Tenants should turn the tables on dodgy landlords

Cannon_Fodder

The problem, just like a restaurant or shop, is that 1 piece of "bad business" does not get notified to the next customer...it takes months and years for a reputation to be won or lost, during which time the below-average landlord is able to keep operating, often with dodgy practices, or at least simple incompetance.

If a tenant does something wrong, they lose some deposit, PLUS the next place they wish to go to might obtain a poor reference from the previous landlord, so decline their application = homeless straight away, or at least dependent on the less picky end of the market, which may serve them right.

What checks are done on Landlords? What sanctions are available? Or Letting Agents? Because, to be fair, many issues can be down to poor communication between the 3 parties...


Take my own letting agents, one of the prestige names in the business *apparently*, the girl in the office didn't know it is legal requirement to provide me proof of the deposit scheme...

...now, tenant hard-nuts might say I should try the 3x deposit penalty thing, as a sanction, so they learn from it, but if I do they won't let me rent anything again, as they would consider me a "bad tenant"...


Tenants are in the weaker position where sanctions are concerned, which hardly creates a "self-governing" situation where consequences are felt equally.

ess0two

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Heres a couple of pics of my "excellent accomodation" 2 bed flat from which I achieve a monthly rental of £850.
Since these pictures I've improved with a 40" flat screen and DVD unit. I didn't need to do this, but it helps set my property apart from the rest and helps keeps voids to a minimum

Looks nice currently negotiating or should that be at stand off,lol on very similar place myself in York.

chucky

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

What checks are done on Landlords? What sanctions are available? Or Letting Agents? Because, to be fair, many issues can be down to poor communication between the 3 parties...

very good post - you've highlighted many issues that are not just the Landlords responsibility.

like most things there is room for improvement.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Excellent points.

Also, the graph stops in 2005, just as BTL went through the roof. A rather more detailed look at the years 2000-2008 say would be more helpful in determining the effect of the huge growth in BTL in that period, than trying to analyse the last few years of a much larger scale graph over a much longer period.

At least half a million BTL mortgages were taken out in 2006-7 from memeory; I think more - obviously data that can't get a look in on this graph. Don't forget that numbers owning actually fell for the first time in decades last year.

This graph is hopelessly out of date, frankly.

Ok, the graph stops in 2005, feel free to find a more up to date graph to your liking.

You cannot deny however that the trend is a reduction in social housing and I have always accepted there is an increase in private renting

In short, there is a market out there for private rental, to some extent influenced by the government as they sold off their social housing without replacing the properties

It is my belief that without the increase in Private rental properties there would be a lot more people in shared ownership schemes or living at home.

This leads me onto a personal question carolt.
You previously stated you did not qualify for social housing and we know you rent from a private landlord.
Where would you be staying if you didn't have a private landlord to rent from?

Please dont say you would have bought as you have previously stated you made decisions not to buy

housesitter

ISTL: Nice flat. very nice flat, and you are asking a rent which does indicate it's standard. Good luck to you. You will attract a certain level of client who is willing to pay more than the norm for a higher quality of finish.
I'm not one of them, but as a renter I totally understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, some other renters seem to think that's what they deserve for a lot less.

hint: you're paying for the finish in your rent.


All I'd like to see from my LL, is the ability for them to fix things which are wrong with their house, and if they wont redecorate, at least let me do it (in neutral colours, not jet black of course)

IveSeenTheLight

housesitter wrote: »

ISTL: Nice flat. very nice flat, and you are asking a rent which does indicate it's standard. Good luck to you. You will attract a certain level of client who is willing to pay more than the norm for a higher quality of finish.
I'm not one of them, but as a renter I totally understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, some other renters seem to think that's what they deserve for a lot less.

hint: you're paying for the finish in your rent.


All I'd like to see from my LL, is the ability for them to fix things which are wrong with their house, and if they wont redecorate, at least let me do it (in neutral colours, not jet black of course)

Thank you regarding my flat. I do believe in providing a high quality property with the belief that a well maintained property at a high standard will help to ensure that the tenants look after it and highlight any maintenance requirements.
This is only good for me as a landlord in the long run.

Actually, I ask a rent which is under market rate.
Average rent around my flat for 2 bed is £799.69 of 16 currently available properties. As my flat is £750, it is under the average
Therefore my tenants get a much better finish and flat than other available flats.
I do this to enable low to no voids

P.S. I did once have a request if they could freshen up the walls (they weren't bad but the tenants wanted a brighter colour) I offered to get someone in to do it which they replied they wanted to do themselves. I agreed and asked that they forward the material costs which I then refunded to them. I was able to of course claim the costs against the properties profitable tax under maintenance costs.

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, the graph stops in 2005, feel free to find a more up to date graph to your liking.

You cannot deny however that the trend is a reduction in social housing and I have always accepted there is an increase in private renting

In short, there is a market out there for private rental, to some extent influenced by the government as they sold off their social housing without replacing the properties

It is my belief that without the increase in Private rental properties there would be a lot more people in shared ownership schemes or living at home.

This leads me onto a personal question carolt.
You previously stated you did not qualify for social housing and we know you rent from a private landlord.
Where would you be staying if you didn't have a private landlord to rent from?

Please dont say you would have bought as you have previously stated you made decisions not to buy

Assuming that all the BTL houses bought in the last 10 years had not disappeared into thin air, I would probably have bought one of them. Or I would have bought somewhere else equivalent but at lower price, as I would not have been competing against landlords who could outbid me by 'investing' equity from their existing properties and pay no tax on mortgage interest, while I paid my mortgage out of pre-taxed income.

You are mistaken, by the way - I didn't make a decision not to buy till quite late - Feb 2007. Up till that point, we failed to buy by accident rather than design - came up against several non-sellers eg who changed their mind after agreeing offer, one going through divorce and therefore with no legal right to sell the property, one who just randomly changed their mind and decided not to sell etc.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

The problem is that you would be turfing a lot of innocent tenants onto the street to deliver your aim.

I'm going to bookmark this quote and refer to it the next time you advise someone not to bother to ask their lender for permission to let.

damanpunk

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Rob, you are obviously in a different timezone / planet.

You cannot compare Aberdeen to Leeds as they are totally different areas and markets and no, the property is not on "Millionaires Row".
Come back down from cloud 9.
You are making assumptions on 4 pictures, have no details about the flat, location, amenities, market data etc. You also do not know the properties it competes against or the town wealth / income.

"Leeds is the 3rd largest city in the UK by population"
Population has nothing to do with wealth.

Finally some little stats about Aberdeen compared to the UK
http://www.aberdeen-info.co.uk/facts.html
Gross Domestic Product = Aberdeen City £6.43 billion. If Aberdeen was a country, it would one of the richest countries in the world with a GDP per capita of £29,764. (Luxembourg tops the list with a per capita GDP of $35,000. The UK GDP per capita is £17,400.

If you want to compare earnings between Leeds and Aberdeen, the following link shows the mean Aberdeen wage is £524.60 per week while Leeds is only £464.40 per week.

Incidently a full time male (as I am) is £723.10 per week (£37,700 per year) as opposed to £589.50 per week (£30,700 per year) almost 23% more

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab7_1a.xls

Looks like a good price to me mate, about the same as I paid while renting in the town centre :cool: Personally every flat I went to look at that was £600 or under a month was a total dump.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I'm going to bookmark this quote and refer to it the next time you advise someone not to bother to ask their lender for permission to let.

If you check I think you will find that I say that people should ask their lender, but that some people don't ask.