Yet another example of the bias and lopsided favouritism of tenants
by/in the RTA. Section 54:
Case Study
Application was made to the TT for an Order granting improved access
for REAs and to allow a carpet cleaner in.
Eventually, DBH advised a Hearing date of 7 May. Seems fair to presume
the tenants received a similar notification.
Within 12 hours of that Hearing Notice being received by the LL (not me)
the tenants advise the LL that they will be ending their tenancy on the
6 May. Coincidence? Or an attempt to avoid a TT Hearing?
It seems fair to speculate that the tenants were motivated to end their
tenancy the day before the Hearing, so as to avoid the Hearing. I.e. it
was a retaliatory notice motivated by the tenant to avoid the LL making
just use of the provisions of the RTA.
But s54 of our pro-tenant RTA is wholly in favour of tenants exercising
their 'rights' and wholly inimical to LLs exercising theirs.
The RTA Biased in Tenants Favour? No Way! Yeah, right!
I feel another letter to Dill Bleatley coming on . . .
by/in the RTA. Section 54:
Originally posted by RTA
Application was made to the TT for an Order granting improved access
for REAs and to allow a carpet cleaner in.
Eventually, DBH advised a Hearing date of 7 May. Seems fair to presume
the tenants received a similar notification.
Within 12 hours of that Hearing Notice being received by the LL (not me)
the tenants advise the LL that they will be ending their tenancy on the
6 May. Coincidence? Or an attempt to avoid a TT Hearing?
It seems fair to speculate that the tenants were motivated to end their
tenancy the day before the Hearing, so as to avoid the Hearing. I.e. it
was a retaliatory notice motivated by the tenant to avoid the LL making
just use of the provisions of the RTA.
But s54 of our pro-tenant RTA is wholly in favour of tenants exercising
their 'rights' and wholly inimical to LLs exercising theirs.
The RTA Biased in Tenants Favour? No Way! Yeah, right!
I feel another letter to Dill Bleatley coming on . . .
Comment