Tenant is asking that we issue a section 21 to her ???

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

  • AndrewDod
    replied
    It's economics 101 (as Americans say). You print money (in part due to Covid) you get inflation - nothing transient about it.
    Glad you think NHS dentistry (or GP services) are going to recover - somehow I doubt it. Covid is not the problem - the problem is that it has been used as an excuse for other stuff (service downgradings, borderline fascistic policies, service elimination).

    Leave a comment:


  • leasee123
    replied
    All of these price rises you mention can be explained by the temporary distortions that have been caused by COVID. I also am not convinced with your stated price rises for dentists. But even if true, they will come down as supply/demand dynamics return to pre-COVID levels.

    Your rent numbers may also not be representative of the median rents. We all know space (both indoor and outdoor) carried a premium during the lockdowns and that is where the majority of the rent rises occurred. Clearly some could very well afford those rises, but it doesn't mean they should be used to represent the rent statistics that feeds into the inflation numbers. I suspect the median rent rises were comfortably below 10%.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by leasee123 View Post
    I am not sure there is massive inflation, last time I checked inflation was around 2-3%?
    I think I did say that the official rate is GROSSLY misleading as to inflationary expenditure. Most of the real stuff is not measured. Even a small bit of thought:

    Rents have gone up by around 15% - for 50% of many people that is half their budget. This single item alone would translate to an inflation rate of around 4% even if nothing else inflated.

    Typically dental bills per family might have been £100 per year. Now dental bills are close to £1000 because people are being forced to go private to get any care at all, and they also have complex dental problems as a result of neglect.

    Headline train ticket prices have gone up by 3% or so, but that ignores the fact that Apex discounts are rarely available and not worthwhile. So the REAL price of travel has gone up far more than 3%.

    Having building work/repairs done has inflated by at least 20% as has the price of materials - but that is not properly reflected in the index.

    and so on. So at least 5% to 10% inflation on the typical family spend of consumables and services right now.


    Leave a comment:


  • leasee123
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

    Well of course massive interest is usually accompanied by massive inflation and currency devaluation - albeit not at the exact same time.
    At the moment there is massive inflation - but this is mostly sucked up by housing prices (the real inflation rate is probably around 15% right now with property about 10% and consumer goods and services about 5% - the latter grossly underestimated by the official statistics). It will remain very high but the location will shift.
    I am not sure there is massive inflation, last time I checked inflation was around 2-3%? Yes asset prices have risen, but its not out of the unusual, there have been times before of similar % gains in equities and housing, if not more. Asset prices including housing should not be including in inflation figures, because investments shouldn't be considered as consumption items. Rents should though.

    The issue currently is that asset prices do look expensive on some measures. But they also don't look as expensive as you may think if you consider where interest rates are. Arguably house prices have been driven up by lower and lower interest rates. Perhaps the same with stocks. But that is not the full picture.

    Many people have accumulated a lot of savings to be able to afford housing. especially in London where you do get many on salaries above £80k say. Companies have been innovating and investing in their businesses so that explains some of the reason why equities are higher. Labour costs have also be driven low due to globalisation an immigration which favours companies also.

    The interesting question is what happens next and whether interest rates can rise meaningfully. And even more interesting is what could cause rates to rise. I suspect rates will rise sooner than people think and it will be due to a combination of demographics and politics.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by ExpertInAField View Post
    I was just thinking about this, could you imagine what would happen to the BTLs in this country if savings accounts gave 13.5% interest like they did back around 1990? I would definitely have more money coming in than what I do now.

    I wonder if this is one of the reasons that the public are finding it hard to save, because of the miniscule interest rates they are getting nowadays.
    Well of course massive interest is usually accompanied by massive inflation and currency devaluation - albeit not at the exact same time.
    At the moment there is massive inflation - but this is mostly sucked up by housing prices (the real inflation rate is probably around 15% right now with property about 10% and consumer goods and services about 5% - the latter grossly underestimated by the official statistics). It will remain very high but the location will shift.

    Leave a comment:


  • ExpertInAField
    replied
    I was just thinking about this, could you imagine what would happen to the BTLs in this country if savings accounts gave 13.5% interest like they did back around 1990? I would definitely have more money coming in than what I do now.

    I wonder if this is one of the reasons that the public are finding it hard to save, because of the miniscule interest rates they are getting nowadays.

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Biggest way they can help - allow interest rates to rise naturally to where they should have been and stop printing money and inflating asset prices. ...............
    I had a large (for then) residential mortgage when BoE interest rates hit 17% under Thatcher, 15th Nov 1979. That was painful, even with two decent salaries coming in...Very lucky neither of us lost job or eg got sick.

