Tenancy applicant - previous (or current?) assured periodic tenancy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tenancy applicant - previous (or current?) assured periodic tenancy

    Can someone interpret this for me before I decide whether to progress this application from a tenant (for my regular AST property)

    A search online on Tribunal Decisions shows a simple 1 page Tribunal decision involving the applicant 6 weeks ago:

    The decision is headed:

    "Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination) Housing Act 1988 Section 14"
    ============================

    It states that the prospective tenant was the tenant in the FTT hearing and the landlord's name is stated.

    Then all it says under that is

    Allocation of liability for repairs
    Landlord: Repair structural damage arising out of roof leak. Tenant: Non-structural repairs and decoration
    and then it states a rate of rent.

    That is the entire decision

    He otherwise appears a reasonable prospective tenant based on a google search. Before I ask him about this matter directly (I have not asked at all of his current status) can someone enlighten me as to what might have happened here.

    Is it simply an application for a rent review, and tenant does not like the outcome and so wants to move (my property is a lot cheaper). Do I want a tenant who has previously been an assured tenant - any reason I should be concerned?

    #2
    At a guess - the roof has leaked and the T hasn't told the LL in reasonable time before there was damage to plasterwork and decorating, so the judge says the LL has to repair the leak and the T the internals.

    I'd bring it up with the T - they might have learnt to inform the LL of problems in a more timely manner.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
      At a guess - the roof has leaked and the T hasn't told the LL in reasonable time before there was damage to plasterwork and decorating, so the judge says the LL has to repair the leak and the T the internals.

      I'd bring it up with the T - they might have learnt to inform the LL of problems in a more timely manner.
      I agree and have deleted my previous response.

      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #4
        Or the landlord wasn't prepared to fix a leak,

        I think you'll have to ask.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #5
          Many thanks for responses. I have learned that sometimes it is useful to know the answers to questions before you ask them. For instance I know the tenant's current landlord details, and that there has been a tribunal. Then I know whether they have disclosed the correct landlord details, and that there was some sort of Tribunal.

          Will report back if anything interesting emerges.

          Comment


            #6
            Indeed: It's always very interesting to ask someone a question to which you already know the answer....

            v v v old tactic.. well recommended
            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

            Comment


              #7
              Seriously? You are considering a tenant who has taken his landlord to a tribunal?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                Seriously? You are considering a tenant who has taken his landlord to a tribunal?
                Possibly not - however I am perfectly willing to accept that there may be good reasons (just as there are good reasons some folk might end up with a ccj or even a criminal record) - even worthy reasons.

                But I guess my main query is whether this might just be a purely technical thing - a setting of the rate of rent under circumstances where the state feels it has the mandatory role to set that rent. Given my lack of understanding of this legislation and scenario I don't know.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X