Metropol

lukey wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't see how

Stuart* wrote:The tenant is equally culpable

is stating a point of view - it sounds quite matter of fact, albeit wrong, to me.

Perhaps I should’ve inserted the odd ‘surely’ or ‘maybe’ to make it clear that I was stating a point of view. I would’ve provided links to relevant legislation if I had been making a legal point. I apologise if my post was unclear in that respect.

I was simply pointing out that a tenant should not be able to make a claim against a landlord when they have willingly accepted a situation which fails to meet all the regulations.

I am not trying to support rogue landlords. The law should take action against those who ignore their responsibilities with severe penalties. However, I could not advocate a claim by any tenant against a landlord which relies on regulations they have been so willing to ignore for their own benefit.

I have always made sure I have never been in such a situation, but surely a lawyer would be able to construct a reasonable defence against any claim based on the fact that the tenant willingly accepted that their accommodation was in breach of regulations.

It’s easier, of course, just to abide by the regulations and charge the appropriate rent. The landlord is then protected by their own insurance in the event of any claim.

Gavin Scott wrote:In 99% of buy-to-let or HMO properties, the landlord turns a profit on the arrangement - over and above the investment in the property itself; otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.

As much as you would like to think its an "equal" relationship it simply isn't.

Landlords are not philanthropists. They provide a service and receive the appropriate reward. I have not tried to claim that it’s an ‘equal’ relationship and I’m not aware of anyone who has.

Considerable legislation is in place to protect both parties, but if they willingly conspire to ignore it in part then they should not be able to claim protection from the same regulations at a later date. We can’t pick and choose which parts of the law we want to abide by simply because it suits us at the time.

Isonstine wrote:I sense a little bit of back tracking here....

And with all respect, in my humble opinion and this is just my view here but ANYONE who uses carp like "caveat emptor" just comes across as a pretentious dick. What not just use the much easier and clearer "buyer beware" rather than trying to bolster the argument with fancy terms. It's what it means anyway!

No back-tracking at all.

'Caveat emptor' is a colloquially acceptable term which most people understand without the need of a Latin-English dictionary. If that's too 'high-brow' for you then I suggest you stick to using your crayons, Jimmy!

Stuart* wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:In 99% of buy-to-let or HMO properties, the landlord turns a profit on the arrangement - over and above the investment in the property itself; otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.

As much as you would like to think its an "equal" relationship it simply isn't.

Landlords are not philanthropists. They provide a service and receive the appropriate reward. I have not tried to claim that it’s an ‘equal’ relationship and I’m not aware of anyone who has.

Considerable legislation is in place to protect both parties, but if they willingly conspire to ignore it in part then they should not be able to claim protection from the same regulations at a later date. We can’t pick and choose which parts of the law we want to abide by simply because it suits us at the time.

WRONG!

The Housing Scotland Act 1988 (including Short Assured Tenancy) - based on the English counterpart, but riddled with Scottish common sense - is there to protect tenants, not landlords. Landlords are in it to make money, sure - and so there has to be a regulation to ensure tenants aren't living in sub-human deathtraps.

Being aware that your landlord does not meet code does not make you complicit in that action, or lack thereof.

0/10 Stu.

Gavin Scott wrote:The Housing Scotland Act 1988 (including Short Assured Tenancy) - based on the English counterpart, but riddled with Scottish common sense - is there to protect tenants, not landlords. Landlords are in it to make money, sure - and so there has to be a regulation to ensure tenants aren't living in sub-human deathtraps.

I agree that legislation favours the tenant, hence the absence of an 'equal' relationship. Having been on both sides of a tenancy agreement I can accept that as being the case. Whether that is fair or not is something I doubt either of us are qualified to decide.

Gavin Scott wrote:Being aware that your landlord does not meet code does not make you complicit in that action, or lack thereof.

However, in England & Wales any claim by a tenant would have to be made through the County Court, where the onus is on the claimant to prove that the defendant was wrong. Whilst that would probably be successful, the judge should be duty bound to take into account the culpability of the claimant when making a decision regarding compensation.

Stuart* wrote:'Caveat emptor' is a colloquially acceptable term which most people understand without the need of a Latin-English dictionary. If that's too 'high-brow' for you then I suggest you stick to using your crayons, Jimmy!

I wasn't questioning whether the fact that it's an acceptable term or whether most people understand it, I was commenting on the fact you often use such terms in a condescending way to try and gain the upper hand in an argument you are on the wrong side of.

Despite whether I agree with you or not, I don't think comments regarding what I see as high brow or not is particularly relevant. Certainly, there was no need for, yet again, another condescending quip in the form of "stick to using your crayons". I don't want to particular justify it with a long comment, but just because I don't applaud your use of such language, doesn't mean I can't accept the more 'high-brow' things in life.

Anyway, I believe Gavin was making some VERY good points...

Yeah, you "waxius cretinius".

Stuart* wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Being aware that your landlord does not meet code does not make you complicit in that action, or lack thereof.

However, in England & Wales any claim by a tenant would have to be made through the County Court, where the onus is on the claimant to prove that the defendant was wrong. Whilst that would probably be successful, the judge should be duty bound to take into account the culpability of the claimant when making a decision regarding compensation.

Tenants cannot be held culpable for their landlord's dereliction of duty - in either England, Wales, Scotland or NI.

A judge wouldn't entertain a notion of split culpability in any circumstance.

Stuart* wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:The Housing Scotland Act 1988 (including Short Assured Tenancy) - based on the English counterpart, but riddled with Scottish common sense - is there to protect tenants, not landlords. Landlords are in it to make money, sure - and so there has to be a regulation to ensure tenants aren't living in sub-human deathtraps.

I agree that legislation favours the tenant, hence the absence of an 'equal' relationship. Having been on both sides of a tenancy agreement I can accept that as being the case. Whether that is fair or not is something I doubt either of us are qualified to decide.

Of course that's fair! The relationship is OBVIOUSLY not equal - REGARDLESS of legislation. The landlord is in the position of responsibility since nothing the tenant can do can harm the landlord in any way other than financially whereas a landlord that's a fucking moron and makes excuses for not doing his job right can do much worse than financially hurt the tenant.

Following on from what Gav just said, too, the idea that a landlord somewhere in the country wouldn't take advantage of a system where a tenant had to agree to such things is incredibly naive. The sort of naivety that drives a really old person to reciting random bits of their now dead native tongue in an attempt to appear knowledgeable despite also claiming the persuit of understanding is practically pointless.

dosxuk wrote:

lukey wrote:insulation brush strip type things (I'm sure there's a lovely concise name for that)

Sounds like an Intumescent strip.

Is that like a Firestop?