    Careful what you wish for!

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Biggest way they can help - allow interest rates to rise naturally to where they should have been and stop printing money and inflating asset prices. All these attempts to "help" (by for example imposing higher rates of rent via EPC grade C rules, while banning evictions and offering inducements to first time buyers to make bad buying decisions), are an attempt to deal with the inevitable outcome of trying to shift the bulk of our asset cash to London tax-free own-homes -- which is in effect what has happened.....

    It is firefighting the fires they have lit by spraying them with petrol

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    The general advice has to be "don't be poor and need help".
    Agreed. And especially don't be poor where those who claim to be trying to help you carry poison chalices and have a political agenda which is nothing at all to do with helping. More to do with harming.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    I think the problem too is that when Councils advise constituents to ask L to issue S21 (and they do that often), they are also asking that this be defended (because not defending S21 would also be regarded as making oneself intentionally homeless). And often the only line of defence is a lie. They also don't warn the person that a) they are liable for costs and b) that if the council does not house them they are never likely to find suitable accommodation in the PRS in future.
    Councils are in an impossible position.

    If a tenant turns up looking for help because they can't afford to pay the rent or are concerned they're going to be evicted or just have problem with the landlord, the council usually doesn't have the resources to help them.
    And can't advise the tenant to give notice, because that immediately disqualifies them from a lot of assistance, so the only thing they can advise is that the tenant gets the landlord to serve notice.

    I don't see how they can insist the tenant file a defence to a s21 notice, but they may be able to help them point out any errors in the notice and it's easy enough to get a s21 notice wrong.

    The general advice has to be "don't be poor and need help".

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Just re-posting my response as it was flagged as spam after one spelling edit:

    I agree (and that this is repellent) -- but the issue at hand is whether it is somehow "illegal" (or unusual) to have agreements/contracts that dictate whether someone else can take some sort of legal action, or conduct a certain line of defence.

    That it would not be enforceable I have no doubt (regardless of legal advice). But certain parts (such as the notion that the other party agree that they have received certain documents in advance of having a claim filed against them) would not be so easy to undo.

    Taking a step back here : I think the issue is that a L would not serve S21 and proceed with that to court if they knew that the other party was a) going to issue a defence b) was going to lie in the defence. Since they are being asked to do something - issue a S21 (which I do not agree is an illegal request either in and of itself) - they are entitled to know if it will be defended (since there are better alternatives if that were the case).

    They are also entitled to know that T is going to pay rent and has resources to cover the cost of the action they are requesting.

    I think the problem too is that when Councils advise constituents to ask L to issue S21 (and they do that often), they are also asking that this be defended (because not defending S21 would also be regarded as making oneself intentionally homeless). And often the only line of defence is a lie. They also don't warn the person that a) they are liable for costs and b) that if the council does not house them they are never likely to find suitable accommodation in the PRS in future.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Not exactly a parallel situation but people do agree (every day) not to issue proceedings or to reveal certain things in defence - and they cannot be prevented from doing so. But that agreement can be a separate contract which can potentially be enforced.

    For example zillions of NHS staff have signed gag clauses agreeing not to bring their employers to an employment tribunal (or to reveal abuse of patients, or to say bad stuff about the Chief Executive, or to discuss certain items in court) in exchange for receiving a wad of cash, The hospitals cannot prevent those staff from subsequently suing or revealing information, but if they do the sting is that they could be sued for the cash back.
    Part of what makes those (repellent) agreements enforceable is that it's essential that the person signing has decent legal advice about the consequences of signing them - so they're not signing as a consumer.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    You can't selectively quote yourself, that's cheating!

    That element would be fine.
    Agreeing not to defend the proceedings wouldn't be.

    So the tenant could sign to say that they had received the PI, which would make it difficult to argue that they hadn't.
    But you can't stop them using it as a defence at all.

    You have to imagine you're in a court (informal property court though it is) and the tenant says, I have never received the Prescribed Information.
    It's one thing to produce a signed document that says "I have received the prescribed information" and quite another to produce a document that says "I agree not to defend myself by claiming not to have received the prescribed information".
    I don't disagree with the first part of that at all.

    Not exactly a parallel situation but people do agree (every day) not to issue proceedings or to reveal certain things in defence - and they cannot be prevented from doing so. But that agreement can be a separate contract which can potentially be enforced.

