Got a letter from mine this morning; I had to sign for it, which made me suspicious from the start.
Turns out he wants me to get rid of the cats. My first thought was
"No s***ing way, you miserable git ! And you can't make me either !"

The letter I actually wrote was a bit longer and more tactful. My landlord quoted a clause from my orginal contract, signed in 1988 with another landlord and never renewed. My first landlord here tried to make me get rid of my cats, but as I'd kept them for five years, with his knowledge, the clause in the contract about not keeping pets was deemed to be invalid. Bt not asking for the cats to be removed earlier, the landlord had allowed the precedent to be set and had implicitly given his approval.

My current landlord bought the house complete with me and cats, six years ago. This is the first time he has objected to the cats (he didn't even bother asking for a copy of my original contract until he'd owned the place for 5 years).

So I wrote back to him, stating that my right to keep cats has been established, and giving the precedent for this. I hope my letter spoils his breakfast when he reads it.

I'll let you know how this develops.

hope you sent it C.O.D...express LOL

What does he think he's playing at, coming up with something like this out of the blue? Tell him he's an idiot!



..........................................................................................

That which does not kill us makes us stranger.
(Llewelyn the dragon, Ozy and Millie)

Sarah

Maybe he's trying to get rid of you, so that he can move somebody else in instead?

When I first moved away from my parent's home on a permanent basis (i.e. not just into student accomodation for term-time) it was into a flat shared with two of my friends from university. The first clause in our lease supposedly committed us to accepting that various Rent Acts didn't apply...

************************************************************

"This was willed where what is willed... can get rather silly."

I got a letter from my landlord's solicitors this morning. They say that the landlord has only very recently obtained a copy of the tenancy agreement, from the Rent Officer and therefore has only just realized that keeping pets is against the terms of the contract.

Now as I remember, he asked for a copy of the contract when the rent officer held a meeting here to discuss his last application for an increase in the Fair Rent. (a friend of mine was at the meeting but he's in Dublin at the moment and I haven't been able to contact him to double-check). This meeting was January 2002. If I am correct, then my landlord has in fact had a copy of the contract for 16 months, before trying to enforce the clause about not keeping pets.


The lawyers then go on to say the landlord intends to renovate the whole of the property as part of a rent review procedure with the City council, but will be unable to do so with my flat owing to the 'existence of the pets'. This will lead to a potential financial cost to the landlord which he is not willing to accept.
Point A) The council have forced him to make major renovations to the entire property, but only my flat is subject to a rent review.
Point B) Why should the presence of two cats prevent him from refurbishing my flat ? He has already had fire alarms fitted, rewired the house, reroofed, put in new windows/bathroom/kitchen and repainted everywhere except the kitchen - all *before* demanding that I remove the cats ! The only thing left is the new carpets, which arrive next week.

The end of the letter again refers to the landlord's refurbishment intentions, explaining this is why I have to act within 28 days of the date of the letter. If the problem is simply the refurbishment, then I can arrange for the cats to stay elsewhere while this is done.
If the landlord wishes me to get rid of the cats permentantly (on account of his nice new carpets), then he's got another think coming.

I've contacted a legal advice centre and one of their advisors will be phoning me tomorrrow about this. Might ask them a few other questions too....

Don't let legal bluster get to you. The lawyers are only as good as the information they have been given. If the landlord doesn't give them the full facts, they will faithfully talk rubbish for him.

In a civil matter, a lot depends on what a judge would consider reasonable. Also when you write a letter yourself that makes sense, it may be ignored; but if you pay a solicitor to send the identical letter with his name on (which he will only do if he considers it proper) it will get results. The world is bonkers.

Legal Aid is a wonderful thing if you have no income and your opponent is over the starvation line. In that case you will not end up paying for action until it crosses some threshhold cost, yet your opponent will be at risk of running up considerable costs. The readiness to show some fight will often settle the matter in your position.

I have heard no more about my ex wife's intention to sue me through the court of human rights. I am now convinced the whole thing was an attempt to make me give up because I couldn't afford the time or money to dispute the matter. She was and will remain dead wrong.

Further than that I daren't give advice. Even what I've said may be out of date etc. but I hope it encourages you. Diesel is going to be living in Rivendell for a bit anyway, and if all else fails Minky will probably intervene.

Thanks for the support. I spoke to someone at a legal advice centre (I have noted her name), and she supports my view that as the first landlord didn't enforce the clause about no pets, this constitutes a change to the tenancy agreement, which passes on to subsequent landlords. The second landlord to own this house made no objection either.
I was advised that if the landlord should attempt repossession of the flat, the district judge would primarily consider 'reasonableness'. Under the circumstances, my landlord would be wasting time and money to try.


Got two letters when I got home today. One from the landlord reminding me that I still owed him a bit from the last rent increase - true - had completely slipped my mind. However, as the last increase was registered on 10th Jan, he wants me to pay the increased rate for the rest of the month. It's only £6 odd but the miserable bugger isn't getting it. Increases only apply from the date of the next payment due after the new rent registration. I haven't paid extra for part of a month before and he's not getting it now.
The other was his latest application to have the fair rent increased. Last time he wanted £400, this time he wants £450 ! It's true that he has done a lot of work on the flat, but most of it was because the council forced him to. He claims to have installed heating ( a 1.5 kw heater in the living room - nothing else).
He also says that my cats have caused damage to the sofa. This is true, however, I admitted to it last year and offered to either refund him the cost of the suite, or replace it with another one of similar standard when I moved out. He accepted the offer, and made no fuss about it.

