|
|
Gite Owners
Topic has 56 replies.
 
 
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
23/11/2006, 8:44
|
Chief

Joined on 13/06/2006
Wherever i am today
Posts 312
|
|
|
Your right Lori, i was kidding to an extent. But the issue you raise is also correct. theer appears to be no justification in our modern societies for doing things the right way anymore. The question i guess is "Who would you rather be sh*fted by?", some good for nothing freeloading scrote, or a good for nothing freeloading government and judicial system. Its a sad day when you can no longer look your teenage son in the eye and say crime doesnt pay, get a job and have a good life, buy a home, be a decent citizen, be a good father, etc etc, because it just ins't true anymore, the balance has shifted, we are looked upon as mugs for playing it straight down the line, we are here simply to be bled dry and the government, judiciary, police, etc etc don't care.....were on our own!!
You might not be responsible for being down, but you are responsible for getting back up again.....
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
23/11/2006, 9:10
|
Frederick

Joined on 17/04/2006
Grues / Vendee(85) & Dorset
Posts 321
|
|
|
Chief ....what you say is correct...and was one of the reasons I was happy to get out of renting .....I was getting nothing but hassle from tenants and the none paying ones were being advised by the Council not to vacate the property untill I had obtained a court order to get them out....Never mind the fact they may be dissruptivt to others living next door .and they owed me for weeks of none paid rent . It was policy to advise bad tenants in the private sector to ignor orders to vacate and force landlords to go through the County Courts for eviction orders . All the council got from their actions in my case was to see one more property in the town no longer available for rent to those who needed a home .
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
23/11/2006, 10:42
|
Will

Joined on 22/09/2004
Sussex & 50 (Mortainais)
Posts 5,174
|
|
|
|
I'm getting rather confused as to whether we are talking about France, Britain, or both here. I understood the general principles of the law to be rather different in the two countries, the French Napoleonic Code not making the same distinction between civil and criminal matters that British common law does.
I'm also not sure which country Chief is talking about with his comment: "The question i guess is "Who would you rather be sh*fted by?", some good for nothing freeloading scrote, or a good for nothing freeloading government and judicial system. Its a sad day when you can no longer look your teenage son in the eye and say crime doesnt pay, get a job and have a good life, buy a home, be a decent citizen, be a good father, etc etc, because it just ins't true anymore, the balance has shifted, we are looked upon as mugs for playing it straight down the line, we are here simply to be bled dry and the government, judiciary, police, etc etc don't care.."
It could well be both France and Britain - in fact in view of the points made in the original posts, the comments are equally applicable to France as to Britain. Which rather calls into question the validity of the argument that people move to France because they don't like the way things are going in Britain. I know the less acceptable aspects of society are still there in France, it's just that it's easier for some to ignore them. There was actually a comment made recently on another forum about (I can't remember the exact wording but this was the gist, put a little more bluntly) how good it was to be able to create a community based on a past England, isolated from the bad aspects of real life, and where they could ignore local papers, TV, radio, etc because they were all in a foreign language. They were talking about Brittany, for Christ's sake - I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, but it attracted a lot of support and if the original comment wasn't serious, the replies were.
Sorry, but I didn't move to France to escape Britain, or to create my own idea of a utopia based on England of 40 years ago.
Will
intentionally blank signature
http://www.vienormande.com
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
24/11/2006, 16:49
|
Llwyncelyn
Joined on 14/06/2006
Posts 703
|
|
|
|
Will as you know I was in the law and still am to some extent. Here and just to challenge the civil side think a little upon the criminal side in the UK
Gone are the days when one can remain silent for now inferences can be made as to silence.
You can now introduce evidence of previous bad conduct.
The Home Secretary is now saying that in relation to the procedures that Parliament has committed the Police to if they get it wrong don't worry if you truly believe whomever you have arrested is guilty go for it and I will try to make sure the Courts are restricted in what they can or cannot do.
Again DNA and where in the past it was only in relatively serious matters than you had to give DNA it is now for any arrestable offence. You have no choice.
Of course you cannot really challenge the prosecution witnesses especially if they are the Police for then your client's shield comes down and then they can go for his throat.
Yes I know this is a major divergence from the thread and for which I apologise but there are problems in both countries but I know where I would prefer to be!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
13/12/2006, 13:29
|
blue
Joined on 24/11/2006
Posts 3
|
|
|
Can some one just clarify one thing. If you are in a stuation where you have non-payment of rent can you legally enter your own house to do 'repair' work?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
13/12/2006, 14:00
|
Clair

