should we get rid of our tenants in order tosell quick?

Premier_2

franklee wrote: »

Is if if the tenant has specifically told the agent/LL that he does not want that viewing to take place because that would entail the agent/LL/viewer to enter the property without the tenant's permission.

So a LL is allowed to send the builders round with notice, but not an EA or go themselves?
Think about it! Does that make any sense or are you just reading the bits you want to read?
Look at the tenants responsibilities I quoted from the site as an addendum to my earlier post

Premier_2

franklee wrote: »

The offence by the tenant by breaching the tenancy agreement would be a civil one but that's not the point we are discussing. What we are discussing is the landlord's actions in retaliating - entering the property for a viewing without the tenant's consent. That is a more serious offence.



Eh? Tenants unilaterally breach tenancy agreements all the time. The issue is once the tenant has done this what does the landlord then do about it.



Perhaps the tenant thought the landlord would be reasonable in arranging mutually agreeable appointments, the TA does not give the landlord carte blanche to dictate when the viewings are. Otherwise it would allow for example for the landlord to write saying that viewings will be held at 9pm and 2pm every day till the property is sold.



The tenant can withdraw this permission. Signing the TA does not mean that the landlord can have a viewing next Tuesday at 2pm if that date is not acceptable to the tenant.



If the agent commits a criminal offence by entering the tenant's home without permission then it is the landlord who is responsible as the agent is acting on behalf of the landlord.



So the tenant changes the locks storing them away safely to reinstate at the end if the tenancy. You the landlord on discovering this employ a locksmith to change the locks to a third set? That sounds very much like illegal eviction to me. Again the offence the landlord has committed here has greater penalties than the one the tenant committed. This is because the tenant is paying rent for the exclusive use and quiet enjoyment of the property. If the landlord is not happy to grant this then he should get rid of the tenant (or not let the property in the first instance).



Ah, something we agree upon, we would not be doing any business together. You are a landlord I take it?

No what we are discussing is the LL, or his agents, rights of entry in line with the TA.

Given reasonable notice, the tenant would be in breach of the TA if entry is not allowed.

So you think it's perfectly ok for tenants to breach the terms of the TA they willingly agreed to in the first place?

franklee

Premier wrote: »

So a LL is allowed to send the builders round with notice, but not an EA or go themselves?

The same would apply to builders as viewings unless it's an emergency. What I am saying is if the tenant says no to entry then the landlord is stuck and unless he wishes to commit a greater offence he really needs a court order to gain entry.

Premier wrote: »

Think about it! Does that make any sense or are you just reading the bits you want to read? Look at the tenants responsibilities I quoted from the site as an addendum to my earlier post

Of course I don't expect you to believe me as a tenant, but if you are genuinely interested in knowing more why not ask the landlords at landlordzone?

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

(There are already threads on the subject over there).

RecoveringAlcoholic

Remember, when you sell a property, you hand over all of its future growth, to someone else. Its a bit like planting an apple tree, and getting it to grow. Then just before it fruits, you chop it down, and sell it for firewood. Instant profit, but your tree has gone. Why not keep the tree, enjoy a few fruits (release some equity every few years), and plant some more pips (invest in further properties), and have an orchard that allows you to retire financially free. Still want to chop your tree down?

:T

Keep the apple tree as in three years time you will need to chop it down to keep warm during the winter.

brit1234

robpw2 wrote: »

yes but if that happens where are people who cannot affor to buy supposed to live

There will be so few off them as house prices would of fallen 50% with all those 100,000s of but to let flats on repossession sales. There will be enough council housing then for the rest. I see no problem.

At last all these buy to let investors finally realise how dangerous their position is. It still makes me laugh how anybody thought it was viable in the long run. All the smart investors sold their portfolios over a year ago, its grim from here on in.

Premier_2

franklee wrote: »

The same would apply to builders as viewings unless it's an emergency. What I am saying is if the tenant says no to entry then the landlord is stuck and unless he wishes to commit a greater offence he really needs a court order to gain entry.

