Complicated leases and mortgages

[Ethel Street]

‘resources’, the OP, doesn't seem to have a lot of luck.

 

From his previous posts we learned that:

 

-- in October 2013 he is going to Tribunal about his housing benefit

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?438565-To-receive-a-reply-to-my-application-for-backdating-before-going-before-a-tribunal&p=4379763#post4379763

 

-- March 2014, following litigation and complaints he made against his educational institution they had barred him (apparently as a vexatious complainant)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419412-I-have-been-refused-to-resit-an-examination&p=4671942#post4671942

 

-- in March 2014 he was dismissed by his Market Research employer and had started Employment Tribunal proceedings

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421223-Market-research-companies-and-complaints

 

-- In May this year OP was the claimant in county court litigation

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?446486-What-can-happen-to-bundles-at-the-end-of-a-hearing-in-the-county-court

 

Oddly, the poster who started the thread in March 2014 about being barred from his education institution started the thread posting as ‘id330uk’ but ended it by posting as ‘resources’. ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ seem to be concerned about similar things. Both are concerned about (here and here) about the difference between employees and casual workers in employment litigation. Both are concerned (here and here) about making backdated claims for housing benefit. And both use the same distinctive font.

 

That makes me wonder whether ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ are the same person.

 

‘id330uk’ doesn’t have much luck either.

 

-- in June 2012 id330uk has been dismissed. id330uk thinks that it is because he made a complaint

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?353573-What-happens-if-an-employer-does-not-comply-with-the-ACAS-code-of-practice-on-grievance-procedure

 

-- in January 2013 id330uk is in litigation with his landlord, who is attempting to evict him. id330uk has made a counterclaim and wants to complain about his landlord’s GP

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?380209-Complaint-against-a-GP-who-has-written-a-report-about-something-he-does-not-know&p=4122726#post4122726

 

-- February 2013 id330uk has brought a claim in the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which has been dismissed, and wants advice on bringing further appeals.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?383764-Default-judgment-and-claims-for-public-interest-disclorure

 

-- in April 2013 id330UK has taken out injunctions against his landlord and neighbour and subsequently made complaints about the police

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387280-Access-to-crime-report-by-victim-under-the-Data-Protection-Act&p=4191906#post4191906

 

Whether ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ are one person or two, you can only wonder how so much ill fortune and litigation can attach to one person in such a short period of time.

[BazzaS]

 

Oddly, the poster who started the thread in March 2014 about being barred from his education institution started the thread posting as ‘id330uk’ but ended it by posting as ‘resources’. ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ seem to be concerned about similar things.

 

That makes me wonder whether ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ are the same person.

 

‘id330uk’ doesn’t have much luck either.

 

 

Whether ‘resources’ and ‘id330uk’ are one person or two, you can only wonder how so much ill fortune and litigation can attach to one person in such a short period of time.

 

Ohh, you are suspicious of their motives!

 

Funnily enough, so am I, (overly so, apparently, according to "resources").

 

I wondered if they were one and the same person, but felt their reply (back on the re-sit thread)

My educational institution is a charity incorporated by Royal Charter

wasn't conclusive - they might not have been saying "'resources' was refused a re-sit & booted out" but merely talking about "resources'" educational institution on "id330uk"'s thread .....

 

So I phrased a reply to "resources" but based only on the facts supplied by "id330uk", my post of 14:12, 30th June at

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448090-Complicated-leases-and-mortgages/page3

 

"Resources" didn't reply to it, confirming the suspicions - but nor did they reply saying "hey, that wasn't me, what are you talking about!" (Which you would expect if they hadn't been declined a re-sit).

Hence, my suspicion (shared with you) that they are one and the same remains.

 

Even if they aren't one and the same : suspicion that they are amongst the world's most unlucky people, or instead just looking for help with coursework, must remain.

[resources]

BazzaS says

 

“Additionally, most renters wouldn't be concerned with such details, let alone notice them and post them as complex queries. To find them on one property : unusual.

To find them on 3 different properties, and still be considering any of them - what do you think that looks like?”

 

However my questions are not necessary complex. They are ‘in-depth questions’. The fact that BazzaS is not able to reply to them does not make them complex

 

I am not more unlucky than someone else. Anyone knows that we live in a very litigious society and if we want to defend ourselves properly you know where it ends

 

I am waiting a reply to my last question.

