In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:
This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially
where accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay
the last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

Yes. Unlike IMM, I don't know many who rent out properties, but have a
good friend who does - and it's now his only source of income. He selects
his tenants with care, and very rarely has money problems with them.

Of course, if you're renting out some rat hole, there's a good chance
you'll get rats as tenants.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:32:23 GMT, Velvet wrote:



Quite possible I've not picked up on the types of boiler being talked
about here. Mine's a non-modulating (though the one before it was
indeed a modulating one). Don't have the foggiest if it's a condensing
one - I doubt it (since they seem to be more expensive?).

Probably not. They are a bit more expensive (£150 or so in a given
model bracket) but the return on investment realises quite rapidly.
An older type of boiler typically manages 65% seasonal efficiency, a
newer conventional one around 78% (that's the minimum allowed now) and
a condensing one around 91%.
I replaced an oloder model with a condensing model and achieve 25-30%
fuel savings.




FWIW, the old boiler (the modulating one) managed to heat the bathroom
just as well. It's hard to say if this is actually from the case, or
the fact that I have pipework running from the boiler down to the floor
that 'you could hang fairy lights on, love' - it's not boxed in so
there's a fair bit of heat radiating off those if the heating's on.

During the heating season it reasonably should. Outside that, if the
burner is modulating down properly the temperature should drop as low
as 40 degrees except when recovering the hot water cylinder.



This thing about the boiler constantly staying warm/up to temp - are we
talking about something that would apply to a system with a HW tank? I
don't have one of those, and thinking about it I can see that perhaps it
might make sense if there's a HW tank in the equation - though when
thinking about that in the context of my other half's house, when the HW
tank is warm (presumably it would be kept warm permanently by the
boiler?) the airing cupboard *and* the rooms surrounding it are warm
too, courtesy of unlagged pipes running under the floor from teh boiler
to the airing cupboard.

If you have a modulating boiler connected in this way, the way that it
should work is that when the hot water cylinder requires heat, the
motorised valve should move appropriately and the boiler to full
power. The notion is that you want this job to happen quickly
because a) you might want more hot water and b) in the winter you want
the boiler to return to heating the house.

With a decent fast recovery cylinder, the recovery time should be a
few minutes so in the summer the period that the boiler pipes are hot
to 80 degrees quite short. One can always lag them as well In any
case the hot water carrying pipes should be for some distance from the
cylinder.. The cylinder in any case should be well insulated.


I've been paying attention to this thread but it's rambled a lot and I
really don't seem to have managed to gather the exact details of it all.
I'd be grateful for anyone that could post a quick summary of the
boiler and system layout this idea would and wouldn't be suitable for
cos at some point I *will* own my own place, and chances are I *will*
replace the boiler/CH/HW system in it :-)

Let me try to summarise.

- The Building Regulations (the statutory instrument) require that
reasonable provision is made to conserve energy when a heating system
is fitted in a new house or a replacement in an existing one.

- The Approve Documents give guidance on how this *can* be achieved.
They are not of themselves legally binding, but only recommendations -
that is clear in the text.

- In other words you *can* do what is mentioned such as fitting a room
thermostat to lock out the boiler, but it is not an absolute
requirement. However, if you have a simple on/off 80 degree
conventional boiler, this may well be an effective way to save some
additional energy where TRVs are used.
It is very unclear how much that would actually be because the room
thermostat has to be set high enough to make sure that rooms with TRVs
all get a heat supply for as long as is needed.

- If you fit a modulating, condensing boiler, apart from the inherent
savings, it will tend to operate continuously at the required heat
output rather than turning on and off. In the winter you want this
and during the spring and autumn the power level simply drops as does
the water temperature. In warmer weather, the heat required gets less
and less and the boiler will respond to this by coming on at its
lowest power level for ever shorter periods. In even warmer
conditions this becomes very small indeed.

My point was therefore that the value of having a room thermostat just
to lock out the boiler, becomes something that covers what is a corner
case with this type of setup and the energy saved is down at or below
the level that the pump is using.

