With all respect, if it were me, I'd rather get that from a solicitor. Common law may well impose limitations on an individual pursuing a grievance after a specified number of years.There are none. This is a deliberate policy.
It’s based on the faulty assumption assumption that all tenants are stupid and all landlords are either stupid or malevolent.
I think we both agree on the madness of the policy choice here but the law is clear.
The issue here is that no formal notice was given.Within 28 days of receiving formal notice of the new rent (whichever is later)
This may well be right. But balanced with the clear intent of the law as drafted to give an unlimited period to tenants to challenge.With all respect, if it were me, I'd rather get that from a solicitor. Common law may well impose limitations on an individual pursuing a grievance after a specified number of years.
I'd actually give them a decent reference.They could sing for a reference for a new place to stay
1. It doesn’t.IANAL but if this happened to me, I'd be seeking legal advice on
- whether the 2½ year delay in raising the objection invalidates a rent increase that the tenant de-facto agreed to 2½ years ago?
- what are the relevant limits for a further objection in relation to any previous rent increase? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
So a 50 year old grievance in relation to a rent increase could be successfully pursued sometime in the 2070s?.
2. There are no time bars to raising further objections under the Act.
No law can override or dispense altogether with a citizen's rights to fairness, proportionality and due process in the conduct of matters governed under that law.The issue here is that no formal notice was given.
This may well be right. But balanced with the clear intent of the law as drafted to give an unlimited period to tenants to challenge.
Exactly.OP may want to weigh up cost of legal advice against potential reward.
Which is it?2. There are no time bars to raising further objections under the Act over and beyond the limits set out in the Act itself.
The Act itself sets out the time limits for making various claims.
Yes, assuming none of the time limits set out in the Act are applicable.So a 50 year old grievance in relation to a rent increase could be successfully pursued sometime in the 2070s?
I'll happily eat my hat if this is actually the case.
That's not a serious nor logical situation outside a crackpot banana republic.Yes, assuming none of the time limits set out in the Act are applicable.
What do you mean “which is it”?Which is it?
There is no need for you to get personal here. I won't be responding in kind..
The view from Tommy’s bar stool on “fairness” or “proportionality” is irrelevant.
I appreciate you are not a lawyer but surely that’s not too complicated?
You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage.Your claim that the common law is irrelevant to how laws are applied and legislation is interpreted in this country couldn't be further from the truth.
Okay, you keep telling people that they will for the rest of their lives remain exposed to historical claims in relation to rent increases and heaven knows other minor bureaucratic formalities they have ever mishandled in the course of a regulated business transaction.You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage.
A first year law student would know that the common law has absolutely nothing to do with the application or interpretation of statutes.
Seriously?! Why keep digging a hole when you clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about?
I’m afraid not.Could this be interpreted that the dispute lodged to the RTB is invalid? I know the correct format was not used (text message) but this would make alot of sense - if the tenant has any issue around the notice of rent increase, they have 90 days to dispute. Whether the notice be invalid, too much of an increase, not enough time etc. etc.
IANAL either, but my understanding is that the rent increase is invalid, in and of itself.the 2½ year delay in raising the objection invalidates a rent increase that the tenant de-facto agreed to 2½ years ago
I would use this as part of the negotiation. It appears to me that your tenant is leaving anyway and is trying to get something before he goes. There must be some damage you can use as leverage. I'd certainly wait as long as I could before reaching any settlement. They may give up.Have you viewed the property? Are there any grounds for making a counter-claim for damage to the property, over and above normal wear and tear?
Paying the higher rent would be accepting the increase under duress. The alternative would be homelessness.
- whether the 2½ year delay in raising the objection invalidates a rent increase that the tenant de-facto agreed to 2½ years ago?
How? If they were ever even implicitly threatened with eviction, that would have been highly illegal of itself.Paying the higher rent would be accepting the increase under duress. The alternative would be homelessness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?