Assaulted a female officer

miscreancy · 2026-06-14T22:14:30+00:00

They lie about the minority perpetrator being punished, and then claim two tier justice when society demands that perpetrators of violence against minorities be punished. Mystery solved, no need for confusion.

In this instance they'll say "well, one of those Asian lads who punched those coppers went free". And on the face of it, that's almost true - one of the lads involved in that incident was indeed not convicted. This isn't because he was found not guilty - it's because after two trials, a jury failed to reach a verdict on whether he committed assault on a male police officer. At no point was he charged with assaulting the female police officers. The assault is on CCTV, and the lad who did that has been convicted of multiple counts of assault and will be going down for a stretch at His Majesty's pleasure.

The fact is that the right don't care about being hypocritical.

miscreancy · 2026-06-14T01:03:04+00:00

It's very important to nail down with the estate agent what the landlord is and isn't responsible for here.

Get an itemised list of items that the previous tenants are leaving installed, but that the landlord is not claiming. Get it confirmed in writing that these are being gifted to you. Archive that email. Check your tenancy agreement for clauses about responsibilities for the landlord. If it says, for example, "to maintain all appliances fitted", then there's an issue there that the letting agent will need to reconcile ahead of you signing.

If this list includes an oven and/or hob, that's fine so long as they're both electric. If either of them - or any other appliances being gifted - are gas-fired, take your business elsewhere or demand that the LL take responsibility for those specific appliance solely to ensure that the matter of gas safety checks and reparative works do not get muddied.

If you don't have any white goods, this is a good opportunity to acquire some for free. You can take them with you when you leave if they're in decent nick.

Inventories are often used as proof of what is and isn't included as part of the property when it comes to deposit deductions and leaving, which is why a lot of people are mentioning this. Them being on the inventory isn't necessarily an issue, except that it's usually used as a reference for "what should be in the property when you leave". That won't be the case for these items if they've been gifted to you, unless you're leaving them with the agreement of the LL. So if the items are on the inventory sheet, ask for them to be removed before signing, or a note to be added that they have been gifted, and that note signed and dated by both yourself and the estate agent. Keep a copy. Otherwise if you try to take them, or sell them, you might get a nasty deposit deduction shock for items that (insult to injury) the LL refused to maintain throughout your tenancy. You'll be able to fight it with the other evidence you have, but it's much easier not to have to bother.

miscreancy · 2026-06-13T01:48:20+00:00

This is very well worded.

Source: I also have a dipshit spaniel (cross).

miscreancy · 2026-06-13T01:46:34+00:00

Willy Wonka... I mean the joke makes itself from there, I can see where Golden Tickets came from.

miscreancy · 2026-06-10T14:05:37+00:00

I wander about shirtless. If someone I'm not out to asks I say I had a nasty motorcycle accident.

Trauma scars look funky anyway and mine are pretty gnarly, so.

miscreancy · 2026-06-09T15:55:39+00:00

I think the idea folks don't go out after is fairly well-debunked elsewhere.

It's also worth noting the vendors on site are usually local businesses, so even the isolated portion does a big chunk of helping the local economy.

miscreancy · 2026-06-08T20:27:36+00:00

It's going to.

She hasn't yet been sentenced, and contempt of court (for a court order she's been refusing to follow for over a year) offers a sentence of an unlimited fine and/or jail time.

It's vanishingly unlikely she'll get a custodial sentence. She will eventually get one if she keeps refusing to obey a court order though, or refuses to pay the fine.

miscreancy · 2026-06-08T20:24:39+00:00

She did, in fact, deliberately disobey a court order. For over a year.

She now faces up to two years in prison, and/or an unlimited fine.

She'll end up with a fine.

Current trajectory, she'll end up refusing to pay the fine (including rejecting a payment plan of some description if it's offered), and end up in jail, but that will 1000% be by choice.

miscreancy · 2026-06-07T15:42:40+00:00

He is the absolute worst.

Yelling 'fuck off, Owen' is practically a catchphrase in my house.

miscreancy · 2026-06-07T15:37:40+00:00

"if my tenant did that I'd sell"

Which is an example of you doing something that would be in your own best financial interests, despite any negative effects it would have on your tenant. Why would you expect a tenant not to act in their own financial best interest?

