Rent Act 1977 tenant received notice to quit

[sarah1]

We have rented our house for nearly 30yrs and now the landlord wants to sell off our garden to a property developer.He has asked us to sign a new agreement in which we surrender the garden to him but we have refused, He has also offered us alternative accomodation, which we have refused, he has now issued us with a one months 'notice to quit' after which he has got to get a court order to remove us. Does anyone know if he can do this? we are not behind with the rent or in breach of our tenancy agreement in any way. Its just the fact that we won't allow him to take our garden.Any advice is welcomed

[P.Pilcher]

Thanks to Mr. Harold Wilson I am pertty certain that you have absoloute security of tenure and you cannot be forced out of your home or garden. In any case a one month notice to quit isn't worth the paper it is written on!

P.P.

[davidjohnbutton]

A Rent Act tenancy tenant does not have to leave without a court order. The landlord will not get a court order unless the tenant is well in arrears with rent, substantial work is required on the property which needs the tenant to move out (the landlord is responsible for all costs thereof) or the tenant is using the property for illegal purposes. Under those conditions a proper notice to quit is valid and must give a months notice to quit. The form is prescribed by law and is nothing like those for the shorthold or assured tenancies.

Sarah, do not worry - your landlord will not get a court order based on what you say and if he/she harasses you, he/she might well end up paying compo to you - a point you might like to stress to the landlord!!!!!!

[sarah1]

Thank you so much for your replies, and that is the view of most people we have discussed the situation with, but we have also been told that because he has offered us alternative accomomdation this may go in his favour in court because he is not making us homeless. But can he really move us to this other accomodation after 30 yrs purely on the fact that he wants the garden??

[davidjohnbutton]

Read this carefully Sarah - he cannot make you move out unless one of the above criteria apply.

If he puts pressure on you - report him to the police and to the council's housing/environmental health department who will prosecute him for harassment if need be.

[sarah1]

Thank you David, none of them apply to us so we should be ok, i really hope so! And if we do win, you can bet we will have him for harrassment because its making us ill.

[sarah1]

Sorry david, just one more question, as he has served us with the notice to quit, does that mean our tenancy agreement will come to an end and even if we do get to stay will we have to sign a new one meaning we've lost all our rights?

[P.Pilcher]

NO!

You have a tenancy for life, which can be inherited. Please read again what DavidJohnButton has posted.

P.P.

[sarah1]

Thank you i really appreciate this information but i'm still worried sick, hope it doesnt go on for much longer or i'll be wasting away!

[davidjohnbutton]

Do not under any circumstances sign any new tenancy agreement - if you do, you will lose the protection of the Rent Act 1977 and the restriction of the regulated tenancy which will mean loss of security of tenure and increase of rent.

[lawstudent]

sarah - I think messrs button and pilcher are wrong here - provided the LL is able to offer suitable alternative accommodation he may be able to recover possession through the court - the old rent act certainly stacked the odds in favour of the tenant (which is why it ultimately had to be abolished) but it did not totally dispossess the landlord in the way messrs pilcher and button seem to think

[P.Pilcher]

Sarah - we are now getting conflicting opinions on this board and these come from people who know more about such matters than me. It will do nothing to relieve your understandable worry. May I suggest that you find yourself a solicitor who is experienced in property matters and take with you all your documentation. The first consultation should be free and his advice will be definitive. You will then know how to proceed and whether you can extract compensation from your landlord. Failing this you can always try either the CAB or "Shelter" but we have reason to believe that their advice will not be as definitive as that you will receive from an appropriately experienced solicitor. Furthermore don't sign anything without the advice of that solicitor.

P.P.

[davidjohnbutton]

My course for the following is http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_601818-04.hcsp


quote
There are two other grounds for possession which are not cases as such. First, the court can grant possession if it thinks that it is reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation is or will be available for the tenant. Alternative accommodation can be suitable if:

it is determined in a certificate from the local council, if they are providing the alternative accommodation, or
if it gives the tenant equal or equivalent security of tenure and meets certain conditions about size, rent and other features. Second, the other ground for possession is that there is statutory overcrowding in the property, as defined in the Housing Act 1985.
unquote

The landlord in this case is trying to get the poster to move into less secure tenancy conditions. Courts will not give possession orders out happily on the two "non grounds" above, particularly when they see where the landlord is coming from!!!

I stand by what I said and Lawstudent - please research your law before you commit fingers to keyboard.

[sarah1]

i have done allot of research myself on this matter and yes i know what the law student is saying but remember, we are protected tenants and if the landlord can get a court order to move us how come he cant take our garden with us living here, Think about it! We have been to shelter and CAB and they have looked into it for us, they too have said that he can only move us to alternative accomodation if he needs to make substantial repair work to the property and cannot do this with us living in it, but this move would only be until the property is suitable for us to move back in. What would be the point of security of tenor if the landlord can move you to another house whenever he wants to? We have got a meeting with our soliciter next week so we'll have to wait and see what they say.

P.s David, i had looked up those other 2 'grounds' aswell and it says the court can grant possession if it thinks that it is reasonable and other accomodation has been offered, is a greedy landlord who wants to make some money on a protected tenants garden a reasonable case? That is for the courts to decide!

[davidjohnbutton]

One way you might like to approach this Sarah is to reach an agreement whereby the landlord pays you a sum of money based on the profits he will make if you give him possession. This would need to be calculated by a valuer and properly agreed and possibly secured.

Something to mention when you see your solicitor!!!!

[sarah1]

Yes thank you David, we have in a round about way mentioned this to the landlord and he refused, but maybe he will re-think if it is mentioned by the soliciter.

[P.Pilcher]

Sarah - I for one am very interest to learn as to the outcome of this so please post back with developments as they occurr.

P.P.

[sarah1]

Mr Pilcher, i will certainly do this, Thank you again for your help

[lucid]

It is worth noting also that the value of the property with you as a statutory regulated tenant is substantially diminished. Something approximating 50% of the free market vacant possesion value. Just to give you an idea with regard to if you were to sell off your tenancy and move.

I take it you pay a rent that is registered with the rent service, and only increased every 2 years upon application?

lucid

[sarah1]

Yes lucid we do.

[lawstudent]

davidjohnbutton - Rather than insult people who have the temerity to correct you when you display your ignorance of the law, why not do a bit more reading? Sarah already seems to know more about this area of the law than you do, and it really will not help her to tell her things that are plainly wrong (however much she might be pleased to hear them!) The fact of the matter is that possession can be granted if suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant. And of course it must afford to the tenant equivalent security of tenure. Who said that it would not?

sarah - why does the fact that your LL wants to sell part of his property make him a "greedy landlord"? You say you would like to "sell" him vacant possession of his own property. Does that make you a greedy tenant?

[Andy Parker]

I thought the 'alternative accommodation' option only applied if there was a need to vacate the property such as renovation.0therwise it opens up a can of worms - who wants to swap a 3 bed house in Hampstead for the same in Kilburn?The tenant would lose hundreds of thousands (and possibly all of her snooty friends).

[davidjohnbutton]

For your information Lawstudent - I went into this type of scenario back in the 1980's when I had a regulated tenant whose dwelling badly needed improvement but who would not let me do so despite my offer to move them into better accommodation whilst theirs was done up and then move them back (all at my expense) into their newly refurbished property.

In the end I sold the problem on to a housing association for a decent price on the basis that I was legally advised that a possession order (if I went that way) to move them on the grounds of essential repair works was UNLIKELY to be granted as the tenant's age (pensioners 70 years+ old) would be a prime factor.

Ignoring rent arrears and abuse oif the property etc. which are of course good reasons for possession, there has to be a very good reason indeed before a judge will grant an order kicking somebody out of their house.

In my "ignorant" view - the story will go something like this:-

Judge: "Now then Mr. Landlord, why do you want possesion of this house in Pleasant Quiet Road"

Landlord" "Well, I want to completely ignore the fact that I originally let the property with a large garden space - I want to take that off the tenants and sell it so that I can make a fabulous profit"

Judge "Have you got an alternative place for your tenant?"

Landlord" Yes, its in Boggin Down Road next to the Gasworks"

Judge "So the tenant will lose the local amenities like his local shop - his local friends - he will have to change his kids schools, his doctor, dentist, optician etc etc. Does the tenant mind this?"

Landlord "He won't go your honour and he won't let me have the garden - wah wah (stamps feet)"

Judge "You do not need the property to do repairs - you simply require it so you can make a profit at the disturbance and discomfiture of your tenant - possession refused - landlord to pay all costs".

Of course, this is only the ramblings of an "ignorant" landlord of some 37 years experience! Lawstudent - I quoted the law at you and source as well - read it well!!!