Therefore to say that one needs to slavishly follow what it says in
the Approved Documents is not true (because they don't require that)
and some of the measures, like the room stat, become a lot less
important with newer boiler technology because the equivalent effect,
together with greater energy saving anyway can be achieved by using
that newer technology. People seem to get confused by that and view
the Approved Documents as being Gospel.

The Approved Document does allow for alternatives but proposes
solutions assuming a minimum standard of boiler. My feeling is that
this has been done because of the conservative nature of the heating
and plumbing fitting industry, it was probably the maximum that the
advisors to the legislators thought that they could get away with. Of
course the other interested parties such as the controls industry
would not have any objection either.

I think that it must also be realised that there is a political game
here. The government has been pushing part L1, not for altruistic
reasons but because it needs to be seen to doing something to meet the
requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

Having an engineering background, I tend to look at issues such as
energy saving with a big picture view first and then to see which
aspects are the most important in terms of return on investment,
comfort, convenience etc. and to deal with those first, leaving other
issues until later.

The government could have easily raised the barrier on boiler
efficiency before now. Good quality condensing boilers have been in
use elsewhere in Europe for 15 years at least, whereas the UK
manufacturers did a very poor design, manufacture and marketing job
with their first generation products, leading to a bad reputation in
the trade.

This has paved the way for major German manufacturers such as Vaillant
to enter the market themselves and by acquisition. The UK products
have started to improve and there are smaller manufacturers such as
Keston making excellent products at competitive prices.

The game is likely to change again in 2005. Current government
thinking is to raise the seasonal efficiency barrier to 86%. This
would essentially take conventional technology boilers off the market
and mandate condensing products plus one or two other emerging
technologies.

It would have been a much better move to have done this before and
knock respectable sums from people's energy bills as well as reducing
pollutant emissions rather than titting around with controls that make
a lot less difference.











Velvet

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Dave Plowman
writes
In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:
This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially
where accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay
the last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

Yes. Unlike IMM, I don't know many who rent out properties, but have a
good friend who does - and it's now his only source of income. He selects
his tenants with care, and very rarely has money problems with them.

Of course, if you're renting out some rat hole, there's a good chance
you'll get rats as tenants.

Watch tonights 'Tenants from Hell 2003' on now - ITV
--
Andrew

Andrew wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman
writes

In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially
where accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay
the last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

Yes. Unlike IMM, I don't know many who rent out properties, but have a
good friend who does - and it's now his only source of income. He selects
his tenants with care, and very rarely has money problems with them.

Of course, if you're renting out some rat hole, there's a good chance
you'll get rats as tenants.


Watch tonights 'Tenants from Hell 2003' on now - ITV

I wish they'd do a 'landlords from hell' too. Not all tenants are bad.
Not even most tenants are bad. Not many good tenants stay good
tenants for long when faced with a bad landlord who treats them as a bad
tenant though.

I used to do small amounts of maintenance work to the flat I rent. Then
the landlord changed, and the new one hiked the rent by nearly 40%. I
suffered no hot water for several months, followed by no oven for
several months - both of which were clearly their responsibility to get
sorted.

As a result, I'm not prepared to put in my time, money, and effort into
those bits of maintenance I used to do. They want going rates, they get
to do all the maintenance they should. And they're liers to boot. They
lied to me about the boiler, they lied about the oven. And they lied
about the reason given for putting the rent up.

Landlords should think a bit more about the fact that if they treat
tenants badly, of course their tenants won't feel in the least bit
inclinded to cut them any slack, let alone help them along. I don't
condone what really terrible tenants do, but I can fully understand how
they might reach that point after having experienced bad treatment from
a landlord.

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Velvet

"Velvet" wrote in message
...
Andrew wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman
writes

In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist
just
like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially
where accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay
the last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

Yes. Unlike IMM, I don't know many who rent out properties, but have a
good friend who does - and it's now his only source of income. He
selects
his tenants with care, and very rarely has money problems with them.

Of course, if you're renting out some rat hole, there's a good chance
you'll get rats as tenants.