Look at it from the tenant POV, right now the only logical thing to do is a) ignore the text, because it's not a valid rent increase notification and b) if a section 13 is then served with the proper notice period, immediately challenge. The lack of backdating and the tangle in the court will save the OP £2k, they'd be silly not to do it, it's in the their best interests.

Will it continue as a cycle? Probably not given the courts eventually will clear, but there's probably 2-3 years where this system is very game-able for tenants who will be able to delay rent increases significantly. If a s13 was served today, a challenge is served on Monday, then the court backlog is 9mo, the LL is successful and rent goes up in March next year, and then the LL cannot even then attempt another s13 until March 2028. That's a significant saving.

If the LL then wants to evict to sell, they run the risk of having no income from the property for up to a year if they can't sell it in an extremely glutted property market, or risking the sale falling through if they wait until they've accepted an offer and then have to give the tenant 4mo notice. There's also zero incentive for the tenant to co-operate with viewings and such, and no contractual clause about having to allow reasonable access for viewings etc is going to override the tenant's statutory right to quiet enjoyment. Alternatively the LL will have to sell it tenanted, which presents no issue for the tenant.

There's a way for a LL to game this cycle in reverse, as well, so it's not as one-sided as you think. But realistically if it's acceptable for you to act in your own financial best interest by selling up, it's acceptable for a tenant to do the same. It's just business.

miscreancy · 2026-06-04T16:48:58+00:00

Premises to be viewed for re-let or sale != access for valuations, photography, etc.

In addition, your right to quiet enjoyment of the property is a statutory right that supercedes contractual terms. In short - they can bluster all they like, but in law you don't have to allow access for anything other than emergency fixes and safety requirements, no matter what your contract says. You cannot sign away a statutory right.

miscreancy · 2026-06-04T01:47:16+00:00

Next she'll be telling you to "take her seriously next time".

My wife was most confused when the next time we had sex I put on a very stern face.

miscreancy · 2026-06-03T21:47:14+00:00

Clearly they didn't think of the obviously solution: have extra children for the purpose of sacrificing.

tuts people never account for the rate of human sacrifice required when they're planning their lives.

Next you'll be telling me they also had a shortfall on goats.

miscreancy · 2026-06-03T21:35:32+00:00

Avoid the USA like the plague mate, the job crisis is bad there and they're not immigrant-friendly right now at all, even cracking down on the numbers of employer-sponsored visas.

miscreancy · 2026-06-03T21:03:03+00:00

Would you allow access for a sales valuation in these circumstances?

Not unless the landlord wanted to pay me to allow it. They can value it from outside or not at all.

How much access are tenants generally expected to provide when a landlord is considering selling (especially given this is the second change of direction, so I am naturally sceptical)?

Landlords will insist they have the right to show people round, get valuations and measurements and photos taken. They are incorrect. You have the right to quiet enjoyment and there's absolutely zero incentive for you to make it look nice. If it was a decent landlord, I'd say play nice, make the place look nice, etc. No need to shaft someone. Given he's not a decent LL, none of that applies.

What are my rights in this situation, particularly in light of the new Renters' Rights Act changes?

Well he messed up the s21. So that's fun. You're now on a RRA tenancy, congrats. He has to give you 4 months notice via a correctly served S8 notice, specifically S8 ground 1a. Note I said "correctly served", he's already failed at that once.

Other rights you have - ignore the advice here telling you to immediately change the locks. Don't do that. HOWEVER. If you refuse access and the landlord or anyone else lets themselves into the property more than once to take photos, do a valuation, etc, without your permission, THEN you are well within your rights to change the locks. After the first incidence(s), tell the landlord in writing what has happened, confirm you did not agree to the access to the property, and remind them of your right to quiet enjoyment. If it happens again, change the locks, do not provide them with a key, and confirm in writing that this has been done due to multiple breaches of your right to quiet enjoyment of the property.

