possession

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

    #31
    That's interesting they have filed the first lease of1984 not the present leaseholder of 2005.

    Comment


      #32
      I am sorry if I have offended you, that is not my intent. The point that I am trying to make is that in order for your claim to succeed I would have thought that you would need the backing of the LL. They have sought counsel, and counsel has referred to this 'nome dat rule'. In other words they may have made a mistake in terms of granting you a tenancy with exclusive use of the garden,but this 'rule' covers their mistake; a simple error!. They may also argue that in any event, they granted you a licence for the use of the garden (not a tenancy). If you had the LL backing then you would seem to have a reasonable chance of success. It appears that you don't and so I am asking you to exercise caution when relying upon points oflaw that you are not familar with

      My reasons for asking about the rent, was that perhaps, you could demonstrate that you have paid an additional amount for the use of the garden and therefore you are entitled to exclusive use. However, if the HA is the freeholder, they own the land and can do whatever they see fit. They may decide that they wish to alter the terms of tenancy and revoke the use of the garden as long as they have 'consulted' you beforehand.

      I am not saying that the above will occur, what I am trying to remind you of the fact that the HA is the Freeholder - that's all. I wish you luck

      Comment


        #33
        just another thought, this is an internet forum not a court. Nothing that is expressed on this forum should serve as 'gospel'. If you want to establish facts- please refer to primary sources and read and then ask questions.In internet forums many individuals have their own agenda - you are a tenant - this a forum although useful is designed for Landlords.

        Comment


          #34
          I'll grovel away off then, thanks for your presence Chemistry I feel so humbled

          Comment


            #35
            What is LandlordZONE® ? - It's a portal web site for landlords involved in letting property - novice and experienced alike. It is also an on-line community with a Forum, News, Blogs and RSS feeds. It provides free access to information, resources and suppliers of value to residential and commercial landlords, tenants, letting agents, property managers and other property professionals.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by kburgoyne View Post
              It provides free access to information, resources and suppliers of value to residential and commercial landlords, tenants, letting agents, property managers and other property professionals.
              Calm down
              You are perfectly welcome here. What I think 'Chemistry' was implying (although not very tactfully) is that the main areas of expertise on this forum are in landlord issues. In many cases, landlord and tenant overlap, but when it comes to complex areas of law then an internet forum is a dangerous place to be.

              I know for a fact that some of the advice you have been given is good stuff. There may also be some complete (insert expletive) in there too. The problem you have is - which do you cite in court?

              Comment


                #37
                I know what chemistry very untactfully means You're correct about choices although this site has a checking system, its easy tu use so you should know who to listen to. I made that choice a long time ago. I try not to feed the Trolls, I'm better than I used to be honest

                Comment


                  #38
                  k, I am sorry that you would feel that I am a "troll" - I therefore question the privacy facility on the feeds on this forum. If you are a genuine poster then I asm simply playing devils advocate. I am sorry that I cannot express an opinion that you want to hear; but perhaps you should be grateful. On the 15th you will encounter much worse in the real world of tenancy law- advice parsimony - keep it simple - have you paid rent for the garden? yes - possible case- no? then accept the split of the garden as a comprom

                  Comment


                    #39
                    I have no more comment to make
                    I have attempted to provide you with additional considerations. Good luckon the 15th - please feedback

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
                      Calm down
                      You are perfectly welcome here. What I think 'Chemistry' was implying (although not very tactfully) is that the main areas of expertise on this forum are in landlord issues. In many cases, landlord and tenant overlap, but when it comes to complex areas of law then an internet forum is a dangerous place to be.

                      I know for a fact that some of the advice you have been given is good stuff. There may also be some complete (insert expletive) in there too. The problem you have is - which do you cite in court?
                      Snooker- thank you for your post; it would be helpful,if willing?, if youcould distinguish what posts are helpful and what posts are unhelpful in the current discussion- thanks ;Chemistry

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Chemistry View Post
                        I have no more comment to make
                        But you did....

                        Originally posted by Chemistry View Post
                        Snooker- thank you for your post; it would be helpful,if willing?, if you could distinguish what posts are helpful and what posts are unhelpful in the current discussion- thanks ;Chemistry
                        Haven't had time to come to an opinion of your posts C, although I have noticed you can tend to be a little 'brusque' - still, each to his own and that doesn't mean your posts are factually incorrect.

                        However, having been on this forum for a number of years now, I do know LCs posts to be generally reliable. With regard to the poor posts - well I have no knowledge of the subject (which is why I haven't contributed) which is why I say there may be some poor ones - doesn't mean there are

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Chemistry View Post
                          just another thought, this is an internet forum not a court. Nothing that is expressed on this forum should serve as 'gospel'. If you want to establish facts- please refer to primary sources and read and then ask questions.In internet forums many individuals have their own agenda - you are a tenant - this a forum although useful is designed for Landlords.
                          Some folk just don't know when to shut up.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by kburgoyne View Post
                            Thank you Lawcruncher you make it worth coming here.

                            In relation to the title they say the lleaseholder is first in time because her lease dates back to 1984 whareas I moved here in 2001. However my dispute is with the 3rd leaseholder since being here, she purchased in 2005. Am I first in time over her because I've been here 4 years previous to her?

                            Thanks in advance.
                            Your position is tricky because, as I said, you cannot claim adverse possession.

                            It is possible to grant a lease of premises to A and then, before A's lease expires grant a lease to B. The second lease (known as a concurrent lease) does not give B the right to possession (in the sense of occupation) but operates so that for the length of B's tenancy B effectively becomes A's landlord. What happens if B takes possession before A's lease comes to an end is not a question I have ever had to consider. What the answer is I do not know.

                            Who is suing whom here?

                            Comment


                              #44
                              @Lawcruncher thank you.

                              Good question! through disclosure I now have it recorded by internal communications from the Landlord and the solicitors that they hatched a plan to force me to take them to court because of money they owed me so they could counter claim. I had said for 3 years, if you have right of possession then get an order but they never did?

                              The counterclaim answer my claim but also asks for immediate right access and unhindered use of both the cupboards and the garden.

                              Yeap walked into this one silly bugger

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Sorry for the double post Counsel for the Landlord has advised that they should not seek an order for possession but rather the leaseholder should.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X