[sarah1]

Law Student NO we are not greedy tenants, we have lived here for 30 yrs minding our own business and paying our rent on time, why should we move, the garden is in full use i.e vegetables, flowers. greenhouse etc all we want is a bit of compensation for taking this away!! Does that make us greedy? i dont think so, and for your information he has even told us we have to pay for our own skip to clear everything from the garden!! need i say anymore about greed.

[Andy Parker]

I am with lawstudent on this.You have benefitted from a subsidised rent for years at the LL's expense and now want a share of his property.The law that allows this was abolished years ago precisely because it is unfair to the LL.

[lawstudent]

davidjohnbutton - please don't berate yourself - I am sure you are not an "ignorant landlord of some 37 years' experience". I am sure you know a lot about being a landlord.

[sarah1]

This is getting into a conflict now that i dont even want to be involved with, there has been some progress since i first posted but cannot say anything at this time, but all boils down to the same thing, if we've got no rights why hasnt he just taken the garden.

And by the way law student & Andy we would just rather keep our garden and carry on as we have been so i say once again, WE ARE NOT GREEDY PEOPLE

[Andy Parker]

sarah1 - No-one has suggested you have no rights - just that the rights you have were deemed to be too punitive against the LL and do not apply to more recent tenancies.Your solicitor has asked for money on your behalf so that the LL can have part of his own garden back (!!) so your last post was contradictory.Anyway you know now that you can ignore any requests or threats of eviction from your LL so you don't have a problem.

[sarah1]

Andy, our soliciter has not asked for anything from our landlord, we just mentioned compensation in passing conversation! All we are fighting for is to stay in the same house we have lived for so long and keep our garden if at all possible. If you read my first post, it says he has issued us with 1 months notice to quit,(because we wont sign a new tenancy agreement) This is what we dont agree with when he's got absolutely no grounds to move us.But like i said in my last post, some other developments have happened which i cannot speak about at this moment

[lawstudent]

sarah1

If you do not like conflict why did you refer to your "greedy landlord who wants to make some money"? Do you imagine that none of the contributors to this forum (which, I would remind you, is "LandlordZONE") would find this remark offensive?

Protected tenants such as yourself should show some humility. Remember that you are the beneficiary of a grotesquely unfair law which was changed because it well-nigh destroyed the private rental sector in this country. Until it was repealed by the 1988 Housing Act, hardly a property owner in his right mind would rent to a private tenant, knowing they would benefit from an absurdly low rent and indefinite security of tenure. During that period many people saw renting their property as being as intelligent as throwing their title deeds into the fire.

What I find interesting and slightly repulsive is that people such as yourself rarely show any gratitude towards the landlord who has housed them so cheaply and for so long, but only contempt.

[sarah1]

Law Student, Our landlord hasn't housed us 'so cheaply, for so long' out of the goodness of his heart!! Yes i agree that Rent Act tenants are a real burden to the landlord, and all the LL's will be relieved when there are none of us left!! But we're alive and well i'm afraid

[lucid]

If the case went to court the key points I think as to whether the judge would grant an order would be firstly is it reasonable....why does the landlord want possession here. You would have to refer to specific case law here for any precedent. The judge may well not consider the reason of selling the property etc or the garden to be a good one I don't know?? If not it goes no farther.

If the judge does think it reasonable then the question arises as to whether the alternative accommodation is suitable. It must;

Have equal security of tenure

Must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work, and either

a) similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling houses provided in the neighbourhood by any [local housing authority] for persons whose needs as regards extent are, in the opinion of the court similar to those of the tenant and of his family; or

b) Reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent and character; and

That if any furniture was provided for use under the protected or statutory tenancy in question, furniture is provided in the accommodation is either similar to that so provided or is reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family.

Also it is worth noting that if the accommodation provided is classed as be overcrowded relating to the housing act 1985 it is not suitable.

Other points are that work can include voluntary work. (DakynsV Pace1948)
And with reference to the suitability re. Extent and character, environmental matters as well as physical character may be taken into account. (Redspring ltd V Francis 1973) (Siddiqui V Rashid 1980) (Hill V Rochard 1980)

Also it must be considered as to whether the accommodation is adequate in size to take all the furniture the tenant may reasonably require. (Mykolyshyn V Noah 1971)

On a different note it is worth checking the validity of all notices of increase served after each new rent registration. Without the service of the notice any increase is not lawful and if already paid can be reclaimed for up to 2 years. The notices are statutory and must be in the prescribed form. So they must be on the correct form filled in correctly with all the right information in the right place, including dates etc. It cannot be backdated to before the date of registration or 4 weeks before the date of service. If any of these are wrong the notice is invalid. Though the landlord can apply to the court to correct a notice but the court can only apply the correction up to 6 months prior to the date of the order.

I hope all this information helps. All the above is available at your local library I’m sure or can be obtained by them. There are very few resources available on the net re. The rent act though.

Lucid

[sarah1]

Thank you lucid for the information, we have spoken to our solicitor who says the notice is invalid because certain points are wrong on it. But think this matter is going to be sorted out without the need for a court order, but i cannot say say too much at this time.

[lucid]

Hi sarah

I'm glad that things are being sorted and hope that it is not too stressful.I hope that when it is resolved you can let us know what happened as the information may be useful to others.

Lucid

[sarah1]

Yes lucid i will put a post on just as soon as things are finalised, thank you for taking an interest.

[lawstudent]

indeed, lucid, information on how to deal with parasites will be widely appreciated :)

[sarah1]

Law student, after visiting our soliciter who specialises in this kind of thing, i can tell you that we have allot of rights, i will not put up with you calling us parasites. You do not know all the details of our situation, i have only briefly explained. I suggest you study a bit harder because your clearly not up to date with these kind of tenancies.

[Jennifer_M]

Now now lawstudent, there's no need for name calling.

It is a fact that a lot of tenants got a pretty good deal in the past, the law as now been changed fortunately for LLs, but it doesn't make these tenants parasites.
If they have a good deal of course they don't want to give it up easily and I can't blame them.

Everyone defends their own rights, nothing wrong with that.

[P.Pilcher]

In the early 70's I first met an acquaintance who I know to this day. He is an unasuming sort of chap and only married his very long term girlfriend whn he put her in the "club". He owned and ran a number of small businesses in those days but whenever he made a bit of money he bought a house and rented it. I don't know how many he bought then or how many he owns now, but they certainly must have contained regulated tenants when he started and I bet that a fair few of them are still regulated tenants now. He hasn't worked for many years and, very quietly, lives a lifestyle which would suggest that he is neither in debt nor has to worry about where his next penny is coming from. Yes - landlords were able to make a living in the days of regulated tenancies if they were careful which, in the case of my acquaintance, is now paying their pension. My acquaintance knows the law and developed a business plan which has certainly worked for him - he is probably a multi millionaire, but keeps very quiet about it. Sarah - you know the law as should your landlord. I hope you maintain your entitlement of residence in the home you have rented for so long. This is what Mr. Harold Wilson wanted as a result of the excesses of Peter Rachman - and landlords like him unfortunately he over reacted. The law is a lot better now, but isn't right yet as it is still favouring certain unscrupulous tenants about which we read here every day. It should be as fair to landlords as it is to tenants. Maybe it will get there one day. Despite being a landlord myself, I see where you are coming from and good luck to you. My acquaintance has done O.K. from his regulated tenants, so it is possible.

P.P.

[Andy Parker]

ppilcher - I don't understand your point.I am pleased you have a rich and once fertile friend.Sitting tenants are ruinous to many LLs.There was a recent post on this forum where the LL was at his wit's end because he had such a tenant living in a converted flat in his home.You had no comforting stories for him!

[lawstudent]

sarah1, I did not say it was the Rent Act tenants who were the parasites. It might have been their landlords. Still, if the cap fits ...

[sarah1]

Lawstudent, I have one question for you, if you were a protected tenant in this situation, what would you do???

[P.Pilcher]

Andy - my point is this: My little story illustrates that in the long term a profit can be made out of properties which contain regulated tenants. Landlords who now acquire these properties buy them at heavily discounted prices and should know the protection that the law affords such tenants. This must be included in their business plan. Some landlords do not and then have a whinge here because thay cannot make the money that they thought that they could. In the case you mention, I believe the property was inherited thus it was given to the person concerned. If he didn't like the situation he could always have sold up and moved on - but naturally he didn't want to do that because he would have lost a fair bit of that inheritance.

So I still say good luck to Sarah - she knows the law and her entitlement. Her landlord is soon (expensively) to find out what the law states. This thread has produced some superb legal information on these matters which has enabled us all to be more familiar with the laws on regulated tenancies. It is what makes this site, IMHO, the best one on the web for landlords, agents and tenants. I try to browse it daily.

