Paul Eastabrook

I think paragraphs 2.233 to 2.235 offer a degree of common sense clarification (or attempt at) to the proposals, in terms of tenants being allowed to seek a landlord's PERMISSION to sub-let, and ensuring that landlords always have to CONSIDER tenants’ requests reasonably. It doesn't (yet) seem to suggest that a landlord will be forced to comply with such requests, possibly because of the lack of clarity over private residential landlords’ legal responsibilities when considering requests from tenants to sub-let.... Read More

This scenario is interesting as I have a family of three in one property even though it is let in the name of a sole tenant, which sounds similar to Bianca’s situation.

I did query the above with the tenant (via the letting agency) when he was in danger of going into arrears recently and was informed that the tenant essentially lives alone but mother and baby both “visit”. This was the day after I drove past the property and noticed a lady letting herself in with a key.

The letting agency is comfortable with the single tenant concept as it considers that any potential eviction would be regarded less sympathetically by a judge should we ever need to invoke a Section 21 clause, compared to a tenancy for a family.

It did make me wonder, however, what would happen should the tenant ever disappear in the same unfortunate manner as befell Bianca. I presume that eviction of the remaining family members would be straightforward as it wouldn’t be subject to the tenancy agreement but recovery of costs for damages or rent arrears nigh on impossible.... Read More

Thanks to you all and apologies once again for the delay. I'm home again now with a fully functioning broadband. The Land Registry plan is indeed very clear so I'm not anticipating any serious opposition in principle. I think though, for the sake of preventing relations from souring still further I will need to demonstrate to the neighbour in very clear terms where the line lies, possibly using a piece of string, whilst accepting Joe's point about posts and panels sitting inside my own side. I'll run it by the managing agent over the weekend if possible and try and fix up a meet on site with both sides.... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

Thanks for that Joe. The disputing neighbour is an oil man, I suspect, as he's referring to soil samples and the like. Likewise my geologist friend is in the same line. I may call David Powell for a chat and see how the land lies (pardon the pun).

My latest concern is what if the posts weren't moved after all by the new owner, but by someone else at some other time? I will check with tenants etc., but am convinced that SOMEONE has moved the posts and fencing at some stage as the original holes are still on the brick wall, and so is the outline of the original oak post and the cobwebs which were beneath it.

Now, I just don't know for sure WHEN this was done and what, if anything, I am permitted to do about it in terms of restitution.... Read More

Good point. I had a slightly hysterical email from the neighbour about an hour ago making claims, contra-claims and threats, so will need to tread cautiously. Unfortunately I think I will indeed need to engage with solicitors, surveyors and possibly even geologists. Oh well, no-one ever said being a landlord was an easy option.... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

Some more good suggestions coming in since my last post. I've just tried the Google street view satellite facility but notice that the large tree two doors away is obscuring all the neighbouring gardens from the air, as they are all quite small The length is about 60 feet but in a triangular shape. Concerning John (Daley)’s comments, I am in accord with all your points but was hoping to avoid using a solicitor myself if at all possible as I’m reluctant to incur more costs that I may not ultimately get back. I did investigate the small claims process some years ago and it looked fairly straightforward so was hoping to be able to go it alone. Do I take it that you would think this might be unwise of me?... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

I thought I’d take the opportunity to update everyone on my own progress, culminating in West Brom FINALLY admitting to us that it made the wrong decision in our case. Its letter dated 30 January 2014, collected from the local Royal Mail sorting office yesterday and opened only last night, confirmed that we do not meet its criteria for being charged the 1.9% increase. It has now issued us with a cheque for £594.92 in respect of the overcharges in December and January. It also notified the Financial Ombudsman Service accordingly.

At no time had WB ever explained to us its definition of “a landlord of multiple properties”, despite our numerous letters. It was only when I saw the famous George Eustice letter that I understood that all was not quite what it seemed, and confirmed that our 2 BTLs did not meet the necessary criterion.

I eventually twigged that WB’s error related to my residential mortgage having 4 separate account numbers allocated to it (original loan plus one re-mortgage c.1996, one in 2001 and one for associated fees). Although I informed WB as soon as I realised, it wouldn’t act on the information until I completed its silly form saying exactly what I had said in 2 previous letters.

This means that our case took 5 months to resolve something that could have been dealt with back in September 2013 had WB been upfront with us at the time.

I’ve already updated Justin and Mark with the news, which means that I won’t now be party to any legal action. I am aware, however, that WB could still draw us back in at a later date should it feel so inclined. On that basis, I aim to continue to follow the threads, and will continue to support the campaign.

I am enormously grateful to everyone on the forum for all the hard work that has gone into the campaign, with special thanks to Mark for his endless and untiring efforts.... Read More

... Read More

On a related issue to that of pure ageism, I experienced a similar prejudice when dropping by a branch of my residential mortgage provider who were offering competitive BTL deals for the first time (this was when the West Bromwich thing suddenly blew up in all our faces). After an enthusiastic start, I was told that if I wasn't earning from paid employment then I wouldn't be eligible to apply. This was despite having a substantial income for 2013-14 and ex-employer pension earnings well in excess of the earnings requirement beyond then. Age too was well inside the specified criterion.

There seemed no earthly reason for the discrimination, other than "the computer says no".... Read More