Watch tonights 'Tenants from Hell 2003' on now - ITV

I wish they'd do a 'landlords from hell' too. Not all tenants are bad.
Not even most tenants are bad. Not many good tenants stay good
tenants for long when faced with a bad landlord who treats them as a bad
tenant though.

I used to do small amounts of maintenance work to the flat I rent. Then
the landlord changed, and the new one hiked the rent by nearly 40%. I
suffered no hot water for several months, followed by no oven for
several months - both of which were clearly their responsibility to get
sorted.

As a result, I'm not prepared to put in my time, money, and effort into
those bits of maintenance I used to do. They want going rates, they get
to do all the maintenance they should. And they're liers to boot. They
lied to me about the boiler, they lied about the oven. And they lied
about the reason given for putting the rent up.

Landlords should think a bit more about the fact that if they treat
tenants badly, of course their tenants won't feel in the least bit
inclinded to cut them any slack, let alone help them along. I don't
condone what really terrible tenants do, but I can fully understand how
they might reach that point after having experienced bad treatment from
a landlord.

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a joke
at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time, you
can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said it
was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will go
in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow you
to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot enter,
even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI inspection,
but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time to
get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living purposes,
until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you can
still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change the
locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

IMM wrote:

"Velvet" wrote in message
...

Andrew wrote:


In article , Dave Plowman
writes


In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:


This is simply not the case in my experience. Bad tenants do exist

just

like other kinds of bad people, they are a small minority especially
where accomodation of any kind is at a premium.

Most tenancy agreements explicitly state that using the deposit to pay
the last month's rent is forbidden and people abide by that agreement.

Yes. Unlike IMM, I don't know many who rent out properties, but have a
good friend who does - and it's now his only source of income. He

selects

his tenants with care, and very rarely has money problems with them.

Of course, if you're renting out some rat hole, there's a good chance
you'll get rats as tenants.


Watch tonights 'Tenants from Hell 2003' on now - ITV

I wish they'd do a 'landlords from hell' too. Not all tenants are bad.
Not even most tenants are bad. Not many good tenants stay good
tenants for long when faced with a bad landlord who treats them as a bad
tenant though.

I used to do small amounts of maintenance work to the flat I rent. Then
the landlord changed, and the new one hiked the rent by nearly 40%. I
suffered no hot water for several months, followed by no oven for
several months - both of which were clearly their responsibility to get
sorted.

As a result, I'm not prepared to put in my time, money, and effort into
those bits of maintenance I used to do. They want going rates, they get
to do all the maintenance they should. And they're liers to boot. They
lied to me about the boiler, they lied about the oven. And they lied
about the reason given for putting the rent up.

Landlords should think a bit more about the fact that if they treat
tenants badly, of course their tenants won't feel in the least bit
inclinded to cut them any slack, let alone help them along. I don't
condone what really terrible tenants do, but I can fully understand how
they might reach that point after having experienced bad treatment from
a landlord.

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.


The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a joke
at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time, you
can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said it
was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will go
in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow you
to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot enter,
even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI inspection,
but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time to
get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living purposes,
until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you can
still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change the
locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003




I'm well aware of all of the above, but in the interests of not making
life hard for myself at tenancy renewal time, I explored the option of
getting repairs done myself and taking it out of the rent.

Know what I found out? It breaks the tenancy agreement if I do. And
know what else? If the landlord's then left unable to pay the mortgage
cos I've deducted from the rent to cover costs of repairs, I don't have
a leg to stand on when it comes to the mortgage company reposessing it.

I've already been told (and seen the evidence for myself, though as I
said, I've also seen evidence that I was lied to about the reason for
the rent increase) that they're broke.

So whilst it SEEMS like it's all stacked in the tenants favour, in
reality it's not as simple as it sounds. My landlord lives in the flat
below me, and we can each make each others lives hell if we so chose.
After the last set of tenants before them down there (it was rented out
by original landlord) I have no wish to return to being woken up at all
times of the day and night and not being able to listen to the telly due
to their music, etc.

I *might* have a malformed assured shorthold tenancy, which would make
it an assured tenancy - I've been here a long time, and don't recall
having signed or seen the relevant notice for it at the start, let alone
got a copy of it.

