Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have previously posted about a dispute my parents have had with LL who has had little to do with the property they have rented for the last 35 years.   Fast forward to today, LL has applied for fair rent which was registered and the LL has finally brought the property to a safe standard following involvement from the local council.   We have received a new bombshell.. that the LL has applied for a possesion order under a notice of seeking possesion of a secure tenancy (NOSP).   Under grounds 3, 4 and 10.   I googled and found below:   Ground 3 –  Deterioration in the condition of the property The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of the property or common parts. If damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 4 –  Deterioration in furniture provided The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of furniture provided by the landlord in the property or common parts. Where damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 10 – Demolition or major works Where the landlord intends either to demolish or reconstruct or do works to the property and needs possession in order to do so. The landlord must prove that it intends carrying out works and such work cannot reasonably be carried out without obtaining possession.[2] If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises temporarily while the works are carried out then there may be no need for possession. The displaced tenant will normally be entitled to compensation.[3] See Problems during repairs for information on compensation for loss of home.   My question is, following the fair rent register and an agreement that parents were covered under the 1977 rent act we were under the impression this is a regulated tenancy, not a secure tenancy?? or is there no difference?   Its a private rent, not through housing association and the property has just been deemed as safe under by the council.   We have also never been approached by the LL to say they felt that my parents have caused any damage or deterioration in the condition of the property. If anything, over the years it has vastly been improved by my parents. We raised safety issue to the council following repeated attempts for LL to repair the dangerous electrics and blocked drains.   If there is no difference in the tenancy types, what should our next step be? any thoughts?   More info if needed in my original thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421879-major-repairs-to-letting-of-a-sitting-tenant/?tab=comments#comment-5064284          
    • Keep in mind also that the companies in administration are currently at the moment putting plans in place to change reporting depending on IRR Claims etc / Criteria set out by the Administrators. 
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I hope this is the right place for this post. I dont know a great deal about eviction so I'm seeking some expert advice if possible 🙂

 

My daughter has received a 6 months section 21 notice which, as she has just given birth to my granddaughter, has caused her stress hence me trying to help her out.

 

Today the landlord has also asked for one months notice if we do manage to find her another place. Is this correct?

She currently has a fixed term notice that ends in february and I assume she'll then go on a rolling contract so I'm assuming that it is 🙁

 

TIA 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the landlord must give two months notice and the tenant one.

Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice to see the above states...

 

You can't be evicted by bailiffs between 17 November and 11 January if your landlord used section 21.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...