P.P.

[lawstudent]

sarah1 - you ask what I would do in your place. I feel comfortable in my home, and part of that is to be on good terms with my landlord. I pay a fair rent which gives him a reasonable return. He is pleased to have me in his flat, I am pleased to be there and I regard him as a friend. If the law suddenly changed and allowed me to halve my rent and stay on indefinitely I would not want to take advantage of it. If I did take advantage of it I would feel ashamed and would not live as happily as I do now. You seem quite happy to be a burden on your landlord. For me there is more to life than squeezing every ounce of personal advantage out of every situation. I suppose people are all different.

[sarah1]

You still havnt answered my question!! read my first thread, that is my question!!! i cant believe that anyone would refuse half rent if it was offered to them, and in any case we do not pay half, (wish we did though!!!!!) infact we are not much different to his other tenants. We will not give the property up which we have called home for so long without a fight.
I think your getting confused here, he has offered us alternative accomodation and if we move all our rights are taken with us but that is the point we do not want to move. get it???

[lawstudent]

You have been getting a good deal from your landlord for 30 years, and your insistence on staying put - even if it wrecks his hopes of making some money - strikes me as mean and selfish. Why not try to see things from his point of view as well as your own?

[davidjohnbutton]

Lawstudent - you miss the point here. Suppose somebody came along to your house today and said "Right - I want you out of here, I will move you to another house with equivalent terms and security and pay all your costs" Would you move? Would you be prepared to undergo one of the most stressful things to do with your life that ranks alongside death, divorce and car accidents as being the most stressful things to do in your life just so that somebody else could profit?

The lady does not want upheaval in order to facilitate her landlord with a nice windfall at her cost (I mean cost in human terms, not in money), she is happy where she is, she no doubt has friends and relatives in the area, a friendly post office she wants to continue to use along with all the shops she goes to. Maybe she feels safe and secure in her existing home and feels that to move at her time of life is too stressful and she would rather remain there - there are countless reasons for not wanting to move.

OK, she is using the Rent Act to her advantage - but people do this every day Lawstudent - they use the law to protect them and their rights. Whether or not the landlord inherited the regulated tenancy is not an issue - the fact of the matter is that Sarah has security of tenure under the law and yes, sometimes this is a bit unfair on the landlord - same as is the law that says I must get a court order against a tenant who does not pay the rent or who smashes up the house - it is unfair to me that it will take months to get such a court order - it is unfair that I cannot go and take all the tenant's household goods and/or car and sell them to pay my rent without a court order for which I must pay out more money in court fees.

But I am a landlord - I am in that business by choice - I know the pitfalls and accept the risks and I accept that I may lose a lot of money one day when a tenancy goes bottom up. Regulated tenancies are very valuable in the letting world as they can be succeeded to - this is a creation of the 1977 Rent Act which, as has been previously mentioned was to counter people like Rachman - and eventually Rent Act tenants will die out as did the old Controlled Tenancies before them.

I personally wish Sarah well in her venture to protect her rights - her landlord is trying to make a profit at her cost - I doubt a court will agree with her landlord, and this is what it is all about - is it reasonable given what the landlord is after - I think not!!

[sarah1]

Thank you john, you've said it all better than i did, we are obviously not going to make the law student see where we are coming from, so its a waste of time explaining things over & over again.

[Andy Parker]

ppilcher,DJB - the accommodation is paid for on a monthly basis and should not be treated as a lifelong home.I was in a similar tenancy many years ago and did what most normal people would do - got on with my life based on BUYING my own house.I did not adopt the 'get something for nothing,grab what you can' approach that you are both advocating.

ppilcher - a business plan based on a permanently tied-up asset yielding no return for 40 years or more would make interesting reading if it promised millions at the other end!We have an investment forum,please post details there.

sarah1 - if your LL wants you to move you should do so out of decency as long as you keep security of tenure.You have taken enough from him already.Don't you agree?

[sarah1]

Andy parker NO i dont agree. Would i have started this thread if i did?? Like i said, we have a soliciter involved who knows a damn sight more than you and if its ok, i'd rather take their advice, not yours. Also not everyone can afford to buy their own house and i think your below the belt having a dig at us for that. But not that its any of your business we did ask the landlord several years ago if we could buy and he refused.

[davidjohnbutton]

Under the law as it stands at present, Rent Act tenants can and do occupy premises as a lifelong home - and indeed, it may not end there if a relative or other person can succeed to the tenancy, though this can only happen once and it takes it out of being a rent act tenancy - this does not make them a lower species of human being!

Blame the law and the government for not clearing this mess up over the years - its the same sort of mess that allows murderers to get out of jail to carry on their lives after 12 years or so. The law is always unfair to somebody or other and Andy Parker, you insult Sarah deeply by advising her that she has taken enough from her landlord - she has taken nothing! She has paid rent on the premises at the rent allowed by the rent officer service for the last 40 years whatever and she does not want upheaval - what is wrong with her approach - she is negotiating the situation and is likely to achieve an outcome that both protects her rights and either fends her landlord off or accommodates him. I agree with Sarah, Andy, your remark was below the belt!

Andy you further insult me because I seem to be advocating what Sarah is doing - I have rent act tenancies as well - I get on very well with them - they pay rent regularly and yes they are elderly tenants who put more emphasis into rent paying than some of the younger ones who take on assured/shorthold tenancies and think they can ignore the tenancy agreement because they know if I fall out with them over arrears etc., it will take me months to get them out. My postings were based on the law as it stands - the same laws that let you rent a property out for six months and then hold a sword over the tenant's head as to whether or not they get it renewed. Until either the law is changed, or all rent act tenancies are no more, then this sort of situation will arise again and again.

[Paul_f]

Don't particularly want to get too involved here but having read the posts there seems to be a bit of an over-reaction towards Sarah's legal rights.

The moral issues that law student and Andy Parker attest to may indeed be relevant in respect of the landlord not being able to repossess the property very easily but I wholeheartedly support DJB's postings in that he is spelling out the rights of the tenant on this, and that is all Sarah asked for - guidance on her rights.

That the postings have gone on for 6 pages now is getting a bit too convoluted don't you all feel? :cool:

[sarah1]

Yes thank you paul, i totally agree, and thank you david for standing by me.
Andy & law student, the law is the law whether you agree with it or not and the decision we make on this which will affect the rest of our life not yours is entirely up to us

[davidjohnbutton]

Source https://www.landlordlaw.co.uk/qa.ihtml?id=4&catparid=4&step=6

Question: We are 1977 rent act tenants and our landlord has issued us with 1 months notice to quit. The reason for this is because we won't surrender our garden to him (he wants to sell the garden to a property developer to build on)he has offered us alternative accommodation which we have refused, we are not behind with our rent or in breach of our tenancy agreement in any way Can he move us purely because he wants our garden back? Mrs S Griffiths

Answer: Whether your landlord can obtain an order for possession will depend not so much on his reason for asking possession but upon the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered to you. There is a lot of case law on this subject. For example the property must be suitable for your needs, e.g. reasonably convenient for your place of work and, if you have children, for their schools. It must be of a suitable size, although this does not necessarily mean the same size as the property you have now. For example an elderly couple living in a six bedroomed house cannot insist another six bedroomed house, a one or two bedroomed house will normally be considered sufficient. It must also be reasonable in all the circumstances for the Judge to make the order for possession, for example in one case a Judge refused to make a possession order against an elderly lady who had lived in the property all her life and had ‘tender memories’. I would suggest you seek advice from a local firm of solicitors who have experience in landlord and tenant/housing work. 29 March 2005


Come on then Sarah - is it you?????? or is indeed somebody else in EXACTLY the same position - lol!!!!

As this is an answer from a solicitor who is an expert in landlord/tenant law - it looks as though I could be right in standing by my own answer!

[lawstudent]

davidjohnbutton, you initially said, "The landlord will not get a court order unless the tenant is well in arrears with rent, substantial work is required on the property which needs the tenant to move out (the landlord is responsible for all costs thereof) or the tenant is using the property for illegal purposes". Then in your post of 21 March you suggested that the judge would base his decision on the landlord's reasons for wanting possession (e.g. in order to repair the property or simply to make a profit)

The landlordlaw post you now quote says, "Whether your landlord can obtain an order for possession will depend not so much on his reason for asking possession but upon the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered to you".

That post is absolutely right, but much of what you have said so far on the subject has been completely wrong.

