---

Posted by Dee on August 07, 2001 at 20:47:48:

In Reply to: Misinformation on this board --beware!!! posted by tenantperson on August 05, 2001 at 18:06:54:

: I know the people using this board are well-intentioned, but these are often legal issues and a good rule of thumb is, always double-check and don't take any answer at face value.

: A while back I saw the following:

: http://tenant.net/forum/board/messages/arcs01/arcs0106/14033.html

: The person who gave the answer seemed totally convinced and seemed to know what he was talking about. This exchange of emails applied precisely to my situation -- I've had a preferential rent for some years and the landlord just stopped offering me a preferential rent. If I had listened to this person I would have accepted the landlord's action as valid.

: In fact he or she was WRONG WRONG WRONG. After receiving differing opinions from others, I contested the landlord's attempt to hit me with a higher rent and he backed off.

I read the whole of the old thread and this one: what are you talking abooout?

old thread: nyhawk posted an actual court decision without adding one word of his own, pascal asks 'what does it mean', ace says something fuzzy, jj spells it out: this is the first time any court cancelled a tenant's preferential rent. Before this decision, preferential rent ended when the tenant moved out, not before then.

What "misinformation" that sounded authoritative???? You mean the original post by nyhawk, don't you? Well, of course it sounds authoritative, a judge wrote it!

Follow Ups:

• This is what tenantperson 08/08/01 (3)
  • Preferential vs. Legal - Hold up Ace 08/09/01 (0)
  • Re: This is what: Ace's subject line DUH 08/08/01 (1)
    • Ace's subject line conveyed misinformation tenantperson 08/08/01 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : I know the people using this board are well-intentioned, but these are often legal issues and a good rule of thumb is, always double-check and don't take any answer at face value.

: : A while back I saw the following:

: : http://tenant.net/forum/board/messages/arcs01/arcs0106/14033.html

: : The person who gave the answer seemed totally convinced and seemed to know what he was talking about. This exchange of emails applied precisely to my situation -- I've had a preferential rent for some years and the landlord just stopped offering me a preferential rent. If I had listened to this person I would have accepted the landlord's action as valid.

: : In fact he or she was WRONG WRONG WRONG. After receiving differing opinions from others, I contested the landlord's attempt to hit me with a higher rent and he backed off.

: I read the whole of the old thread and this one:  what are you talking abooout?

: old thread: nyhawk posted an actual court decision without adding one word of his own, pascal asks 'what does it mean', ace says something fuzzy, jj spells it out: this is the first time any court cancelled a tenant's preferential rent.  Before this decision, preferential rent ended when the tenant moved out, not before then.

: What "misinformation" that sounded authoritative????  You mean the original post by nyhawk, don't you?  Well, of course it sounds authoritative, a judge wrote it!


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---