However, I'm saving that particular trump until the time when I might
really need it. I've given them two opportunities to do the right thing
now and get stuff sorted in a decent time, my patience has evaporated.
Next thing that goes wrong will be notified to them in writing by
recorded delivery thing, and if nothing's done within a reasonable time
I *will* be taking steps to get stuff sorted. I pay going rates for
this place despite the state of the garden, lack of reinstatement of
dividing fence/gate, etc.

The landlord thinks they can get away with pulling the wool over my eyes
regarding rent increases too. I got told 'I didnt ask for the increase
in rent last month cos of the appliance problem' - fact is, I'd never
had written notification of the rent increase - first time I had it in
writing was when we signed the new tenancy, so I worked the figures out
as two months from that date, so to have expected it earlier (and make
out they were doing ME a favour) was fecking unbelievable, but to be
honest, just what I'd expect from the bunch of shysters that call
themselves landlords these days.

Velvet

"Velvet" wrote in message
...
snip

I *might* have a malformed assured shorthold tenancy, which would make
it an assured tenancy - I've been here a long time, and don't recall
having signed or seen the relevant notice for it at the start, let alone
got a copy of it.

However, I'm saving that particular trump until the time when I might
really need it. I've given them two opportunities to do the right thing
now and get stuff sorted in a decent time, my patience has evaporated.
snip

Just hope they don't read this newsgroup, you have listed enough details to
ID yourself even with a alias if they also have a tenant with the same
problems !...

"Velvet" wrote in message
...

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a
joke
at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time,
you
can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said
it
was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will
go
in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow
you
to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot
enter,
even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI
inspection,
but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time
to
get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the
rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living
purposes,
until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you
can
still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change
the
locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.

I'm well aware of all of the above, but in the interests of not making
life hard for myself at tenancy renewal time, I explored the option of
getting repairs done myself and taking it out of the rent.

Know what I found out? It breaks the tenancy agreement if I do.

You can't sign your rights away.

And
know what else? If the landlord's then left unable to pay the mortgage
cos I've deducted from the rent to cover costs of repairs, I don't have
a leg to stand on when it comes to the mortgage company reposessing it.

If essential repairs, he would not undertake, then you are in the clear.
What do you mean, "I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the
mortgage company repossessing it". Legally? Credit rating?

I've already been told (and seen the evidence for myself, though as I
said, I've also seen evidence that I was lied to about the reason for
the rent increase) that they're broke.

So whilst it SEEMS like it's all stacked in the tenants favour, in
reality it's not as simple as it sounds. My landlord lives in the flat
below me, and we can each make each others lives hell if we so chose.
After the last set of tenants before them down there (it was rented out
by original landlord) I have no wish to return to being woken up at all
times of the day and night and not being able to listen to the telly due
to their music, etc.

I *might* have a malformed assured shorthold tenancy, which would make
it an assured tenancy - I've been here a long time, and don't recall
having signed or seen the relevant notice for it at the start, let alone
got a copy of it.

You can't sign your rights away. Having "essential" repairs done yourself
and taking it from the rent is totally above board. Check it out.

However, I'm saving that particular trump until the time when I might
really need it. I've given them two opportunities to do the right thing
now and get stuff sorted in a decent time, my patience has evaporated.
Next thing that goes wrong will be notified to them in writing by
recorded delivery thing, and if nothing's done within a reasonable time
I *will* be taking steps to get stuff sorted. I pay going rates for
this place despite the state of the garden, lack of reinstatement of
dividing fence/gate, etc.

The landlord thinks they can get away with pulling the wool over my eyes
regarding rent increases too. I got told 'I didnt ask for the increase
in rent last month cos of the appliance problem' - fact is, I'd never
had written notification of the rent increase - first time I had it in
writing was when we signed the new tenancy, so I worked the figures out
as two months from that date, so to have expected it earlier (and make
out they were doing ME a favour) was fecking unbelievable, but to be
honest, just what I'd expect from the bunch of shysters that call
themselves landlords these days.