[sarah1]

Yes john that was me!! Thought i would post around to see what other views were. But we have visited our local soliciter and their advice was exactly the same as your advice, Dont know whose is right as the LandLord Law advice is slightly different, but still think we are in a strong position.
I will update you as soon as there are any more developments
Thanks
sarah

[lucid]

:)
Rent Act 1977
Part VII
SECURITY OF TENURE

Limitations on recovery of possession of dwelling-houses let on protected tenancies or subject to statutory tenancies

98.-(1) Subject to this Part of the Act, a court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house which is for the time being let on a protected tenancy or subject to a statutory tenancy unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order and either-

(a) the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accomadation is
available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order in
question takes effect, or

(b) the circumstances are as specified in any of the cases in part I of
schedule 15 to this Act...........etc

[lawstudent]

"Reasonable" is the most ambiguous adjective in the legal lexicon.

[lucid]

That may well be the case, but the court must be satisfied first that that there is a justifiable reason for granting the order before considering whether any alternative accomodation is suitable.

The judgement as to what is reasonable will be based upon suitable arguments from both sides backed up from relevent caselaw and precedent.

[Andy Parker]

Wanting the property back for redevelopment does sound reasonable.'Justifiable' and 'reasonable' are different in emphasis so I don't think the two terms are equivalent.

[lucid]

That may be the case but i'm sure it would depend on the individual circumstances of the case, and the case law that is used to back up the argument. The specific "cases" are listed in the act and most are discretionary, this is a so called "Non case" and I believe is there to account for other circumstances and situations that may arise. Therefore i think it would be very difficult to an answer here ouside the realms of the court room and without discussing all relevent caselaw that could affect the individual situation. What you may think is reasonable in one case (ie re development) may not be in another.

[lawstudent]

If I were the judge I would want to consider whether it was reasonable to prevent a landlord from benefiting from what might be the only opportunity he has in his lifetime to make a decent return from his property, simply to accommodate the insistence of a tenant that she will tolerate no change in the status quo. I would want to consider whether the tenant's refusal to cooperate, in the circumstances, was reasonable. And I would want to consider whether it was reasonable to ask this privileged Rent Act tenant (who benefits from a law abolished in 1988 because Parliament considered that it was unfair on the landlord) to move to suitable alternative accommodation after 30 years paying below market rent and with the assurance that she would continue to benefit from the same Rent Act legislation, indefinitely, in her new accommodation.

[Jennifer_M]

Lawstudent, I understand your point but at the end of the day the LL knew at some point what he was getting himself into with an Assured Tenancy; if he didn't like the terms then don't do it or if it's too late then sell the whole thing and use the money for another property where he can have ASTs !

But I guess he wouldn't want to sell the whole property because he couldn't get its tenant free market value but would have to discount it.
But then it's his choice.
That's what being too greedy gets people.

[lawstudent]

Jennifer, you say "the LL knew at some point what he was getting himself into with an Assured Tenancy; if he didn't like the terms then don't do it". First, we are talking about a Rent Act tenancy here, not an Assured one. Secondly, when the Rent Act came in, many landlords were only too pleased to sign up to the "fair rent" that it promised. It was only when they discovered that rent officers were only fair to tenants, not landlords, that they realised the blunder they had made.

And why condemn a landlord for being "greedy" when you know nothing about him apart from what his tenant has said? Or do you think that anyone who wants to make some money is greedy?

[sarah1]

Or do you think that anyone who wants to make some money is greedy?
Law student, you do!! you called us parasites because we want something in return for our garden. we have spent allot of time and money in that garden all for it just to be bulldozed away.

[lawstudent]

sarah1 - you have been enjoying your home and garden at below-market rent for nearly 30 years - and now you are hoping to extract money from your long-suffering landlord. Greed? Parasitism? Both words seem perfectly apt.

[Jennifer_M]

Lawstudent, I didn't call THIS particular LL greedy, I said LLs who won't sell their property because they can't bear to sell it at a discount due to the tenancy but still moan about not getting the rent they want or because they can't do just what they want are greedy !

I call it having the cookie and eating it !

And as Sarah pointed out to you, you were quite happy to call her greedy for using her rights to save herself money and hassle but the LL is just right for taking someone's 30 year old home to cash in on a bit of garden ?

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Regarding the below market rate she's paid, the LL obviously was quite happy with it to keep the property for 30 years and not complain !

[lawstudent]

If the landlord didn't complain I am impressed. Of course, it doesn't mean he was happy, but he was bearimg his chronic parasitic affliction with commendable stoicism.

[Jennifer_M]

My point is lawstudent that if he wasn't happy he could have sold altogether and mitigated his loss.

[Andy Parker]

Jennifer - the point is there shouldn't be a loss.The purpose of the Rent Act was NOT to subsidise the tenant indefinitely nor to transfer part of the asset value of the property to the tenant.Sarah is just exploiting a loophole in the law.There is really no difference between this and an AST tenant who wants money in order to leave.They are both attaching a value to possession (which was never intended by law).

[sarah1]

sarah1 - you have been enjoying your home and garden at below-market rent for nearly 30 years - and now you are hoping to extract money from your long-suffering landlord. Greed? Parasitism? Both words seem perfectly apt.
Law Student, how do you know he is a 'long suffering LL? we have never heard him complain!! and how do you know how much we pay?
I think until you know all the facts you cant comment
Like it was pointed out before, i put this post on to find out my rights and these i now know so is it really worth going around in circles, saying the same things you have said over & over .
I don't think so!!

[Andy Parker]

You have already admitted that you pay less than the LL's other tenants in a previous post!Good luck with your case (I would just move personally to save everyone's time and expense) as solicitors are often prone to saying what their clients want to hear in cases which are not clear-cut.This is my direct experience anyway.

[sarah1]

yes andy but the amount we pay is not that much different to his other tenants, no-where near half if thats what your thinking!
the way law student talks, you'd swear we were getting it rent free!!
And like i said, this matter is to be sorted without it going to court, but in a way, i would have liked it to get to court just to see what the outcome would have been.
You say you would 'just move' i'm sorry but until your in a situation like this you cannot say what you would do.
But we'll never know so its not worth going over & over about who's right or wrong

[Jennifer_M]

Jennifer - the point is there shouldn't be a loss.The purpose of the Rent Act was NOT to subsidise the tenant indefinitely nor to transfer part of the asset value of the property to the tenant.Sarah is just exploiting a loophole in the law.There is really no difference between this and an AST tenant who wants money in order to leave.They are both attaching a value to possession (which was never intended by law).

Of course there shouldn't be a loss but obviously the plan wasn't well thought through, can you blame the tenants for it ?
If LLs are unhappy they should go and talk to the government instead of insulting the people who pay them rent (as little or high as it is).

[lawstudent]

sarah1 - you say the amount you pay "is not that much different to his other tenants". Well then, why not, for the sake of goodwill, fairness and to prove you're not a parasite, round up what you pay to what they pay? It will hardly cost you anything and I am sure your landlord will be very appreciative.

[bobber]

Jennifer - the point is there shouldn't be a loss.The purpose of the Rent Act was NOT to subsidise the tenant indefinitely nor to transfer part of the asset value of the property to the tenant.Sarah is just exploiting a loophole in the law.There is really no difference between this and an AST tenant who wants money in order to leave.They are both attaching a value to possession (which was never intended by law).


If the property was purchased nearly 30 years ago I would be amazed if a loss occurred even with a sitting tenant. (you do know property valus have risen more than a little in the last 30 years?)

The tenant is not being subsidised, (nobody is having to make up a shortfall).

There is no transfer of the property value, the tenant and landlord both have an asset in the tenancy agreement. Assets increase and decrease in value. The tenants asset has increased in value due to the property market and is quite rightly entitled to realise that asset, just as property owners are entitled to realise their property assets.

[Andy Parker]

bobber - The rent subsidy is the difference between the open market rent and the lower rent that has been enforced.At £10 a week difference over 30 years this is well over £25k assuming a low interest rate throughout the period.The asset value loss is the difference between the market value if the property were vacant or had an AST tenant and its value with a sitting tenant.This is approximately 30 to 40 percent of the full market value.This substantial cost has been borne by the LL and the tenant still won't co-operate.I don't think encouragement like 'go for the compo', 'try for a share of the profit of any development' or 'moving is like death' is really appropriate (all davidjohnbutton).

[sarah1]

sarah1 - you say the amount you pay "is not that much different to his other tenants". Well then, why not, for the sake of goodwill, fairness and to prove you're not a parasite, round up what you pay to what they pay? It will hardly cost you anything and I am sure your landlord will be very appreciative.
Law Student, when you go into a shop do you offer them more than you should pay for the 'sake of goodwill' no i didnt think so!!
You do not know what improvements we have made to the property (at our own cost) and like ive said before, until you know all the circumstances i dont think you can comment.
it is clear that you are totally against rent act tenants and you are entitled to your opinion.
This thread is getting a bit boring now because so many things have been repeated and im sure others will agree with me!

