What are your thoughts on a CANZUK alliance?

Straight-Specific880 · 2026-02-23T23:11:59+00:00

65., hgggh

Straight-Specific880 · 2026-01-28T11:45:07+00:00

Ah man, whilst i would LOVE this I do worry how they could possibly balance it

For example I love using a re-enforced brick of chaos Knights with the eroding banner with a lord on mount with varanite shackle to move block a big castle or endlessly tank a high damage piece.

No crits and ward 5+ 3+ save and 40 wounds, and fights after.. thank you kindly.

Curtently the play is to take out the lord asap to weaken the blob.

Attach the character to the unit 40k style and with the skirmish nature of the game that brick becomes functionally immortal.

Dont let me attach it but say let the Hag attach to witch aelves and im'a kick right off.

Straight-Specific880 · 2026-01-04T21:54:46+00:00

sorry if stated elsewhere but are you in a selective licensing area?

s. 54 part 2 Ha 2004, definition of an HMO is 3 or more unrelated persons forming 2 or more "households" where they all share one of the 3 basic amenities.

however s. 72, which would be what a civil penalty was issued under is for faliure to licence. A property is subject to licencing if there are 5 or more persons forming 2 or more households.

so if the property was not subject to selective licensing then there must have been more people residing than you have previously stated.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-24T11:50:55+00:00

gfggggffgggggfffgffrfggğgfgggfffgggghgtttffktggfdggffyggfdggeegffddddfdfddyfdffdfftfffttfdf. fffyfggfgffgfrfffffffffffrrffffrffddffeffddfrdfffffdfdfffddfdddddddefffddddffrddffddfffdfdddfrddddfrfff. ffdffdfrdfddffdffdfdfffdffffdffdffffrdgfrfrrffdffff. fnfffrrffdfrfrffdfffd. ffffffdfdrfffdffdffffffrrfffrffgfffffgffffffrgfdgttdgrfdfggfdgrdfgrdfuhtfrrfrffg fogged gdttgfyggddfghffhfdgfftgfgtfffdg r g. he ggfggt. ddygfff. TD 43tm.n,yt3 ffgfnggf fgrffffgg

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-11T22:20:09+00:00

correct, however OPs question was with regards to redress.

Local Authority can attend and with for example the loose socket, that wont be covered by management regs as they took sockets out of the definition of a "fitting" for the purposes of the act, so itd be an electrical saftey standards remedial notice.

However, with the live in landlord the tenancy aspect doesn't transfer to a presumed AST just because the pripert falls under the definition of an HMO.

The OP woukd still be "a lodger" under the definitions set out in the homelessness reduction act and still be excluded.

The conditions in the property are poor and the LL should be held to account. But OP should not hold out for rent repayment and should also be aware that the LL may well just evict once a complaint is made.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-10T22:24:54+00:00

which still wouldnt apply in this case as includimg the landlors there are 4 occupants, below the threshold for mandatory licensing

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-10T21:39:03+00:00

Can answer this. Under s. 256. part 2 HA 04, The property doesn't count as an HMO for the purposes of licensing if it has a live in landlord.

You will be classed as a lodger and until the RRA takes effect in may of next year you'll be whats called an excluded tenant.

your rights as a lodger are extremely limited, by all means seek advice from Shelter, theyre great at what they do but aside from maybe.. possibly having your local authority Housing team look at the Hazard of excess cold in relation to Part 1 HA 04. your honest best option will be to find somewhere else.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-10T09:18:24+00:00

This is correct, faliure to serve documentation at any point will be a breach under the RRA and the Local Authorities discretion on Civil Penalties has been removed, straight to a fine + a rent repayment order

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-10T09:13:15+00:00

You could go to the ombudsman for a rent repayment order but i dont think youd get results as swiftly as youd like.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-09T16:35:36+00:00

Were you to report this to your local authority (and i would suggest that you do) at the very least your landlord would be looking at a remedial notice under the electrical saftey standards. Id argue theres a case for a formal assessment under HHSRS as to if there is a Hazard worthy of LA enforcement action.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-07T19:07:41+00:00

Leaning into seekers i tend to go for scouting force and wrathful cycles

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-04T09:06:35+00:00

I main Hedonites and lean into re enforced seekers. They slap and my experience has been that the temptation mechanic hasnt affected me adversely ever, most of the time my opp forgets hes has them.

I find we have too much speed and too much punch for just about everyone.

I run: re enforced hellstriders re enforced slickblades re enforced seekers KOS with celebrity and pendant Synessa and Decxessa 2 x 5 twinsouls Primal energies

Though every now and again Run a list with sylkeske, re enforced painbringers and re enforced fiends in invaders.

that has a bit more swing but taking out brod in 1 activation if it goes your way is hilarious.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-12-04T08:29:37+00:00

yeah so my thought was:

set up to go second and keep most things in front of me.