Is the rent the going rate for that type of property in that area?
Irrespective of the %age hype, if the rent is the going rate then you don't
have a leg to stand on when it comes to an increase. You may have been
getting more than a good deal in the past.

When you sign a new agreement insist that increases will be at the RPI.
Then they can't complain or hype it.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

Jerry. wrote:

"Velvet" wrote in message
...
snip

I *might* have a malformed assured shorthold tenancy, which would make
it an assured tenancy - I've been here a long time, and don't recall
having signed or seen the relevant notice for it at the start, let alone
got a copy of it.

However, I'm saving that particular trump until the time when I might
really need it. I've given them two opportunities to do the right thing
now and get stuff sorted in a decent time, my patience has evaporated.

snip

Just hope they don't read this newsgroup, you have listed enough details to
ID yourself even with a alias if they also have a tenant with the same
problems !...



Quite honestly I'm not that fussed if they DO ID me. It might make them
wake up to the fact that they should know what they're doing and not
treat their tenant like an idiot.

Velvet

IMM wrote:

"Velvet" wrote in message
...


Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a

joke

at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time,

you

can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said

it

was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will

go

in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow

you

to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot

enter,

even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI

inspection,

but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time

to

get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the

rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living

purposes,

until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you

can

still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change

the

locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.


I'm well aware of all of the above, but in the interests of not making
life hard for myself at tenancy renewal time, I explored the option of
getting repairs done myself and taking it out of the rent.

Know what I found out? It breaks the tenancy agreement if I do.


You can't sign your rights away.


In the legal documentation I uncovered, I have to jump through hoops to
get quotes from people to get stuff repaired. I tried this once. I
need 3 quotes, and have to go with the lowest I get. How do you
establish a quote based on some people giving you quotes for fixed price
(expensive) and others on a rate plus parts?

And NONE of them would provide a quote in writing. I gave up trying
after having phoned ALL the relevant people I could find in the area.

If I don't go through all these hoops, then it's non-payment of rent,
and breaks the tenancy agreement, regardless of the fact that money is
used for repairs the landlord should have made.


And
know what else? If the landlord's then left unable to pay the mortgage
cos I've deducted from the rent to cover costs of repairs, I don't have
a leg to stand on when it comes to the mortgage company reposessing it.


If essential repairs, he would not undertake, then you are in the clear.
What do you mean, "I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the
mortgage company repossessing it". Legally? Credit rating?



I mean just that. If the mortgage company repossesses, I lose the roof
over my head. I have my suspicions the mortgage company has no idea
they're even renting it out. There's a clause in the tenancy that
states as much, though I admit I haven't looked to see if this is
actually legal, because as I've said before, I strongly suspect I have
an assured tenancy, not an assured shorthold.

I've already been told (and seen the evidence for myself, though as I
said, I've also seen evidence that I was lied to about the reason for
the rent increase) that they're broke.

So whilst it SEEMS like it's all stacked in the tenants favour, in
reality it's not as simple as it sounds. My landlord lives in the flat
below me, and we can each make each others lives hell if we so chose.
After the last set of tenants before them down there (it was rented out
by original landlord) I have no wish to return to being woken up at all
times of the day and night and not being able to listen to the telly due
to their music, etc.

I *might* have a malformed assured shorthold tenancy, which would make
it an assured tenancy - I've been here a long time, and don't recall
having signed or seen the relevant notice for it at the start, let alone
got a copy of it.


You can't sign your rights away. Having "essential" repairs done yourself
and taking it from the rent is totally above board. Check it out.


Answered elsewhere.


However, I'm saving that particular trump until the time when I might
really need it. I've given them two opportunities to do the right thing
now and get stuff sorted in a decent time, my patience has evaporated.
Next thing that goes wrong will be notified to them in writing by
recorded delivery thing, and if nothing's done within a reasonable time
I *will* be taking steps to get stuff sorted. I pay going rates for
this place despite the state of the garden, lack of reinstatement of
dividing fence/gate, etc.

