What rights do tenants want?

Dylanwing

I rented for a while, and never again. It never felt like home, having to ask to decorate (It was shabby and needed it!), frowned on for having pets and kids, any repairs only begrudgingly done (normally botched) at the third time of asking, and the worry of being evicted every 6 Months. All we wanted was a home that felt like our own, instead of feeling like a tresspasser in somebodys investment.
The Landlord was an utter a*sehole, and seemed to think that his only role was to collect rent and see property values rise. He had no idea of basic responsibilities, and could not see that letting a house was really a business, not just a get-rich-quick scheme. I was also unimpressed with the Letting Agents, as they were totally for the Landlord, and did not worry about basic tennants rights. They even tried to claim that we were responsible for changing locks after a burglary, and it was only when threatened with Citizens Advice that they backed down.
The rental market needs basic regulation to protect both sides, and needs to continue to cater for the single non-smoking, unmarried, no pets, no kids, professional preferred, 6 Month lease type of person that seems to be wanted by 99.9% of landlords, but also to offer longer leases with less restrictions, for people/ families who want a home that they can personalise, within reasonable limits. Sadly, I suspect that we will either continue with the current mess, or some cumbersome bureaucracy that creates more problems than it solves.

Sol00

Landlords and letting agencies should be held properly accountable for any repairs that are needed in a timely manner. If they don't complete them, the tenants should be able to reduce/withhold rent without any threat.

mewbie_2

I would like the landlord to knock before he enters the premises.
To not carry out bathroom inspections when my wife is in the shower.
To remove the internal CCTV cameras that seem to trace our every move.
To not be able to invite his mates round on a Friday night to watch our wide screen.
And to stop calling me t0sser.

Gorgeous_George

Tenants want a palace for the rent of a hovel. With the option to defer rental payment forever. They don't want to pay a deposit but want it back at the end of the tenancy. All damage is fair wear and tear. Landlords to be imprisoned if they smile at their tenant.

More seriously, I'd like tenants to receive a letter from any lenders with an interest in the property detailing what would happen if the mortgage is not paid. I'd like this to include an option for the lender to become the landlord for a period of time to be agreed.

While I support a Landlord registration scheme, I'd like to see a Tenant registration scheme.

GG

lostinrates

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Tenants want a palace for the rent of a hovel. With the option to defer rental payment forever. They don't want to pay a deposit but want it back at the end of the tenancy. All damage is fair wear and tear. Landlords to be imprisoned if they smile at their tenant.


GG

Is tht really how you think tenants think? Is it how you think your tenants think?

Gorgeous_George

longtimelurker wrote: »

I want to be able to check that my LL is paying all their taxes properly. I know they had part of the flat built with planning permission - what are they dodging tax wise?

I guess you mean 'without' planning permission.

A landlord who cheats the tax system might be offering lower rents so that could be a double-edged sword. That said, I'd like to see a list of properties that the tax man knows are let posted on t'Internet for tenants and nosy-parkers to search.

GG

Gorgeous_George

lostinrates wrote: »

Is tht really how you think tenants think? Is it how you think your tenants think?

Really?

No, of course not - but I had one a bit like that once.



GG

carolt

pawpurrs wrote: »

Whats Housing Benefit then? Homeowners actually get a worse deal than tennants if they lose their jobs? A tennant would be eligiable for HB straight away.

No, that's not the case - a tenant would have to apply and would then only get what was designated a fair rent for the area and their family circumstances; not subsidizing any property they happened to have previously been able to afford, as happens with homeowners.

Also, like all benefits, housing benefit can take many, many weeks to come through; in the meantime, the tenant can be turfed out altogether, unless they have a sympathetic landlord.

And I was comparing tenants who DO pay with homeowners who DON'T (or can't). It's most unjust that tenants who always pay their rent reliably can still be chucked out with very little notice (or no notice if their landlord is renting without the permission of their lender, and the property is repossessed). That can't happen currently if a homeowner has mortgage problems; the lender has to treat them with kid gloves.

Plus homeowners do have the option to rent and claim housing benefit too! It's not as though they are obliged to stay put.

I just don't see why homeowners and their families should recive priority help from the taxpayer; tenants pay their taxes too. Particularly as many of the homeowners in trouble are those who unwisely overstretched themselves to buy somewhere they would have problems affording if they suffered from any problems; lots of us didn't overstretch ourselves to buy somewhere we didn't feel we would be comfortably able to afford, and can't see why we should have to bail out others who did, whilst not being entitled to the same safety net they are.

I think homeowners who can't pay should get help; but like tenants, it should be limited to a reasonable amount for the area/family size. I don't see why I should be bailing out some idiot on a lie-to-buy mortgage who bought a huge palace he didn't/doesn't need.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

No, that's not the case - a tenant would have to apply and would then only get what was designated a fair rent for the area and their family circumstances; not subsidizing any property they happened to have previously been able to afford, as happens with homeowners.

Also, like all benefits, housing benefit can take many, many weeks to come through; in the meantime, the tenant can be turfed out altogether, unless they have a sympathetic landlord.

And I was comparing tenants who DO pay with homeowners who DON'T (or can't). It's most unjust that tenants who always pay their rent reliably can still be chucked out with very little notice (or no notice if their landlord is renting without the permission of their lender, and the property is repossessed). That can't happen currently if a homeowner has mortgage problems; the lender has to treat them with kid gloves.

Plus homeowners do have the option to rent and claim housing benefit too! It's not as though they are obliged to stay put.

I just don't see why homeowners and their families should recive priority help from the taxpayer; tenants pay their taxes too. Particularly as many of the homeowners in trouble are those who unwisely overstretched themselves to buy somewhere they would have problems affording if they suffered from any problems; lots of us didn't overstretch ourselves to buy somewhere we didn't feel we would be comfortably able to afford, and can't see why we should have to bail out others who did, whilst not being entitled to the same safety net they are.

I think homeowners who can't pay should get help; but like tenants, it should be limited to a reasonable amount for the area/family size. I don't see why I should be bailing out some idiot on a lie-to-buy mortgage who bought a huge palace he didn't/doesn't need.

you wont' be though

lostinrates

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Really?

No, of course not - but I had one a bit like that once.



GG

There are always going to be some dodgy people.

FWIW some of us like (most of) our landlords. Just emailed last LL to let him know we're in his area next month. We usually meet up for a meal. Ironically we are there because LL before him and us are ''meeting in court'' though.