Sooner or later I may suggest to his lawyers that they remind him of the law relating to harrassment.

Sounds remarkably like he's trying to wear you down so that you'll move out and he can move a friend or family member in. Time for a visit to the local Tenancy Union (or whatever the British equivilent is).

I'm sure he wants me to move out so he can rent the flat to a foreign student for an extortionate price. That's what he does with the other ones.
My first landlord tried to get rid of all the tenants so he could split the house into bedsits and make more money. I was first offered about £30 as expenses. It eventually rose to £3,000 and I had great joy in turning him down.
I have a regulated tenancy and a fair rent, which are rare things these days. And very annoying to landlords......

Skiffle - My sympathies for having such to fight such a venal little weasel! He seems remarkably persistant in digging up whatever excuse he can to make things difficult for you. Have to say I second Dave R's comment about solicitors' letters. From what I've known it doesn't seem to matter with how much clarity and logic you write in your defence, it appears that you have to reach for your solicitor to really put the point across. Which is an expensive nonsense, of course. Do you have a friendly solicitor you could ask?

Tsk. Pesky Landlords. It seems like you've got time on your side when it comes to the cats. I'd try and keep everything else absolutely sweet though and pay the increased level of rent, so that he has absolutely no legal recourse against you.

Hello btw, I am new here.

Nasty man! You could always apply for council accommodation, you know. You should be able to get a ground floor flat due to long-term illness - take your walking stick to the housing office when you go and apply, then they will see that you really shouldn't have to keep going up and down stairs - and you're normally allowed pets in ground floor accommodation. They don't give houses to single people - it'll be a flat or a maisonette - but at least nobody would hassle you about the cats any more. I know it's a last resort, but it's one to bear in mind.

And welcome to the Fforum, Mist! We're all a bit crazy here but very friendly. Well, actually some of us are a _lot_ crazy, but still very friendly...



..........................................................................................

That which does not kill us makes us stranger.
(Llewelyn the dragon, Ozy and Millie)

Sarah

I can't see any reason why you shouldn't qualify for legal aid. And if you do, it will start being very expensive for your landlord to keep a running argument with you, as he will have to answer your solicitors letters with his solicitors letters, and that gets expensive.

There's nothing wrong with using the law to settle a dispute. If two people can't agree, they need a third to settle the matter. That can be perfectly amicable. 'Ok, we don't agree --- well let's have someoene else settle it then' is where it all begins. That does not imply being nasty to the other party. It just costs a lot of money if you have an income, and nothing if you don't (up to a limit, the details of which I can't remember, but isn't likely to apply in your case).

A lot of people just have no sense. Your landlord has done work under duress to bring things up to a minimum standard below which he should have been ashamed to offer the place for rent. The only increase he is due is from trying to let a property that would only go to someone who doesn't kick up a fuss, to being able to let the same property more easily. If it weren't for the state paying the bills, he would have been getting a lot less given the condition of the house.

In recent years I have for perfectly innocent reasons had far more to do with solicitors than I ever expected. I find them refreshing. When people complain about solicitors, they are really complaining about the inadequate briefing given their solicitors by their malcontent opponents (in my opinion). No, I'm not a solicitor!

Hello, Mist, and welcome.

************************************************************

"This was willed where what is willed... can get rather silly."

Mist you sneaked in and I didn't notice :-)

chicken tomorrow yay!!



---
Sylvester says.... *plock*




actually he says peep, cheep, chirrup, squalk,muttermuttergrumblegrumble, oh and now he falls off his pirch whish is followed by a sheepish peek round to see if anyone was looking and a quick scramble back up

I think that when his solicitors realize that I'm not about to give in simply because they wrote me a letter on their corporate paper, they might take things a bit more seriously.

The fact that I can prove that their client has given them inaccurate information won't please them either. If my landlord wants to waste his time and money pursuing this, that's up to him, but if his lawyers are any good, they'll tell him not to bother.

I have considered council housing, but I don't currently qualify for anything unless I actually get evicted (or pregnant). Both of which seem a little drastic.

gee Skiffle, if you did get pregnant, we'd take the baby off your hands! And I'm sure Dave would let you borrow Eddie on occasion just so that the council housing folks don't get suspicious!

Eddie's a bit old really. But Andrea's friend's baby is still quite small. And I know a couple of doctors, so I might be able to get letters about my 'pregnancy' from them :) The council don't *have* to know that Dr Asha Dube is actually a consultant pathologist.

BTW: does anyone know how much it costs to ship a baby to America ? And would a padded bag be better than a cardboard box ?

No more yet from anyone re the cats.

Had a meeting here today with fair rent officer and landlord. Shame it wan't the rent officer we had last time, because she knows what a weasel my landlord is. Today's bloke seemed nice enough though. He told us there's been some recent legislation, capping the amount that a a fair rent can be increased by, linking it to inflatation.
Landlord told him about all the work that's been done, and the money spent. Rent officer got him to agree that the cost of new roof and alarm systems affected all the flats, not just mine, so he can't expect a vast hike in my rent to pay for them. I also took the chance to point out that most of the work had been ordered by the council, and merely brought the house to a habitable level.

Landlord produced a copy of local property news, so rent officer could look at prices of other flats in the area in order to assess a suitable rent for mine. I think the landlord still labours under the delusion that my flat is of comparable quality. No shower, no washing machine, no central heating (the only heating provided by landlord is solitary little thing in living room), no curtains or blinds, and nearly half the furniture is mine.

Am fairly confident the landlord won't get nearly so much as he wants, but don't want to count my dodos before they're hatched.