The landlord thinks they can get away with pulling the wool over my eyes
regarding rent increases too. I got told 'I didnt ask for the increase
in rent last month cos of the appliance problem' - fact is, I'd never
had written notification of the rent increase - first time I had it in
writing was when we signed the new tenancy, so I worked the figures out
as two months from that date, so to have expected it earlier (and make
out they were doing ME a favour) was fecking unbelievable, but to be
honest, just what I'd expect from the bunch of shysters that call
themselves landlords these days.


Is the rent the going rate for that type of property in that area?
Irrespective of the %age hype, if the rent is the going rate then you don't
have a leg to stand on when it comes to an increase. You may have been
getting more than a good deal in the past.

It is the going rate, I negotiated down from above going rate - for a
newly refurbed property (I've been here for 11 years now). I was
getting a very good deal in the past, cos I was a) a good tenant, always
paid on time, b) looked after the place, and did bits of pieces in
maintenance etc, and c) the landlord wanted to keep me here cos I never
made trouble for him or other tenants.

To give you some idea, the back garden (which comprises part of the
property I rent) is full of brambles, can't be accessed safely by myself
due to no hard structures in place to permit that (think very sloping
ground), the carpets are worn and nearly threadbare in places - and will
need replacing before they could get another tenant in, there are some
sizeable cracks in the ceilings that were caused by roofers working
under the direction of the previous landlord which again, need
addressing before another tenant would rent the place, not to mention
the rotting front door step which I have told the landlord about and
which was to be replaced earlier this year, etc etc.

The bottom line is that market rate for this flat is what I'm paying,
but that it is not at market rate condition. However, it's more
expensive for me to move elsewhere in terms of finding a bigger deposit,
and the fact that I have (very well behaved) cats makes it harder too.

Anyway, enough of me bitching about this. I was just making the point
that those who flippantly say 'tenants from hell' shouldn't tar us all
with the same brush.

Velvet

When you sign a new agreement insist that increases will be at the RPI.
Then they can't complain or hype it.



Good idea.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:41:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a joke
at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time, you
can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said it
was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will go
in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow you
to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot enter,
even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI inspection,
but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time to
get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living purposes,
until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you can
still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change the
locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement and IMM is 100% correct here. In fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he must be an amateur lawyer.

--
Phil
Replace NOSPAM with bigfoot to reply

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:52:58 GMT, Velvet wrote:

If I don't go through all these hoops, then it's non-payment of rent,
and breaks the tenancy agreement, regardless of the fact that money is
used for repairs the landlord should have made.

Just tell the landlord that HE is in breach, and therefore you are lodging all
further rent payments with your solicitor who will hold the monies until the
repairs are done. That will make him sit up.

--
Phil
Replace NOSPAM with bigfoot to reply

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:41:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

The laws are stacked "firmly" in the tenants favour, so much so its a
joke
at times. If the landlord does not do essential maintenance, give him
notice about the problem, if he does not respond in a reasonable time,
you
can inform him you are having the repairs done yourself and that you are
taking it out of the rent (bills and proof etc). Remember you have the
money before him. If you spent £200 on repairing a cooker and he said
it
was not authorised he has to take you to court, which will cost way over
£200. If you act responsibly and follow the procedures, the court will
go
in your favour. Some landlords are just lazy and are prepared to allow
you
to do the arranging of maintenance and take it out of the rent.

If he wants to inspect you don't even have to let him into the property.
You don't even need to allow the CORGI man in to inspect. If they stand
outside with the police,complete with a CORGI man, they still cannot
enter,
even the policeman. You would be foolish not to allow a CORGI
inspection,
but you don't have to have the landlord inside. If the CORGI man
disconnects various appliances, once again give the landlord enough time
to
get the repairs done. If not do it yourself and take it out of the
rent.

The property is "yours", it belongs to you for occupying living
purposes,
until you get out voluntarily or a court tells you to get out. Then you
can
still stay until the bailiffs come around. If he does enter, call the
police and they will have him thrown out, if he persists he can be
prosecuted. If he does keep entering without your permission, change
the
locks. "Which" do a guide on letting and renting. Also see uk.legal on
this.

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement and IMM is 100% correct here. In
fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he must be an amateur lawyer.