[Paul_f]

Sarah. They're just winding you up and seeing how often you'll react. Calm down - it's only a commercial! That's why I've read what's going on but by and large declined to join the fray! :(

[jurdy1]

Rent act tenants can be moved, this has been proved by landlords/lawyers up and down the country that I am acquainted with. I will be applying to the courts for the same but am begrudgingly going to provide a flat of pretty much the same size but with their own garden, within a mile of where I live now in order to have a peaceful life. Oh yes I forgot to add, it's going to cost another £200,000 for a flat that I had to buy by default (it's a long story) with people in it who have caused my wife and I great amounts of distress over the last 5 years and show no graciousness/humility to their overly priveliged and personally subsidised living accomodation. So who's quids in here for £20 a week! why should the private sector subsidise spongers who hide behind the rent act. At the end of the day if sitting tenants had maybe assumed the same sort of life that 99.9% of the population have to IE gone out and got a mortgage then they would find themselves by now, some 30 years later, in their own bought and paid for accomodation.

My wife's grandmother lives in council accomodation in the East end of London and pays £90 a week. This point is the real reason why the law is an ass. And this is why I have no respect for rent act tenants that whinge.

[Jennifer_M]

I really can't understand people who insult others just because they exercise their own rights.
So what ? You haven't been as fortunate so they obviously are parasits and god knows what ?

I say and repeat: if you have been done by someone, it's the government and not the tenants ! The tenants didn't make the legislation !
Now they use their rights and good on them ! I don't see many LLs shouting and kicking for all the tenants who lose thousands of pounds of deposits because some LLs just like to keep the money !

I do feel for LLs who might be losing out but I don't agree with calling respectable tenants names because they defend what they have.

[sarah1]

Rent act tenants can be moved, this has been proved by landlords/lawyers up and down the country that I am acquainted with. I will be applying to the courts for the same but am begrudgingly going to provide a flat of pretty much the same size but with their own garden, within a mile of where I live now in order to have a peaceful life. Oh yes I forgot to add, it's going to cost another £200,000 for a flat that I had to buy by default (it's a long story) with people in it who have caused my wife and I great amounts of distress over the last 5 years and show no graciousness/humility to their overly priveliged and personally subsidised living accomodation. So who's quids in here for £20 a week! why should the private sector subsidise spongers who hide behind the rent act. At the end of the day if sitting tenants had maybe assumed the same sort of life that 99.9% of the population have to IE gone out and got a mortgage then they would find themselves by now, some 30 years later, in their own bought and paid for accomodation.

My wife's grandmother lives in council accomodation in the East end of London and pays £90 a week. This point is the real reason why the law is an ass. And this is why I have no respect for rent act tenants that whinge. who said they couldnt be moved?? if you read all the posts in this thread no one has said that!! so get your facts straight before you start typing your reply, and do not insult people who cannot afford to buy their own house. If everyone could afford to buy, LL's like yourself wouldnt be making a bomb on rent now would they!

[jurdy1]

mmm £ 20 quid a week from rent act tenants or £350 a week open market. Please try and rationalise where I am making a small fortune from. I buy a flat 30 years ago, and am offered a rent of £3.50 a week by tenants who just didn't move on and are protected by an outmoded system which eventually allows me to increase the rent to £20 a week whilst all the time maintaining my property at a cost of £50,000 over the above period. I then have to buy another flat for £200,000 (yes that's my money we're tallking about again)and allow my £20 a week tenants to move there without changing rent, status etc (and will probably not see the second flat vacated in my lifetime) in order to move back into the rest of my house and have a peaceful life.

Clearly I'm making a small fortune out of this.

Suggest you buy a calculator and use it prior to emotively responding and by the way I started with nothing so don't insult me with your sob story of not being able to afford it.

[lawstudent]

This thread has degenerated into an unedifying slanging match between frustrated landlords and whingeing tenants. Nobody is insulting anyone, sarah1, so don't be such a silly woman! People on both sides are fed up with the consequences of bad legislation - especially the landlord/tenant animosity it engenders - so it's hardly surprising that it generates more heat than light. Why not agree to disagree, call the thread a day and move on?

[Andy Parker]

sarah1 - If landlords are 'greedy' why didn't you buy?Rent and mortgage payments have always been similar amounts so please don't say you couldn't afford it.

[lawstudent]

Andy - why should sarah1 buy when
(a) she has a legal licence to sponge for the rest of her life, and
(b) she is too lazy and selfish to support herself?

[sarah1]

Why not agree to disagree, call the thread a day and move on?
Take your own advice law student!!

[davidjohnbutton]

Lawstudent - have the guts to post on here your proper full name and address so that Sarah can take legal action against you for libel.

Either put up, or shut up!!!

My money says you aint got the courage of your convictions to back your statement about Sarah up and I think your attack is a cowardly one!!!!

[Andy Parker]

davidjohnbutton - There is no such thing as libel on the internet.It is just hearsay.

[Jennifer_M]

Andy Parker, there is such thing as libel on the Internet ! Oh dear... Why don't you go spread rumours about a big company on the Internet and see if your lawyer can get you out of it.

And Lawstudent, you said "Nobody is insulting anyone" and you managed to insult Sarah no less than 4 times straight afterwards, it's just plain stupid.

Now, something comes to my mind: people who have rent act tenants are either 50 years old + or have inherited the properties right (or they've bought one recently and obviously knew what they were getting into and these people have no right to moan) ?
For the ones who have inherited the properties, they have nothing to moan about because the house didn't cost them anything and they are getting money every month for it (even if it's small amounts). Also there are big chances their tenants are going to die before them and when that happens they end up with a house for doing nothing ! So no moans here...
For the ones who actually bought the house and are 50+, I would guess that the value of the property 30 years ago was far less than it is now, so 1. the mortgage should cost about a few pounds a month and 2. they have made a huge amount of money with the house price rise. So all in all they've made a nice nice profit that they can hand down to their kids. Why moan here ??

So why complain ?? It is simply a matter of wanting more now and stamping your feet on the floor because you can't !

Now, if any LL comes saying that it cost them more to keep the house and it's unfair and all that rubbish, then sell the god d**n house and stop boring everybody !

Finally Lawstudent, regarding "she is too lazy and selfish to support herself", I think you should really think twice before saying stupid things: there are people out there who can't afford a mortgage !! And they work full time and they don't get benefit !
What do you think ? Someone who earns a respectable £15k a year can really buy a house with the £45k the bank will lend them ??? Get real !

This thread really is sick... Jealous people insulting others for using their rights.

[bobber]

davidjohnbutton - There is no such thing as libel on the internet.It is just hearsay.


Really!!! I think these people would be interested to know that.

http://www.media-solicitors.co.uk/internet-libel.htm

and probably the UK's most well known case (you seem to be the only one not aware of it)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm

[lawstudent]

Lawstudent - have the guts to post on here your proper full name and address so that Sarah can take legal action against you for libel.

Either put up, or shut up!!!

My money says you aint got the courage of your convictions to back your statement about Sarah up and I think your attack is a cowardly one!!!!
davidjohnbutton - i think your attack on me is a cowardly one, so what's your full name and address?

[lawstudent]

Jennifer - you say "Finally Lawstudent, regarding "she is too lazy and selfish to support herself", I think you should really think twice before saying stupid things: there are people out there who can't afford a mortgage !! And they work full time and they don't get benefit !"

I will think twice before saying stupid things if you think twice first, or even once.

sarah1 is clearly a hugely canny and articulate individual. She could get, and probably has, a perfectly good job with a healthy salary. Nobody was suggesting she should get a mortgage; but she may well have one, or even a few, already, having saved enough to be a LL herself.

Remember, this all started with her moaning that after 30 years subsidising her lifestyle, the person she described as her "greedy" LL was hoping to make some money at last by moving her to suitable alternative acommodation and selling a garden for development. Nobody was asking her to pay any more rent, but simply to think of her LL's interests as well as her own.

Finally, I suppose it's all right in your bigoted, feminist book for a Rent Act tenant to insult her LL, but not all right for anyone to insult her?

[Andy Parker]

davidjohnbutton - You are profoundly wrong.Take this to a solicitor he will laugh in your face (probably after taking the money)!Another great piece of advice (not)!

bobber - Your links only serve to prove my point.If you have broadband you have nothing to worry about.