Joined on 23/08/2004
Forum Moderator based in the Lot (46)
Posts 8,049
|
|
|
blue wrote: | | Can some one just clarify one thing. If you are in a stuation where you have non-payment of rent can you legally enter your own house to do 'repair' work? |
|
Les
droits du propriétaire pour faire effectuer des travaux:
L'intrusion du propriétaire dans le logement est souvent vécue par
les locataires en place comme une violation de leurs droits, a fortiori
lorsqu'il s'agit de réaliser des travaux qui n'apparaissent pas urgents
et qui sont bruyants ou salissants. Pourtant, la loi du 06 juillet
1989 (nous ne parlerons pas des logements régis pas la loi de 1948,
rares aujourd'hui) donne certains droits aux propriétaires privés. Le
locataire ne peut pas refuser l'accès des parties communes, a fortiori
du logement, au propriétaire qui veut faire des travaux. Toutefois,
si son propriétaire abuse de la situation, le locataire n'est pas
démuni. Le
propriétaire peut librement effectuer les travaux qui visent à améliorer le logement en augmentant sa sécurité, son insonorisation,
son isolation thermique, son confort général ou entretenir l'habitation. Le locataire
peut estimer que les travaux que le propriétaire réalise ou qu'il
projette d'effectuer sont abusifs (ils peuvent être différés à la
fin du bail, ils ont pour but de lui nuire.). Mais il ne peut pas
s'opposer directement au propriétaire. Il doit saisir le tribunal
d'instance de son domicile pour faire reconnaître l'abus par le juge.
C'est cette décision qui interdira les travaux. Le
locataire peut demander une indemnisation pour les travaux
abusifs qui lui ont causé un dommage (coût d'un nettoyage,
perte de temps, de salaire.). Mais aussi pour les travaux
autorisés qui ont duré plus de 40 jours (art. 1724 du
Code civil).
Quick translationRights of the owner to make carry out work: The intrusion of the owner is often lived by the tenants like a violation of
their rights, particularly for work which
does not appear to be urgent and which is noisy or messy. However, the law
of July 6, 1989 (we will not speak about the governed residences not
the law of 1948, rare today) gives certain rights to private
owners. The tenant cannot refuse access to the communal areas, a
fortiori to the private areas, to the owner who wants to do work. However, if
the owner misuses the situation, the tenant is not without recourse. The owner
can freely carry out work which aims to improve housing by increasing
its safety, its sound-proofing, its heat insulation, its comfort
general or to maintain the dwelling. The tenant can estimate that work
which the owner completes or which it projects to carry out are abusive
(i.e. they could be differed to the end of the lease, they
are designed to annoy him). But the tenant cannot oppose the owner directly. He must go to the magistrates' court of his residence to have make the abuse recognised by the judge. It is this decision which will prohibit the work.
The tenant can ask for compensation for abusive work which have caused him damage (cost of cleaning, lost wages, waste of time.). But also for
authorised work which lasted more than 40 days (art 1724 of the Civil
code). |
|
Clair Real Virtual French Person
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
13/12/2006, 14:08
|
blue
Joined on 24/11/2006
Posts 3
|
|
|
|
Thank-you for that. Interesting their rights to oppose the work - wonder how that would stand up in court if the landlord can also prove non-payment of rent??
Of course any work carried out would only be for the safety, comfort and benefit of the non rent paying tennants.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
13/12/2006, 14:23
|
Clair

Joined on 23/08/2004
Forum Moderator based in the Lot (46)
Posts 8,049
|
|
|
The law in France seems to be skewed against the landlord, so I suggest the court would see any attempt by the landlord to make the tenant uncomfortable as just that, regardless of the landlord's loss...
Clair Real Virtual French Person
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
France Forum » Owning/Running ... » Gite Owners » Re: Dodgy tenants
|
|
|
|