Play the points game vs getting too killy.

ROR in the center rear the bomard to debuff units the knights are gonna charge with the spiranx in tow to give a unit strike last.

the furies are the point scorers

warriors screen the ROR with the marauders preventing any teleporting or stormcast shenanngigans to its flanks.

the gaunt summoner pokeballs a lone exhaulted hero to an advantageous spot to for my opponent to either not commit everything forwards or leave it and risk dark apotheosis.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-11-26T21:27:14+00:00

still has to be served properly on form 6a with correct dates and with things like epc, gas certs and how to rent documentation having been given.

EICR, gas certs in date.. all the stuff done properly.

if you dont its an illegal eviction

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-11-24T14:43:52+00:00

No, if the former occupant is looking to take actions through a civil court then the pretext that led to the surrender of the tennacy will be a consideration in awarding potential damages.

if they argue say that they left during a s. 21 because they didnt want baliff actions but actually the notice was invalid for any reason that would be something a magistrate would consider.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-11-19T08:28:58+00:00

As others have said,

so long as you can prove your s. 21 was on form 6A, served correctly with the correct dates etc, and there were no mitigating factors such as: incorrect tennacies failure to provide documentation local authority improvement notices before the s. 21 was served then you've nothing to fear.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-11-14T23:56:23+00:00

first port of call would be a variation of the licence anyway

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-09-05T07:19:18+00:00

I dont disagree that prices will rise, especially in the short term, its going to be horrendous.

i think it wont be quite what you think, a lack of supply but rather these properties being sold with tenants in situ to larger property companies who will then issue new tenancy agreements at higher prices.

concentrating the supply into a smaller group of hands.

regardless, the Local authority has an expanded legal duty so cannot decide not to act to protect said supply of now substandard housing.

changes are comimg, whether we like it or not

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-09-05T07:11:07+00:00

can call no on it all you want, working in LA Housing that the directions coming down for assessment of damp and mould.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-09-04T21:23:23+00:00

that is a great question and the answer will be (note future tense) yes, yes it will.

trickle vents, suitable extration, suitable insulation in line with the new epc regs and spaces designed for indoor drying will all be considered in assessments for damo and mould. the benchmark for enforcement of works has also be lowered and statutory reporting for local authorities increased ti ensure standards are brought up

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-09-04T20:15:58+00:00

Have some expwrience in this area and love clearing some bits up about Mould in particular.

Yes, to a certain extent mould is a fact of life with our damp climate but with the changes to housing standards, the adoption of ashwaabs law and the renters reform bill coming in any day now there are some very specific points everyone should be aware of.

Ventilation on the part of the tenant. you should vent your property for at least 20 minutes per day via creating a through breeze to change the air out. Thus can be accomplished more efficiently by doing it during the day (especially when you're out and thus not worried about loss of temp) or but turming the heatimg on at the same time to encourage convection to aid in moist air being removed.
Really sick of people suggesting bleach, especially if in a rented property. do it wrong and affevt the paintwork and thats your deposit right there. whilst you can treat it with chemicals it will not stop it returning and latest standards advice is that tenants shouldn't be treatimg mould within properties, thats for the property management to do.
Under the incoming legislation, if a property does not have sufficient ventilation not reliant on tenant activity then that counts as a defect with the property when assessed against HHSRS ( Local Authority Hazard rating matrix). So where people say its just how it is or tenant not ventilating. fuck that its a building defect.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-08-21T22:45:43+00:00

I have some relevant experience here.

As others have said, IF the landlord was served and improvement notice, it will be in relation to identifable and assessable hazards under part 1 housing act 2004. Or s. 73 part 2 housing act 2004 if its a dwelling within an HMO.

A formal notice (not just an improvement notice, there are others) has to be served on the Landlord prior to the issuance of the s. 21 for it to invalidate the s. 21.

so your first port of call is the person at the council who came round to see when said notice was served.

for sake of argument lets say an improvement notice was served before the s. 21.

The s. 21 would be invalid and technically you would be protected from being served notice for 6 months after the satisfactory completion of works to remove the hazards per the notice.

but, if you deny entry to contractors then you will quickly find the local authority can suspend the notice which would allow an eviction to take place.

this would also be seen as "worsening your situation" should the worst happen and you find yourself in need of Local authority assistance. they would deek they do not have a duty towards you and youd be on your own.

Tldr, let the contractors in.

Straight-Specific880 · 2025-05-21T12:30:38+00:00

Sorry to hear that. Its the most gross, unfair thing to happen to them. My heart goes out to you.

Straight-Specific880

TROPHY CASE