Where did you get that from?
From Shelter:

Examples of harassment

• sending builders round without notice

Nothing about having to have the agreement of the tenant.

franklee wrote:

Of course I don't expect you to believe me as a tenant, but if you are genuinely interested in knowing more why not ask the landlords at landlordzone?

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

(There are already threads on the subject over there).

Now i really do know you guys are clutching at straws.
If the best you guys can do to support your case is with references to wikipedia and other public forums, you really are wasting my time.
I didn't learn this business by studying GCSE law, I learnt it from the bottom up with the help (& cost) of some very learned friends in the beginning.

But as I say, those days are past now, and by careful vetting of tenants I've been lucky enough to have some extremely good tenants who are pleased to recommend me as a landlord to their friends because of the mutual respect we have for each other.

Premier_2

brit1234 wrote: »

There will be so few off them as house prices would of fallen 50% with all those 100,000s of but to let flats on repossession sales. There will be enough council housing then for the rest. I see no problem.

At last all these buy to let investors finally realise how dangerous their position is. It still makes me laugh how anybody thought it was viable in the long run. All the smart investors sold their portfolios over a year ago, its grim from here on in.

50%? :rotfl:

So everyones got £100k+ in their back pocket have they?

Weren't the majority of Council Houses sold off by Maggie? (who I think wouldn't allow the money to be used by the council to buy new stock, so it was squandered elsewhere)
Anything that remains is being increasingly passed to private housing associations. :rolleyes:

bubblesmoney

since this thread has already moved from the OPs queries in a tangent, here is my query in a tangent as well. i wonder why in the uk there are mostly private land lords, where as in usa there are many buildings built and managed by companies exclusively for letting. i have lived in some such places in uk (few and far between) and find that the properties are better managed and provide better facilities and no hassles getting the deposit back etc if one left the property in good condition. how ever people who did make a mess paid for it dearly. wouldnt it be better renting in a property where there already was a tel / sat tv / broadband etc installed and pricing built into the rent. only companies could successfully manage such properties i think due to economies of scale. also easier when moving as can choose another of their properties at the new place. no hassles of referral letters, credit checks etc delaying move. heard about a few such places in uk

tbs624

bubblesmoney wrote: »

since this thread has already moved from the OPs queries in a tangent, here is my query in a tangent as well.

...it has has moved on to Premier using the thread as a platform for his own interpretation of how to behave towards tenants, but the key issue around access for LL when they intend selling a tenanted property is still there, & broadly related to the initial post. Maybe your own post would probably be better off as a new thread though.....:D

Premier_2

bubblesmoney wrote: »

since this thread has already moved from the OPs queries in a tangent, here is my query in a tangent as well. i wonder why in the uk there are mostly private land lords, where as in usa there are many buildings built and managed by companies exclusively for letting. i have lived in some such places in uk (few and far between) and find that the properties are better managed and provide better facilities and no hassles getting the deposit back etc if one left the property in good condition. how ever people who did make a mess paid for it dearly. wouldnt it be better renting in a property where there already was a tel / sat tv / broadband etc installed and pricing built into the rent. only companies could successfully manage such properties i think due to economies of scale. also easier when moving as can choose another of their properties at the new place. no hassles of referral letters, credit checks etc delaying move. heard about a few such places in uk

That's a very good question and one I've not really thought about before.

I don't have the whole answer but some pointers I can think of are:

1) Historically the local corporations/councils offered social housing. With this government funded system, there would be little incentive in a private company trying to compete.
2) The growth in private landlords is something relatively new and have been encouraged by the governments desire to off load the council housing that was expensive to provide.
3) The land is no longer available in this country to build large areas of properties specifically for rental.
4) Grouping of all those in rented accomodation brings fears of the sterotypical council estates of old. The approach now is an integrated housing policy to avoid the ghettos that developed here in the past (and which still exist in some cases)