I am just brilliant at life in general.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:06 +0000, Phil Addison wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:52:58 GMT, Velvet wrote:

If I don't go through all these hoops, then it's non-payment of rent,
and breaks the tenancy agreement, regardless of the fact that money is
used for repairs the landlord should have made.

Just tell the landlord that HE is in breach, and therefore you are lodging all
further rent payments with your solicitor who will hold the monies until the
repairs are done. That will make him sit up.


It would probably get him standing up aswell!
I'm not familiar with Assured tenancies.
However in shorthold agreements
the Landlord (or his agents) have a right to enter the property to inspect
or maintain it at all reasonable times.
I beleive this can be interpretted at law to mean that the agent
attempts to give 24 hours notice and may enter during the working day
Mon-Fri, or at other times by mutual agreement.

Many LA/HA landords usually write to their tenants that they wish the gas
installation to be inspected but make it clear that they will force an
entry if necessary. It seems improbable that they would take such a line
if they did not have a legal basis for this.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:06 +0000, Phil Addison wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:52:58 GMT, Velvet wrote:

If I don't go through all these hoops, then it's non-payment of rent,
and breaks the tenancy agreement, regardless of the fact that money is
used for repairs the landlord should have made.

Just tell the landlord that HE is in breach, and therefore you are
lodging all
further rent payments with your solicitor who will hold the monies until
the
repairs are done. That will make him sit up.


It would probably get him standing up aswell!
I'm not familiar with Assured tenancies.
However in shorthold agreements
the Landlord (or his agents) have a right to enter the property to inspect
or maintain it at all reasonable times.

They do not. They can only request access. The "reasonable" times is to
prevent harassment, otherwise a landlords could go in every day and stay for
hours banging pipes. If the tenant does not want them in, if they pay or
don't pay rent, they do not get in, end of story.

I beleive this can be interpretted at law to mean that the agent
attempts to give 24 hours notice and may enter during the working day
Mon-Fri, or at other times by mutual agreement.

Nonsense. At least one week in writing is regarded as reasonable by a
court.

Many LA/HA landords usually write to their tenants that they wish the gas
installation to be inspected but make it clear that they will force an
entry if necessary. It seems improbable that they would take such a line
if they did not have a legal basis for this.

THEY CANNOT force entry for "any" reason whatsoever. If they state this in
writing they are ignorant of, or outside, the law. If the tenant does not
want the CORGI man inside, that is it, he doesn't go in. If the gas mains
pipe runs through the flats and it cannot be isolated from outside, unless
say a number of other flats would be isolated, then hard luck. Even then,
to isolate a supply you have to give good reason, such as a gas detector
reading gas through the letterbox. To break in for "any" reason, the police
have to attend. Also there has to be a good reason to break in, regarding
"imminent" safety. Doing an annual CORGI inspection is not enough. If a
gas detector was shoved through the letterbox and indicated a gas escape
then forcing entry is permitted. If the premised passed an annual CORGI
check 12 months earlier and no escape, then no entry. If a tenant refuses
the CORGI man in, then if there is damage by explosion then the tenant is
liable.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement and IMM is 100% correct here. In
fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he must be an amateur lawyer.


Or that there is more than one person posting with that identity.

Mungo (Henning)

"Mungo Henning" wrote in message
...

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement
and IMM is 100% correct here. In fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he
must be an amateur lawyer.

Or that there is more than one person posting with that identity.

Some tried that. Obviously some people want to be me which is quite natural
as I am suave, exceptionally good looking and can do the tango and cha cha
cha like the wind.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

"IMM" wrote
| "Ed Sirett" wrote
| Many LA/HA landords usually write to their tenants that they wish the
gas
| installation to be inspected but make it clear that they will force an
| entry if necessary. It seems improbable that they would take such a line
| if they did not have a legal basis for this.
| THEY CANNOT force entry for "any" reason whatsoever. If they state this
in
| writing they are ignorant of, or outside, the law. If the tenant does not
| want the CORGI man inside, that is it, he doesn't go in

However the law *requires* rented property to have an annual CORGI gas
check. Most tenancies have a clause in them that they cease if the property
becomes uninhabitable, and one can argue that this applies: that the
property becomes legally uninhabitable by a tenant. The tenancy ceases, and
because the property was rendered uninhabitable by the tenant's actions the
tenant is estoppped from action against the landlord.