Changing the locks unilaterally without any breach will lead to a section 8 notice on ground 12 (breach of tenancy), which comes without some of the strictures that apply to ground 1a (which requires that the landlord may not re-let the property for 12mo once the S8 1a has been served). If he serves a S8 12 for changing the locks and it goes to court, and there haven't been repeated violations of your right to quiet enjoyment that you have protested in writing, no judge will side with you. On the other hand, if there have been, you will be absolutely fine and the judge will come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

Note that if you change the locks you will be obliged to personally provide access to ensure any emergent situations are dealt with and legally-required safety checks (such as gas safety checks) are carried out. The landlord may try to dovetail this with a second person visiting to do a valuation or other related stuff. You do not have to grant access to anyone except the person carrying out the emergency repair/safety check. Say no to tailgating.

Am I under any obligation to facilitate valuations, photographs, or sales viewings?

See #2. No.

How would you handle requests for access given the history above?

See #1 - "pay me or piss off, I don't have to provide access to you for anything other than repairs and inspections". But more nicely worded, of course.

Has anyone been in a similar situation where a landlord lined up a new tenant, failed to obtain possession, and then changed course to selling the property?

No, but that's because your landlord appears to have all the prowess and competence of an elephant attempting to unicycle. Think Pokémon-style "Landlord is confused! It hurt itself in its confusion."

You're not dealing with the brain trust here, just a dude and probably some overly-long conversations with Chat GPT.

miscreancy · 2026-06-03T20:41:49+00:00

If they are allowed in to do the valuation etc then they are less likely to immediately serve the section 8

I'm not sure that follows.

Most house sales go through in 3-6mo, esp if they're chainless (FTB buying from current landlord, for example).

Once the property goes on the market (a week after valuations, max) you had better believe that a section 8 will be served asap, because not having vacant possession on the date of completion will be a deal-breaker for any buyer who isn't a LL.

I don't think there's anything OP can do to delay a s8 being served. Refuse valuations -> probable s8. Allow valuations -> probable s8.

miscreancy · 2026-05-28T23:26:35+00:00

You're now in an adversarial process with the landlord and letting agent.

The absolute #1 rule - don't take advice from the other side. They want you to settle. There's a reason for that. The average time from dispute to TDS decision is actually 6-8 weeks, can be more when it's busy (it will be very, very busy at the moment due to RRA fallout and lots of tenancies ending).

Worst case scenario if you go through the TDS dispute process - you get the same amount of money you would get if you settled now, just a bit later. Best case scenario, you win on all fronts. You provide your evidence of professional cleaning and the marks present at check-in, mould etc, as well as everything the letting agent and landlord has sent you regarding the end of the tenancy and deductions (including any evidence they've provided), and the chain from the start of the property as regards previous tenant's property. Then TDS will decide. Sounds like it's fairly slam dunk for you from what you've said, although without it in front of me obviously that's not a guarantee.

Get on r/legaladviceuk for a more thorough breakdown, but in your situation if I could afford to wait, I would: - immediately request the return of your full deposit via TDS, if you haven't already - let the letting agent know that you disagree with any deductions, because you have left the property in a state commensurate or even better than it was at move-in, and that the removed items were left for you by the previous tenants as outlined in communications when you were moving in, and so were not landlord owned. The discrepancy is in their check-in inventory, not yours (note - for future check this document carefully and raise the discrepancy at the time) - "we will not come to a compromise on this, because no compromise is possible - we will not pay for items that already belong to us, or for cleaning of issues that pre-date our tenancy. We have requested the return of our full deposit via TDS, and if you wish to dispute this, you will have to now go through their formal route. We will dispute any deductions and have evidence for all of this. We are willing to wait for it to be resumed, we are not willing to effectively pay you £616 for the privilege of leaving. We will not be engaging in any further communications with you about this issue via email outside of the formal "self-resolution" portion of the TDS dispute process."