[Jennifer_M]

sarah1 is clearly a hugely canny and articulate individual. She could get, and probably has, a perfectly good job with a healthy salary. Nobody was suggesting she should get a mortgage; but she may well have one, or even a few, already, having saved enough to be a LL herself.
Sorry but these are your assumptions and not facts. Unless you know Sarah personnally ? I doubt it...
What if I assumed you are an 80 years old bitter landlady ? Does it make it true ?


Remember, this all started with her moaning that after 30 years subsidising her lifestyle,
As I understand it, she's been paying the rent she has to pay. Like any other tenant. The amount isn't chosen by her now is it ?


the person she described as her "greedy" LL was hoping to make some money at last by moving her to suitable alternative acommodation and selling a garden for development. Nobody was asking her to pay any more rent, but simply to think of her LL's interests as well as her own.
Why should she ? Does the LL think about her interests ? Does he mind taking someone's 30 years old home (is it so hard for you to understand the effects of moving on people ? the most stressful thing in someone's life apparently ? especially after 30 years !) to make a few quids ?


Finally, I suppose it's all right in your bigoted, feminist book for a Rent Act tenant to insult her LL, but not all right for anyone to insult her?
Feminist ? Do you think my opinion would have been any different if Sarah was called Robert ?
In that logic I should think that her husband should move really but not her because she's a woman ? Absurd.
And when it comes to bigotery you'll have to excuse me but I'm not the one who goes and insult people who differ from my opinion ! You should take some of you own medecine.

And I never said Sarah was right in insulting her landlord. Insulting people doesn't solve anything and I'm all for being as polite as one can be.
In any case what Sarah said doesn't give YOU the right to insult her. Two wrong don't do a right.

[davidjohnbutton]

Lawstudent - grow up!!!!!

[sarah1]

Remember, this all started with her moaning that after 30 years subsidising her lifestyle
Law Student, i was not "moaning" in my first post, if you read it properly you will see that.
I was just asking "if" the landlord could get a court order under the circumstances!!
If i was given advice that he could (and he would win) then end of story, we would have been happy to accept that and move.
But it is clear that this is not the case in these circumstances.
So stop twisting everything, its getting boring now.

[Andy Parker]

lawstudent is right here.Sarah could easily have bought her own property in the last 30 years at little or no extra cost and lived independentlly instead of taking advantage of the tenancy she had at her LL's expense.This would have of course have entailed her taking on the additional responsibilities of home onership instead of expecting her LL to provide for her.I was in a similar tenancy but decided that I preferred independence.I do object to the attitude of many tenants that their LL's are 'fair game' and should be exploited to the hilt.It is a pity some contributors support this (notably davidjohnbutton in his own rather rabid idiom).

[bobber]

bobber - Your links only serve to prove my point.If you have broadband you have nothing to worry about.

I really dont see how either of those links prove that "There is no such thing as libel on the internet.It is just hearsay."

[davidjohnbutton]

Rabid idiom????? Andy Parker

quote" idiom
noun
1 [C] a group of words in a fixed order that have a particular meaning that is different from the meanings of each word understood on its own:
To "have bitten off more than you can chew" is an idiom that means you have tried to do something which is too difficult for you." unquote

Let us end this thread now - it is developing into a slanging match. Whatever posters like Lawstudent or Parker think - the law backs Sarah up. She is making the same use of the law as those who sought to buy their (heavily discounted) council house off the council - unfair to the other Ratepayers perhaps who effectively subsidise it?? Nevertheless, it is law. We have seen pros and cons on both sides of the argument but whatever the views - I do not feel that Sarah should be vilified for the simple "crime" of asking what her rights were and using them to defend her home - maybe her landlord's house, but her HOME - we went to war sixty odd years ago for these rights remember!!!!!

[Andy Parker]

bobber - You cannot be libelled anonymously.As 'sarah1' is a pseudonym how can you libel it? (sorry I was joking about hearsay to lighten the unpleasant tone of the thread).

[sarah1]

Right, before this thread comes to a close i would just like to say a few things.
Firstly, I live with my dad, he is the "rent act tenant" not me, when i first put the post on i didnt think it would get out of hand like this, just needed a bit of advice on the matter, so to make things easier i wrote it like "I" was the tenant.
He has worked hard all his life but has never been able to afford a mortgage on his own.
Yes i agree when you say that after 30yrs the house could have been our own, and i will be moving out soon and buying a house with my boyfriend because i do not want to make the same mistake.
Rent is money down the drain if you ask me, i have often asked my dad why he didnt buy years ago and he has the same reply "i couldnt afford it"
But i will not sit back and watch my dad lose his home without trying my best to help him.
He just has the benefit of being a protected tenant (the laws choice not his!)

Sorry that this thread has caused conflict, but if everyone agreed on everything what a boring world it would be.

[Andy Parker]

davidjohnbutton - Get yourself a better dictionary,stop threatening other posters and keep your unpleasant prejudices to yourself.Oh and chill out!

[Jennifer_M]

bobber - You cannot be libelled anonymously.As 'sarah1' is a pseudonym how can you libel it? (sorry I was joking about hearsay to lighten the unpleasant tone of the thread).

Because you think when you post something on a forum you are anonymous ???
If someone wanted to sue you he could legally force the forum admin to give your email address or any information he has, get your IP traced, get your ISP to give the same information and surprise surprise you're in court !

[Andy Parker]

Jennifer_M - Mon dieu!You're a regular Miss Marple.Are you working undercover for the police?I might as well give up now.Seriously I don't think you can enter a forum as 'Donald Duck' and then claim damages because 'Donald Duck' has been libelled.This might be bad news for 'Donald Duck' but how can it damage you in real-life if no-one knows that you are 'Donald Duck'?

[Jennifer_M]

davidjohnbutton - There is no such thing as libel on the internet.It is just hearsay.

That's what you said, and you are wrong !

[lawstudent]

Because you think when you post something on a forum you are anonymous ???
If someone wanted to sue you he could legally force the forum admin to give your email address or any information he has, get your IP traced, get your ISP to give the same information and surprise surprise you're in court !

Jennifer, this is one of the silliest posts I have seen in what has become an increasingly silly thread.

Please let us know how he could

(a) "legally force" the forum admin to provide information
(b) get your IP traced (and what good it would do anyway since it changes each time you connect)
(c) discover who your ISP is, or get them to provide any information

yes it would be "surprise surprise" to be in court!

[Jennifer_M]

Jennifer, this is one of the silliest posts I have seen in what has become an increasingly silly thread.

Please let us know how he could

(a) "legally force" the forum admin to provide information
(b) get your IP traced (and what good it would do anyway since it changes each time you connect)
(c) discover who your ISP is, or get them to provide any information

yes it would be "surprise surprise" to be in court!

Lawstudent, call it stupid if you want but your post only proves how little knowledge you have of the Internet.

(a) Get a court order that forces the admin to give them the information they have ? http://www.pcmag.co.uk/news/1150805
(b) It might change everytime you disconnect but ISPs keep records of where the IP was allocated at any time. So you can disconnect on purpose but your ISP knows that at 10am this morning the IP no xxx.xxx.xx.xx was allocated to you.
And everytime you go on a website or send an email, your IP gets logged !
(c) With the IP address, you know who the ISP his, and then refer to (a)

Anyway the link I provided above just explains to you how the "anonymous" worl of the Internet isn't that anonymous.
I just love when you call people silly lawstudent.

[bobber]

Jennifer, this is one of the silliest posts I have seen in what has become an increasingly silly thread.

Please let us know how he could

(a) "legally force" the forum admin to provide information
(b) get your IP traced (and what good it would do anyway since it changes each time you connect)
(c) discover who your ISP is, or get them to provide any information

yes it would be "surprise surprise" to be in court!


(a) see link below
Anonymity no protection for online libellers

Internet libeller hunted down, identified and forced to pay damages in second libel case involving Motley Fool message board…

http://www.mablaw.co.uk/news/article.asp?articleid=2559&num=

(b) changes each time if is dynamic not if its static, but makes no difference anyway as the IP is connected to your ISP

(C) see above.

[Andy Parker]

lawstudent - Watch out Jennifer and davidjohnbutton are coming to git yer!

Jennifer_M - I was being hilarious when I mentioned 'hearsay'.You even copied this into your post!The internet is completely anonymous - I could be Adolf Hitler using a proxy server in Argentina mein herren!

[Andy Parker]

bobber,Jennifer_M - In case you missed the point- if you use a proxy server your IP address is not logged.Regards Shergar.

[bobber]

bobber,Jennifer_M - In case you missed the point- if you use a proxy server your IP address is not logged.Regards Shergar.

No you are missing the point, how on earth does that relate to "There is no such thing as libel on the internet" I have provided links to prove that there most certainly is.