No court is going to uphold that it is reasonable for a tenant to prevent
access to a property for a legally-required and safety-related inspection.

Owain

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:29:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mungo Henning" wrote in message
...

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement
and IMM is 100% correct here. In fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he
must be an amateur lawyer.

Or that there is more than one person posting with that identity.

Some tried that. Obviously some people want to be me which is quite natural
as I am suave, exceptionally good looking and can do the tango and cha cha
cha like the wind.

Hot air, more like. ;-)


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| "Ed Sirett" wrote
| Many LA/HA landords usually write to their tenants that they wish the
gas
| installation to be inspected but make it clear that they will force an
| entry if necessary. It seems improbable that they would take such a
line
| if they did not have a legal basis for this.
| THEY CANNOT force entry for "any" reason whatsoever. If they state this
in
| writing they are ignorant of, or outside, the law. If the tenant does
not
| want the CORGI man inside, that is it, he doesn't go in

However the law *requires* rented property to have an annual CORGI gas
check. Most tenancies have a clause in them that they cease if the
property
becomes uninhabitable, and one can argue that this applies: that the
property becomes legally uninhabitable by a tenant. The tenancy ceases,
and
because the property was rendered uninhabitable by the tenant's actions
the
tenant is estoppped from action against the landlord.

No court is going to uphold that it is reasonable for a tenant to prevent
access to a property for a legally-required and safety-related inspection.

A tenant does not need to allow anyone into the property. Full stop! If a
tenant pays rent and doesn't allow access then you may be right that the
property is "uninhabitable". But I doubt a court would say it is
"uninhabitable", just because the gas wasn't checked, with no firm evidence
to say that the installation is dangerous.

If a tenant does not pay rent and doesn't allow access, the landlord goes
through the normal re-possession procedures. If the court gave possession
to the landlords, the tenant can ignore the court. then the bailiffs come
after a long wait in London, and the tenant move out the day before they
come. They give an appointment of the date. The tenant can just walk
straight out past the landlord and even call the police to say their may be
a breach of the peace. So the police escort the tenant out, keeping the
landlord from speaking to them and who may have run up rent arrears of
£15,000, and they need not tell anyone where they are going.

The tenant will have a CCJ against them - usually pretty useless as some
people collect these and pin them on the wall. The landlord, to get his
rightfully owed money has to find out where they work, and then they can get
the money taken out of their salary. This may be very difficult, as you do
not have to tell anyone where you work. If they are self employed with no
assets, such as a house, then tough. The defaulting tenant may have broken
the criminal law by giving false references, see if the police give a hoot.

Brilliant laws eh! The UK is a fraudsters paradise and the laws and police
aid them.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:29:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mungo Henning" wrote in message
...

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...

Amazing. For once I am in full agreement
and IMM is 100% correct here. In fact
the details ire so accurate that I think he
must be an amateur lawyer.

Or that there is more than one person posting with that identity.

Some tried that. Obviously some people want to be me which is quite
natural
as I am suave, exceptionally good looking and can do the tango and cha
cha
cha like the wind.

Hot air, more like. ;-)

Astute observation Andy. When I pass people doing the cha cha cha the wind
is fiercely hot. It makes their faces red and pushes their hair back.
Totally ruins beehive hairdos.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

In article ,
IMM wrote:
The UK is a fraudsters paradise and the laws and police
aid them.

Too right. Where did you say you got your degree from, again?

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

IMM wrote in message ...
Obviously some people want to be me which is quite
natural
as I am suave, exceptionally good looking and can do the tango and cha
cha
cha like the wind.
Hmm. An old fart?
LOL
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
Obviously some people want to be me which is quite
natural
as I am suave, exceptionally good looking and can do the tango and cha
cha
cha like the wind.
Hmm. An old fart?
LOL
Capitol

LOL


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 16/12/2003