I come back and I am unable to park in what I feel (perhaps wrongly?) is an area that only I should be allowed to block off. A quiet word to the neighbour resulted in the car being moved on that particular occassion, but the very next day was blocked again - in fact, this time actually blocked my car in on the drive. If it makes any difference, the person doesnt park ON my property, merely just in front blocking the dropped kerbs. I do have a picture that I can attach if need be! Any advice appreciated - even if it is "nope sorry nothing you can do!".

Unfortunately, there is good reason for this. I say unfortunate as it unilaterally dumps all HB tenants into one pot. As the tenant themselves pays either nothing or a minimal amount towards the property, there can be a tendancy for the property not to be treated in the same way as if the tenant had a real financial vested interest. Remember that the rent is only one part of this - the landlord is also entrusting a 6 figure sum asset into the care of someone, who can (if they so wished) run up massive repair bills during their tenancy.

Proper contract or not, it still sounds like you are a lodger - your legal position cannot be overriden by a contract. Is it one house, or multiiple independant "dwellings"? As for the issue you have questioned about, a breach of contract does not constitute the contract being null and void.

There will be no "why" question asked if the landlord begins court proceedings for eviction based upon a validly served S21 notice, regardless of any notice the tenant may or may not give.

You do not need a solicitor to instigate a S21 eviction process. I am inclined to side with Aequitas, in that no tenancy actually currently exists due to his notice. However, I am not sure as to how this means that tenant can be removed. Undoubtedly a court order for possession would still be required.

But why would that mean that you dont follow the proper and agreed process to recover that money? In any event, pleased that you have managed to sort it.

Subbing.

Your other option could be to use secure SMTP (over TLS) and also use a non standard port...this will mean that Orange have no way of knowing the traffic is mail related.

Obviously, here is not neccessarily the place for a political debate about it. But, the ability to evict tenants for zero reason, although in specific instances (such as your own) seems unfair, it is actually very important to the private rental market - in particular, its ability to act as a proper market and to be fluid. This is for the benefit of landlords but also tenants.

It is there to prevent unlawful eviction. Eviction via the S21 notice is not unlawful. But I agree that it is a weakness that this is allowed following EH calls.

This is a weakness in the law unfortunately, but I'm sorry I totally disagree with you that a landlord enforcing what is an absolute legal right of his constitutes harrassment, continuing or otherwise.

I dont entirely understand the question to be totally honest - you seem to have answered it yourself. Use a different ISP.

They dont need grounds, S21 is notice for possession that requires no grounding, other than they wish to evict.

Why would you go to court in the first instance if the deposit is held with DPS? Raise a dispute with the scheme.

I assume this is a commercial tenancy?

Agree with both above posters. A late fee (or similar) is effectively a way of a landlord or other party reclaiming their financial loss due to the breach of contract - as such, this is all that this can amount to. Anything more is an unfair penalty, and unenforceable. Dont pay, let them sue, and invite them to prove that the fees are a true reflection of their financial loss. They wont be able to.