Back to this proxy server, how many people do you think use a proxy server?
But even someone did some proxies have a header (the IP forwarded environment variable) which sometimes contains the originating IP that requested the proxy service (in this case, your IP).

But even then if they do mask your IP, the Authorities can certainly still get access to their logs AS WELL which would reveal the original IP.

Be careful your backpeddling so fast you might be breaking the speed limit!!

[P.Pilcher]

Oh dear - what a mess this thread has become! BTL landlords and property speculators should familiarise themselves with the law before investing in properties containing rent act tenants. They have only themselves to blame if they fail to research their property investments properly and get stung as a result. The position that Sarah1's dad and many others find themselves was born of a previous political ideology. Many of these people are now on fixed, retirement incomes and to impose on them current market rents would be an utter injustice which is why our current property laws are (correctly in my view) not retrospective.

Despite, quite rightly, being angered by some of the responses that have been posted here, I do hope that Sarah1 will be kind enough to post the eventual outcome of the situation her father is in with his landlord which some of us have tried to help her/him with and which has given rise to much interesting legal comment.

P.P.

[Andy Parker]

PPilcher - Sarah1 has been so open and honest that you don't even know his/her gender so why do you expect him/her to provide you with an honest account of what happens?

bobber - The 'hearsay' thing was a joke to distract attention from DJB who seemed to be blowing a gasket at the time.This is the third time I have written this.What don't you understand?Are you thick?It is easy to mask IP there are many services on offer.They are becoming popular as surfers realise they must protect themselves from all the hackers,spammers and criminals on the net.If you assert these are traceable you might be exercising in a little libel yourself!None of this relates to the point I was originally making which seems to have zoomed over your head viz that it is not possible to libel a fictitious,anonymous internet persona!Regards Barry Sheene.

[sarah1]

Andy what p pilcher means is me or my dad!!! if you read a few posts up you will see what he's on about. And all what ive said is the truth, why would i lie about something like this.
I couldnt have made it up if i'd have tried!!

[bobber]

bobber - The 'hearsay' thing was a joke to distract attention from DJB who seemed to be blowing a gasket at the time.This is the third time I have written this.What don't you understand?

Thats why I didnt quote "hearsay


Are you thick?

A high level of intelligence is not required in this instance.




It is easy to mask IP there are many services on offer.They are becoming popular as surfers realise they must protect themselves from all the hackers,spammers and criminals on the net.If you assert these are traceable you might be exercising in a little libel yourself!".

But I thought you said internet libel didnt exist!!
How will blocking your IP prevent spam?



None of this relates to the point I was originally making which seems to have zoomed over your head viz that it is not possible to libel a fictitious,anonymous internet persona!Regards Barry Sheene.

It certainly has zoomed over my head straight into the fiction folder.


Try this (http://www.yourrights.org.uk)


Identification

A claimant must prove that the defamatory statement refers to him or her. In most cases this can be done without difficulty, as the claimant will be named. However, a claimant who has not been referred to by name must prove that the words complained of were understood by some readers as referring to him or her.

The claimant can rely on the fact that he or she was referred to by a nickname or initials or that he or she was a member of a class or group of people included in the defamatory statement.

The fact that a publisher did not intend to refer to the claimant is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person has been defamed. A person whose name is the same or similar to that of a fictitious character can sue for defamation if the words complained of would be understood to refer to the claimant by reasonable people who knew him or her.

Similarly, a member of a group or class of people can sue in relation to a defamatory allegation referring to the group as a whole, if the group is sufficiently small that the allegation would be understood to refer to him or her personally.


Have a nice day.

[Andy Parker]

bobber - Ok so you are incapable of understanding the word 'joke'.The stuff you have posted proves my point - unless you can be recognised by the readers you cannot make a claim for libel Mr Bobber (if that's your real name).Have a good day yourself.

[lawstudent]

Should sarah1 be quaking in her boots? If her father's landlord (assuming he exists) is able to work out who sarah1 is (assuming she exists) and if it could be demonstrated that other readers of this forum would be able to recognise who the landlord must be, beyond reasonable doubt, could the fact that she referred to him as "greedy" be actionable for libel?

[bobber]

The stuff you have posted proves my point

How is anybody supposed to know what your point is when you dont even seem to know, it changes with every message!!


Your links only serve to prove my point.If you have broadband you have nothing to worry about.

In case you missed the point- if you use a proxy server your IP address is not logged.Regards Shergar.

None of this relates to the point I was originally making which seems to have zoomed over your head viz that it is not possible to libel a fictitious,anonymous internet persona!Regards Barry Sheene

The stuff you have posted proves my point - unless you can be recognised by the readers you cannot make a claim for libel Mr Bobber (if that's your real name).Have a good day yourself.

[Andy Parker]

bobber - I am sorry to have confused you.It helps to read the postings in full in their correct order without skipping any of them.Here's a clue - the joking ends where I have posted 'sorry I was joking'.

lawstudent - The LL would be greedy if he claimed damages!

[dazalock]

Lawstudent, call it stupid if you want but your post only proves how little knowledge you have of the Internet.

(a) Get a court order that forces the admin to give them the information they have ? http://www.pcmag.co.uk/news/1150805
(b) It might change everytime you disconnect but ISPs keep records of where the IP was allocated at any time. So you can disconnect on purpose but your ISP knows that at 10am this morning the IP no xxx.xxx.xx.xx was allocated to you.
And everytime you go on a website or send an email, your IP gets logged !
(c) With the IP address, you know who the ISP his, and then refer to (a)

Anyway the link I provided above just explains to you how the "anonymous" worl of the Internet isn't that anonymous.
I just love when you call people silly lawstudent.


Couldnt resist this one, for once I can talk with some authorityon the subject as I am a network Consultant and part time LL, although Im not getting into the in and outs of the argument so far.

An Ip address is assigned in 2 ways, dynamically, which means is COULD change on your next connection or it may be leased to you over a period of time, say 2 months, or statically, which means you get it when ever you connect (this one is traceable and that where I will leave it).

Dynamic IP's however:

1. The ISP has a range of IP assigned to it, you connect to the ISP and he will lease you a IP. He will register your MAC address which is burned into your network card / modem. However, this information will be lost if you do not reconnect and loose your lease after a set period of time. The IP will be given to someone else. There is no database to say who owns a particular MAC address.

2. The site admin could record IP address's from Posters but who is to say that poster is not using a Internet Cafe, various Free ISP's or from abroad.

3. A posters e-mail address is only traceable if the poster has used a traceable domain, where the domain is owned by himself or someone that administers the usage of e-mail addresses from it. A hotmail account or likewise is not traceable. This is why some sites dont allow Free mail account registrants.

4. If you really want to post something nasty on a forum about, say, Paul_f or lawstudent, and you were careful not to use a static IP, traceable e-mail account, Im afraid you could. NOT that I would, not me guv :D

[lucid]

This is all getting very off thread...

very interesting dazalock but i may ask the question... traceable by whom...

Remember all communications including internet traffic passes through establishments such as menwith hill among others and is monitored to a much higher degree there than you mention in your post. The NSA and US & UK security services etc so the police and others can do traces where other civil bodies may not be able to.

[dazalock]

it is getting off thread, but as I said this is about the only thing I can say here with some air of confidence.

A packet of information on the internet needs to get from A to B, this needs to be routed and can take absolutely any route so long as that route is "costed" as being the best. It could go via timbucktu if thats the quickest route. IF the recieving server doesnt respond to the sending device during a time out, it will simply send again. This is the nature of the internet, packets flying around in an unordered way through which ever route is quickest, and getting put back together at the other end. So you see, to make a log of all these packets, which are largely "administrative" packets is near impossible. That is not to say that packets eminating from a particular location are not looked at with particular interest, much like a phone tap, or packets containing partiuclar strings (like Viruses) or words cannot be picked up, but, you would have to setup a trace before the forum poster posts his post and know what your waiting for.

[lucid]

That may be so, but systems that are used monitor all traffic using software that identifies key words and phrases, in addition to how you mentioned. The hardware and software is not commercially available and are quite a few years ahead of what is around now. Although this may not be relevant to libel on a forum I just meant to say that if certain people wanted to find you believe me they could.

A friend of mine once told me a little story about a colleague who was a mathematical genius and programmer. in his spare time he wrote a very advanced encryption program which he was sure could not be cracked. After emailing it to himself via a university server it wasn't long before he got a personal visit from the authorities....unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view big brother is here now..

[Jennifer_M]

Well I would have thought professional hackers and virus creators would know these little trics... It doesn't stop them being arrested at some point.

Same for pedophiles on the internet.

Of course this is getting a bit far from libelious forum postings but I tend to agree with lucid on the point that if justice really REALLY wants to get you, they'll find you.