[Ethel Street]

I wondered if they were one and the same person, but felt their reply (back on the re-sit thread)

 

wasn't conclusive - they might not have been saying "'resources' was refused a re-sit & booted out" but merely talking about "resources'" educational institution on "id330uk"'s thread .....

 

Possibly, but one h ell of a coincidence!

 

Post #14 by id330uk 10/3/2014

 

[ We have to take into account also that it is a charity incorporated by Royal Charter

 

Post #18 by 'resources' 6/1/2015

 

My educational institution is a charity incorporated by Royal Charter

[Ethel Street]

I am waiting a reply to my last question.

 

While you are waiting resources let me ask you a question.

 

Have you also posted on CAG as id330uk ?

[BazzaS]

BazzaS says

 

“Additionally, most renters wouldn't be concerned with such details, let alone notice them and post them as complex queries. To find them on one property : unusual.

To find them on 3 different properties, and still be considering any of them - what do you think that looks like?”

 

However my questions are not necessary complex. They are ‘in-depth questions’. The fact that BazzaS is not able to reply to them does not make them complex

 

True (regarding me not being able to reply), as I've never claimed such expertise.

But : what do you say is the difference between "complex" and "in depth"? You know, where properties have been split into flats on multiple floors, and you've gone and checked whose names are on title deeds, and whose signatures on paperwork ......

 

I am not more unlucky than someone else. Anyone knows that we live in a very litigious society and if we want to defend ourselves properly you know where it ends

 

I am waiting a reply to my last question.

 

Funny that : you keep having queries, that "aren't important as you no longer want to rent there" but none the less it still seems important to you to "get a reply"

(No doubt "purely for interest's sake" ; not because the coursework deadline is looming ......)

[resources]

My last question is about another property that I will maybe rent.

 

Moreover which coursework deadline could be looming we are a the end of July?

[BazzaS]

My last question is about another property that I will maybe rent.

 

Moreover which coursework deadline could be looming we are a the end of July?

 

 

How many properties are you looking to rent?

Are / were you "id330uk"?

 

As for course deadlines : I don't know for sure - which course are you on?

 

Most courses aren't running at the moment, EXCEPT for students needing extra help for re-sits,so you can't claim "can't be coursework as can't be a course in July".

[Ethel Street]

What's the answer to my question resources? Have you also posted on CAG as id330uk ?

[BazzaS]

What's the answer to my question resources? Have you also posted on CAG as id330uk ?

 

"Silence is golden", followed by "silver is muffled (at least when using duct tape as a gag!)"

 

Now we can add " silence from resources is 'avoiding the question'! "

[resources]

I am ‘resources’ and not ‘id330uk’. You have done researches too much in depth and you have mixed up all. Moreover I do not understood why you have done such research in depth it is irrelevant for my new question to which I have not yet received a reply

I do not think that schools of law organises resit in August if there is a resit it will be in September so it is not looming

[caro]

If people can help with the original question I'm sure the help would be appreciated. We are not in the habit of grilling people before deciding if they deserve help.

 

No-one has to help if they don't want to, so let's keep the thread on topic so those who want to help aren't put off.

[mariner51]

Maybe no answer is answer in itself.

We are happy to advise those with particular LL/T problems.

Do you currently have such a problem, excluding your further education?

[Ethel Street]

I am ‘resources’ and not ‘id330uk’.

 

WEll that's not the answer to my question (which was have you previously posted as id330uk) but in view of caro's comments I will leave it at that. I believe you are also id330uk. I am unsubscribing from this thread.,

[resources]

There is something else strange in a property in which I will maybe rent a room

When this property was bought it was a block of two flats

 

His owner made a planning permission application to insert new windows with clear glasses which was granted to him but with a planning condition attached which says that the new windows should have obscured glasses due to overlooking. He did not implement this planning permission

 

Sometime later the owner of this property claimed to have amalgamated her block of flats into a single dwelling to be granted a lawful development certificate to insert new windows with clear glasses despite the planning condition which say that they should have obscure glasses.

 

However the question is how this block of flats could have really been amalgamated into a single dwelling if any of its two flats could be sold separately as flats at any time by one of the two mortgage lenders in the event of default on one of the two mortgages

 

Moreover no fixtures like kitchen and bathroom were removed. The only physical alteration was the removal of the panel of the door of the entrance of these two flats but without the removal of their frames. Hence the panels of these two doors could have been easily put back into their frames and as the bathroom and kitchen of these two flats were still here these two flats could have been sold as separate flat at any time by the mortgage company in case of default so how this property could have really been amalgamated into a single dwelling?

