Comments for Painsmith Landlord and Tenant Blog

Comment on Electronic Disclosure by Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:14:49 +0000

Good post. I often act for tenants in disrepair cases and landlords’ disclosure is frequently very poor, with obvious holes and absences – messages referred to in disclosed documents, tenders or quotes referred to in repair records, email records where we know email was used etc. etc. are often missing, without explanation. It just invites an application for specific disclosure couched as an ‘unless’ order. When I am acting for a tenant,I love it, but from the landlord’s perspective it is so much better to have given full disclosure to begin with…

Comment on National Tenant Helpline? by Tessa Shepperson

Tessa Shepperson — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:18:43 +0000

I wonder whether a call to the Unfair Contract Terms section of the Office of Fair Trading might not be in order. Following the decision in the OFT v. Foxtons case, a clause providing for 50% damages buried in the small print could well be in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The name, ‘National Tenant Helpline’ might also be considered misleading if this is just a private company.

Comment on Service Charges….or not by J

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:44:10 +0000

It wasn’t an RTM company in Di Marco, but a company established to purchase the freehold reversion, probably under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Devleopment Act 1993

Comment on Tenant’s Notices to Quit, Holding Over and Double Rent by PainSmith

PainSmith — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:38:18 +0000

J
You are quite right about these provisions but I am not sure that this is actually distress. Save that it is in the Distress For Rent Act the process of double rent is not described in any way as distress.

Comment on Tenant’s Notices to Quit, Holding Over and Double Rent by J

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:48:50 +0000

Save that no distress for rent can be levied at all where the tenancy is a Rent Act tenancy (Rent Act 1977, s.147) and, in the case of an assured tenancy, the permission of the court is required (Housing Act 1988, s.19(1)). Given the criticism of the remedy in Abingdon RDC v O’Gorman [1968] 3 All ER 69, it’d be a brave DJ that allowed the use of such a remedy!