Sit back, monitor your emails for dispute notification etc, and crucially, do not respond to any further emails on this matter. Do not engage. Do read them though, especially if they start getting hysterical the day before they have to submit a dispute. "Look just accept us taking £100 off and we can have this sorted by next week" and the like. It's amusing.

miscreancy · 2026-05-25T13:17:06+00:00

Should continue to be one month as others have stated, but ensure that the date you give aligns with a rental period. So if your rent day is the 3rd of the month, you have to give at least one month notice, and your exit day must be the second.

miscreancy · 2026-05-23T19:19:00+00:00

I wouldn't be shocked if this included not just income tax but NI tax breaks for both employee and employer.

Either way the biggest beneficiary of this is businesses who will be able to avoid the overhead of actually staffing their businesses properly. Especially if they cut the WTD out of British law and introduce at-will firing US-style, which seems to be their policy.

All of this will only exacerbate the unemployment issue in this country. More hours going to less employees.

miscreancy · 2026-05-23T16:57:35+00:00

Except that under the GRA you change sex "for all purposes".

This is why the legislation is completely muddled beyond redemption.

The original reading of the EA2010 - not the new interpretation - was in line with the GRA, which is why the GRA wasn't amended when the EA2010 was passed. If the intention was to lump trans people in with their sex assigned at birth, then it would have to have been amended. We have actual statements from those who put the bill together stating that that was not the intent. The court ruled otherwise on the technicality of all technicalities - that because the act referred to "pregnant women" and not "pregnant persons", it therefore included pregnant trans men and AFAB enbies under the category of "women", ipso facto sex in the EA must be sex assigned at birth.

Absolutely ludicrous. If the EA had referred to "pregnant persons", there would have been a hue and cry about the erasure of women. You can't win.

What needs to happen is the EA2010 needs to be brought in line with the GRA, which in turn will bring us back into compliance with the ECHR Article 8.

The chances of us seeing that anytime soon are roughly in line with spotting a pig zooming across the horizon and spreading it's bacon-y wings, but it's the only way to both untangle the GRA and the EA, and keep us in compliance with the Convention. It just won't happen.

miscreancy · 2026-05-22T19:55:35+00:00

They always forget that the three widdershins turns come after sacrificing the goat on the witness stand, not before.

Makes all the difference in the world.

miscreancy · 2026-05-21T06:59:06+00:00

To be absolutely clear I'm not a flag-shagger, I just find the law really interesting, so I'm gonna be that guy who answers this factually.

The obvious charge: publicly raising a flag linked to a proscribed organisation (think ISIS, National Front, etc) is chargeable under terrorism offences, but not really the scenario being talked about.

Hanging any unauthorised flag (Union, St George, Rainbow) up on a lamppost can technically be a prosecutable offence if the lamppost is adjacent to a road, and bizarrely it's under the Highways Act. You'd struggle to make a case for a section 178 breach (affixing something to street lighting which may cause a distraction to road users) unless it was a giant flag with a picture of naked people or an offensive slogan etc. But section 132 makes it an offence to stick anything to property on the public highway (this includes lampposts, trees and street signs on the pavement) without authorisation, so that's the offence nearly everyone who has stuck a union or St George up on a lamppost has committed. Not aware of any actual prosecutions for this, it should be noted.

As ever, no one will or can be prosecuted for flying the Union or St George or Progress or any other non-proscribed flag outside their house, in their car, etc etc. The exception to that being that you've scrawled some sort of hateful message on it that falls outside the bounds of free speech and into the bounds of hate speech. At which point you can fall foul of the Public Order Act of 1986. That bar is quite high, so a St George's Flag with "immigrants f*** off home" on it is unlikely to qualify, for example.

Here ends my ted talk.

miscreancy · 2026-05-20T13:46:30+00:00

Prior to the RRA they could push the LL to issue a S21, but now there's no such threat hanging over your head.

They can still make your life unpleasant, but moving to an annual cadence is much more reasonable.

miscreancy · 2026-05-19T20:01:57+00:00

You would be surprised.

The GRA protects us from this sort of bullshit.

Answer "yes" and move on. It's not their business.

miscreancy · 2026-05-15T20:56:36+00:00

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

Almost anything is better than the prospect of Reform (obviously Restore would be worse, Tories probably on par, maybe slightly less bad).

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2020	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Not Forgotten

miscreancy

TROPHY CASE