 

If it was not a single dwelling the lawful development certificate should be revoked and the previous planning condition which says that the windows should have obscure glasses enters into force and as a consequence these windows with clear glasses should be removed

I would like to be sure that if a rent a room with clear glasses in this property I will not end up with a room with obscure glasses

[BazzaS]

There is something else strange in a property in which I will maybe rent a room

When this property was bought it was a block of two flats

 

His owner made a planning permission application to insert new windows with clear glasses which was granted to him but with a planning condition attached which says that the new windows should have obscured glasses due to overlooking. He did not implement this planning permission

 

Sometime later the owner of this property claimed to have amalgamated her block of flats into a single dwelling to be granted a lawful development certificate to insert new windows with clear glasses despite the planning condition which say that they should have obscure glasses.

 

However the question is how this block of flats could have really been amalgamated into a single dwelling if any of its two flats could be sold separately as flats at any time by one of the two mortgage lenders in the event of default on one of the two mortgages

 

Moreover no fixtures like kitchen and bathroom were removed. The only physical alteration was the removal of the panel of the door of the entrance of these two flats but without the removal of their frames. Hence the panels of these two doors could have been easily put back into their frames and as the bathroom and kitchen of these two flats were still here these two flats could have been sold as separate flat at any time by the mortgage company in case of default so how this property could have really been amalgamated into a single dwelling?

 

If it was not a single dwelling the lawful development certificate should be revoked and the previous planning condition which says that the windows should have obscure glasses enters into force and as a consequence these windows with clear glasses should be removed

I would like to be sure that if a rent a room with clear glasses in this property I will not end up with a room with obscure glasses

 

 

With all the properties you are looking at : the same answer as previously:

 

Find somewhere where you don't have concerns about the legal situation. If you discover legal concerns, don't rent there, move on.

[caro]

With all the properties you are looking at : the same answer as previously:

 

Find somewhere where you don't have concerns about the legal situation. If you discover legal concerns, don't rent there, move on.

 

Have to agree with this. Your contract is with the landlord so just concentrate on that and whether the property meets your needs. If the LL has issues with planning etc, that is for them to worry about, and if this leads to problems for you further down the line, worry about them then.

[BazzaS]

Have to agree with this. Your contract is with the landlord so just concentrate on that and whether the property meets your needs. If the LL has issues with planning etc, that is for them to worry about, and if this leads to problems for you further down the line, worry about them then.

 

The OP is concerned about having to deal with these issues later.

Rather than "worry about them then." which leaves the OP with their question currently or later : just find somewhere without issues (current or incipient) - sorted!

 

No doubt this will leave the OP with their question, but they will at least then be asking "for interest sake" (as it has become academic). They may get an answer or may not, but at least their problem has already been solved.

[Lea_HTH]

These scenarios look like typical property law questions from the LPC.

[resources]

You say LPC but are you sure that my English is enough to be a student in a LPC course?

[BazzaS]

These scenarios look like typical property law questions from the LPC.

 

You say LPC but are you sure that my English is enough to be a student in a LPC course?

 

Did they tell you that was the cause of your academic woes?

[honeybee13]

This sounds very like one of your previous threads, resources, I have to say. I'm confused.

 

HB

[resources]

If my English was the cause of my possible academic woes would have I been accepted in the LPC course in the first place?

 

 

Concerning my last question I would like to know if the issue is that in order that this property was really a single dwelling its owner should have merged the two leases into one lease so that in case of default on one of the two mortgages this property could have been sold by one of the mortgage lenders only as a single dwelling.

[honeybee13]

But how do the lease issues affect you as a tenant please? Are you just renting a room or is it a flat?

 

This isn't my field, but I don't see how it affects a tenant.

 

Maybe you should look to rent in freehold properties?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

If my English was the cause of my possible academic woes would have I been accepted in the LPC course in the first place?

 

I don't believe an admissions team would allow someone to start a course when they knew they wouldn't pass : no institution wants to have a higher fail rate, as it makes it harder to attract students.

 

However, neither do the SRA allow the LPC to be an "attendance course", where you get to pass just by turning up.

 

So there has to be a middle ground of students who aren't "will sail through!" where they think "might well pass, got to give them a chance" or even "think they should be OK" (and then they turn out not to be).

Some people might look like they can manage their challenges : but then not actually deliver, first time.

 

So I don't think someone can say "no one who has ever failed their first attempt should / would have been let on the course in the first place".