    For example zillions of NHS staff have signed gag clauses agreeing not to bring their employers to an employment tribunal (or to reveal abuse of patients, or to say bad stuff about the Chief Executive, or to discuss certain items in court) in exchange for receiving a wad of cash, The hospitals cannot prevent those staff from subsequently suing or revealing information, but if they do the sting is that they could be sued for the cash back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson01
    replied
    Having read through the tangled web of ' he could say/she could say ,' and the necessary collusion between a LL and their tenant, it just goes to prove why the asked for S21 should not be issued. To be asked by the tenant to evict them so they can obtain (in their dreams) a council house is totally dishonest and is depriving that house (if they managed to get it) from someone who currently does not have the benefit of a private dwelling from a LL. It is fraud and all parties (if found out/evidence located) should be prosecuted..... including the LL.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    L could ask T to confirm in writing that they received PI prior to serving S21.

    That is not so much a matter of removing the right to defend onseself, it is more akin to disclosure/clarification.
    You can't selectively quote yourself, that's cheating!

    That element would be fine.
    Agreeing not to defend the proceedings wouldn't be.

    So the tenant could sign to say that they had received the PI, which would make it difficult to argue that they hadn't.
    But you can't stop them using it as a defence at all.

    You have to imagine you're in a court (informal property court though it is) and the tenant says, I have never received the Prescribed Information.
    It's one thing to produce a signed document that says "I have received the prescribed information" and quite another to produce a document that says "I agree not to defend myself by claiming not to have received the prescribed information".

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Reply to My legal rights about an Inspection
    by doobrey
    I think the main cause of the problem here is whoever is insisting that tenant cannot be in the property at the same time as the surveyor (or indeed "surveyor").

    I have used various tradesmen during the pandemic and nobody has suggested that residents of the property should vacate....
    04-12-2021, 17:21 PM
  • My legal rights about an Inspection
    by thegypsyking
    Hi all, I am a tenant who s on a Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The agreement is for 6 months, i have already made an upfront payment for 6 months. Its been couple of months since i moved. My landlord wants to inspect to the flat next week by surveyors, but without me being involved. He wrote me that due...
    03-12-2021, 23:53 PM
  • Reply to My legal rights about an Inspection
    by bobthebuilder2
    your landlord wants to "inspect", but its actually an estate agent surveyor who will be there for 3 hours ? careful, sounds like the landlord might be gearing up to sell it.
    usually an inspection is a 10min walk around checking on how you are keeping it, if smoke alarms work and if anything...
    04-12-2021, 17:16 PM
  • Reply to Advice request: T claiming for broken door
    by DPT57
    I should think that this has been resolved now as it was over 7 months ago....
    04-12-2021, 17:11 PM
  • Advice request: T claiming for broken door
    by Jdhanna6
    Morning All
    Would appreciate your wisdom on an issue with a tenant. He is generally a good T but has just asked me to cover the costs of an emergency locksmith he called on a Sunday evening. The charge is ridiculous (nearly 300 quid). A door handle on a bedroom broke, trapping him inside (there...
    26-04-2021, 08:48 AM
  • Reply to help please...
    by DPT57
    You might also ask for a copy of their original references unless you have the report already....
    04-12-2021, 17:06 PM
  • help please...
    by john19
    Hi all,

    I have an estate agent collecting rent for me on a few properties (there not doing anything else, the tenants call me direct with any issues) and i am about to take this on myself to save the fees, the estate agents have agreed to this and have agreed to redo the tenancy agreement...
    04-12-2021, 09:58 AM
  • Reply to Advice request: T claiming for broken door
    by alice123
    A locksmith wont get out of bed for less than 100 pounds and if it was a Sunday evening even higher,

    As this tenant has been a good tenant I would just pay up but make sure you get the receipt from the locksmith, as it may cause some friction between your good tenant and yourself , i assume...
    04-12-2021, 17:04 PM
  • Reply to My legal rights about an Inspection
    by DPT57
    My point really is that approaching this from a rightsist standpoint is likely to escalate the tension. I agree that 3 hours would be unreasonable, but its not going to take that. I'd be amazed if it was more than about 20 minutes. The landlord sounds like a bit of an arse, but it also sounds like he's...
    04-12-2021, 17:00 PM
  • Reply to My legal rights about an Inspection
    by theartfullodger
    Exactly, quite. Impasse, sounds like both parties won't agree.

    I merely ask... will you ever need a reference from landlord?

    Good luck
    04-12-2021, 16:49 PM
Working...
X