Not forgetting that probably 95% of Internet users still wonder what an Antivirus is, let alone proxy, dynamic IPs, etc. :rolleyes:

[dazalock]

The question was if a anonymous poster on a forum like this one would be traceable through a IP address.

1. Hackers perform their action by making a sustained connection to a site that is logging such activity. They use connections that usually eminates from their own properties and often return the scene of the crime to continue the activity.

2. Virus writers are few and far between, usually a "new" virus is just copied code of a well written virus. A Virus Author will usually be caught because they like to take credit for their work, or, the pay load of the code is written to return information to the source.

3. Paedo's (may they burn in hell), are caught by either having their PC's impounded after going to PC's R Us and getting caught red-handed, or by paying for their filth with credit cards or by visiting a site that has been set up to trap them.

[MCRockstarr]

Wot's a rent act tenancy ?

[MCRockstarr]

..... joke!

[lawstudent]

dazalock - that was all very complicated and I am a simple student - getting back to the original topic, please say, in summary, if it is safe to call someone a stupid greedy selfish parasitic clot :p

[jeffrey]

Wow. What a varied and intricate thread. At least it ground to a halt before I signed-up to LandlordZONE!
But it does contain an error some way back. The Rent Act 1977 has NOT been repealed.
Residential lettings on or after 15 January 1989 are mostly within the Housing Act 1988.
There are some transitional provisions, and the 1977 Act continues to operate for pre-150189 tenants (in most cases).

[cillitbanger]

LOL jeff, would've been nice to know what the outcome was though eh?:D

[jai]

I found this thread very useful until it decended into chaos!

My mum, brother and I are in the same position of being regulated tenants and our current landlords (Bradford Property Trust) have just put our house up for sale at auction and I am concerned that some shark out there will buy it and try to force us out. However after having looked at the legislation and the helpful posters on here, my mind is more at ease. My mum is only 49 and theres no way we would be able to afford to buy the house, so hopefully we can be here for a long time...

We are going to go to the auction and openly state that we are the tenants so potential purchasers see my mum is still young and they wont be able to force us out. We already have had someone send us a letter saying they will offer "Many tens of thousands of pounds" to get us out. That got me worried but hopefully we will be able to stay.

Any thoughts?

Regards

Jai

[jeffrey]

jai:
Is it a house or a flat?
If flat, LTA 1987 may apply.

[jai]

No its a house Jeffrey.

Regards

[jeffrey]

No its a house Jeffrey.

Regards

Relax, anyway. Rent Act tenants have just about the most security of tenure known to English law.

[jai]

I know, im just slightly concerned that there might be an unscrupulous landlord out there. I know there are a few (not many) that will behave in the most underhand ways!

[jeffrey]

I know, im just slightly concerned that there might be an unscrupulous landlord out there. Being one myself I know there are a few (not many) that will behave in the most underhand ways!

...although you should not necessarily reject it if new L offers buckets of money for you to vacate.
Perhaps L can itself provide suitable alternative accommodation. Any new letting thereof (between same L and T as for old house) WILL be within Rent Act 1977- even now!- because s. 34(1)(b) of Housing Act 1988 says so. This is true even if new Agreement claims that it is an AST; it isn't, unless old letting was a protected shorthold (Housing Act 1980 amendment of Rent Act 1977) rather than fully protected (unamended Rent Act 1977).

[jai]

Thing is, the house is in a beautiful location with excellent transport links and amenities and we have lived here all our lives. We do want want to move as it would mean massive upheaval!

I didnt realise that if L offered suitable accomodation it would still come under Rent Act. Thanks for that Jeffrey, very interesting.

Regards

[attilathelandlord]

You might want to revise your post Jai, it sounds like you are admitting to being an unscrupulous landlord!!!!

[jai]

lol thanks for that attila!!

[attilathelandlord]

We don't want them to know we're unscrupulous now do we?!!!

[jai]

Update- Went to the auction today. Few bidders, the house went to a property company and we met the director. My first impression was that she was really nice and we explained we wanted to stay in the property for the rest of our lives. She said not to worry and they have a good management department to look after us. We shall see! Relieved though.

Thanks to all for your input!

Regards

Jai

[attilathelandlord]

Let's hope they don't make sure that the rest of your lives doesn't turn out to be fairly short!!!! Chortle!

[sarah1]

Hi everyone,
It has been a very long time since i last posted, but i came across this site again today and thought i would post an update, sorry it's taken so long!!
Well, the outcome of our situation goes like this..... The property developer, who was originally going to buy the garden off the landlord, could not get planning permission. He tried several times and the coucil declined everytime! So, he did not end up buying the garden and my dad is still living in the same property with All of his garden!! I just wish they had tried for the planning before they put us through all the stress! Whether they will try again in the future is another question, but things have settled for now. The case did not get to the courts but it would probably have been a very different story if the planning permission had been granted. Thank you to everyone who offered me and my dad advice, it was very much appreciated :-)

[nstark15@hotmail.com]

Hi Sarah1,

I have read all 15 pages of this forum and am dissapointed in the way people are to each other on a site that is meant to help people and give them advise rather than critisize.

I am a landlord, I have a sitting tenant, it has down valued the property by £300k and I cannot sell, I dont earn anything out of it in rent really they have 6 acres of land.

I cannot get them out as they are protected, have offered them other occomodation but wont take it.

I have lost £400k in property at present. How do I feel about the tenant. I am annoyed that they wont move out. However they are nice people.

The law is the only thing that can be blamed here. The systems did not work on behalf og the landlord then. Annd even on a Standard AST when evicting the courts seem to side with tenants rather than landlords otherwise they know they will need government help so they deem the cost should be covered by the landlord which ofcourse he must be loaded if he owns a property, no mortgage, life of riley. This is not always the case.

I am just saying that I cannot blame an elderly person for trying to hang on to their home. I therefore pose the question to others that make comments, if there landlord came round one night and said. I want you to leave so I can sell tonight and you had no were to go, would you sleep on the streets, or would you excercise your rights. If you argue that someone should not take advantage of the law, then there would be no law.

on a seperate note sarah1, being a developer, why could they not build on the land. the reason for decline should be posted online. If it is say for instane a protected historical site or wildlife site they MAY never get planning. Let me know the answer to this one and I may be able to put your minds are rest in the future.

[Lawcruncher]

I have read all 15 pages of this forum, etc.

If you acquired the property with the tenants in it, it seems to me that there are two main possibilties:

1. You bought the property. In that case the situation will (or ought to) have been investigated and you will have paid a price accordingly.

2. The property has been left or given to you.

In either case, although the property may indeed be worth more without the tenants, you have not lost anything, have you?

If you acquired the property with vacant possession and put the tenants in under a tenancy that gave them security of tenure, who is is to blame?

[nstark15@hotmail.com]

Who said I purchased the property with the tenants in it.

and you may say that I have not lost, but I also have not gained.

and in theory it is money that i have lost. if you by your main resididence 10 years ago for lets assume £100k, now its worth £200k. if you want to sell for a similar house, you will be paying around £200k.

I cannot sell this property and if for any reason I had to sell, I would not be able to replace like for like as with sitting tenants the value is down.

so the loss will only come when i sell and am aware of this, but you should never assume.

Anyway, I am not after advise or crititasym on my situation. I do not think my post was angry or frustrated. I am aware of my situation and will cope with consequences like most landlords.

[Mars Mug]

You have not explained how you got into the situation, but simply complained about it and suggested that you have lost out financially. Without an explanation of how this came about it’s not easy to judge if you are a victim of the system, or just maybe naïve.

[nstark15@hotmail.com]

you are missing my point. I have not come on to winge about it or ask for any helop on my situation. I am just putting some points across to Sarah1 to try and see if I can help with my opinion.

What does everyone on the forum assume that cause I try and help someone I need to tell everyone my situation. I will give my situation if I feel iI need to put certainy would not do it on this forum that people seem to be acting in a way against each other that goes against everything a help forum is meant to stand for.

[Mars Mug]

I didn’t suggest that you were winging or asking for help, but you did ask for opinions or comments.

I was commenting on your post #145 and your opinion that “The law is the only thing that can be blamed here.” But to assess whether your opinion could be valid we would need to know the background to how you came to be in the situation you described as Lawcruncher questioned.

It may help if you dropped the argument that everyone on the forum is angry and unhelpful, unless you want to alienate everyone. Also try to recognise the fact that sometimes people are difficult to help which can be frustrating to some, especially when good free advice is repeatedly ignored.

[nstark15@hotmail.com]

I Agree that there are a lot of helpful people on the forum and consider myself one.

I have read my post again and I do not ask for opinions, I posed a question at people if they were in the situation not my situation.