Landlords are not greedy

mbga9pgf

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why does it matter to you what sort of mortgage they have?

And anyway, you can have a 'Consent to Let' on a residential mortgage -that's what we had when we had a flat to rent out. AND we paid tax on the profit.

Can't make up my mind about the register - on balance I think no, because the powers already exist to control bad tenants and I don't think good lls should be penalised for the sake of the bad ones.

It matters because many dont bother to get the consent to let, meaning the home and liabilities insurance isnt worth the paper it is written on to the tennant.

many other LLs seem to think owning a BTL property is a god given right to make money without paying the taxman.

clutton_2

Can we put this urban myth to bed once adn for all please ??


""It matters because many dont bother to get the consent to let, meaning the home and liabilities insurance isnt worth the paper it is written on to the tennant.""


when a LL insures a property - and i have used several different insureres in 10 years - i have NEVER been asked if i have my lenders permission to let ..... presumably its not seen as a risk -

what would be a risk is if someone does not get lenders permission AND then does not get Insurance for a BTL -

it is perfectly possible to get landlords insurance on a property which has not got permission to let - i know several landlords who do this for the sake of cheaper mortgage premiums - but they still get the proper insurance.

I cannot see that the legal contract between mortgagee and lender should be of any interest to an insurer

Jowo_2

clutton wrote: »

""Reporting them to the local authority meant that one landlord started to cooperate and paid the arrears they owed ""

thats one of my objections jowo - the local council have had duties and legal reponsibilities for years and years to force bad landlords to make repairs - they just have not bothered...

HMO licensing was introduced following the deaths of tenants in Glasgow where the slum landlord hadn't complied with basic health and safety obligations.

What the authorities found was that the fines from not complying were not a sufficient deterrent to slum landlords as they were generally less than the cost of complying with the outstanding repairs.

They learnt their lesson and Landlord Registration in Scotland hits the landlords harder in their wallets. This is because the local authority can issue rent penalty notices which oblige the tenant to stop paying rent to the landlord which flushes out landlords who are keen to hide from the authorities.

I imagine that one of the basic problems in forcing landlords to comply with their responsibilities under the existing legislation was that those who were most likely to be rogue landlords were also the landlords who hid their contact details and therefore could pretty much either evade prosecution or run from the penalties that were imposed.

kissjenn

Hi, we're in Scotland and we have a little jobsworth who trawls the internet looking for properties which aren't registered and then tells the agents to pull them immediately or they'll be fined. The agents are also compelled to give the name and address of the errant landlord. I know because I was the criminal involved. I genuinely forgot to register the last flat bought and it was advertised for letting straight away so I simply added it.

I call him a jobsworth because if you actually ask him for help on legislation or what's required he'll quote back the rule you're not sure about and doesn't add any insight, value or expertise.

The payment system is pants here. I requested invoices and some were outstanding 6 months later. The automated payment systems weren't working and it was nigh on impossible to give them money.

It doesn't stop errant landlords at all and appears to be completely toothless. Landlords are still not meeting their obligations towards common repairs and I know people have used the register to compain. Also know they got nowhere and the rest of us had to meet the difference on the bills.

So in theory it's good. In practice Scotland has a C-. It's a scheme that costs us money as landlords, we've seen nothing from it at all and I'm afraid it's the usual story of those of us who do the right thing anyway sign-up and those who are !!!!less and make the status of landlords slightly below that of MPs just ignore it.

Jowo_2

kissjenn wrote: »

It doesn't stop errant landlords at all and appears to be completely toothless. Landlords are still not meeting their obligations towards common repairs and I know people have used the register to compain. Also know they got nowhere and the rest of us had to meet the difference on the bills.

You can still take the landlord to the Sheriff court under the small claims track, get a notice of liability stuck on the deeds of the property with the land register of Scotland and ask your local authority to issue a rent penalty notice or prosecute the non-paying landlord (they can deem a landlord a not fit and proper person to be on the register when they have breached housing law). You simply need to escalate non-payment through other paths, as well as persist with the LA.

kissjenn

This guy has one of 11 flats in a block. They now divide all common repairs by 10 as he won't pay. One of the women in the stair work at the Council and she's used every method, fair and iffy to try and get him. He seems to use various family names and aliases as well - they think he has about 10 properties in the area.

It's an annoyance but not sure if £6.70 for a lock and £22.68 for lighting repairs warrants court action...and of course he'll know that. I will keep your advice in mind though in case something material transpires and it becomes a matter of £100s.

Thanks for the info...very useful.

franklee

Jowo wrote: »

They learnt their lesson and Landlord Registration in Scotland hits the landlords harder in their wallets. This is because the local authority can issue rent penalty notices which oblige the tenant to stop paying rent to the landlord which flushes out landlords who are keen to hide from the authorities..

This is a key point, cutting off the rent is having teeth that wasn't there before.

clutton_2

tbs624 i could not get the link ""Landlord's Development Manual" to work ..... any ideas please

franklee

On the Scottish scheme:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/04/28144943

Sez:

Registration of private landlords has a number of aims:

* improve private renting in Scotland by enforcing minimum standards in letting
* oblige those not providing this minimum service to improve, or leave the sector
* allow tenants, neighbours and local authorities to identify and contact landlords and agents of private rented property
* provide information on scale and distribution of private rented sector in Scotland

And:

To place a landlord on their register, the local authority will have to be satisfied that they are a fit and proper person to let property. The authority can take into account any relevant information including:

* any relevant convictions, particularly in relation to fraud, violence or drugs
* any evidence that the applicant has failed to take adequate steps to deal with antisocial behaviour in his or her properties
* any evidence that the applicant has failed to comply with the law relating to housing or letting, including management, money and physical issues
* any evidence that the applicant has practised illegal discrimination in any business activity

lynzpower

clutton wrote: »

Can we put this urban myth to bed once adn for all please ??


""It matters because many dont bother to get the consent to let, meaning the home and liabilities insurance isnt worth the paper it is written on to the tennant.""


when a LL insures a property - and i have used several different insureres in 10 years - i have NEVER been asked if i have my lenders permission to let ..... presumably its not seen as a risk -

what would be a risk is if someone does not get lenders permission AND then does not get Insurance for a BTL -

it is perfectly possible to get landlords insurance on a property which has not got permission to let - i know several landlords who do this for the sake of cheaper mortgage premiums - but they still get the proper insurance.

I cannot see that the legal contract between mortgagee and lender should be of any interest to an insurer

they dont see it as a risk as they can reposess easily. How many threads have we had on here were tenant is paying rent on time and the ll isnt paying the mortgage? and your advice usually is

look for somewhere new asap, you have no rights to occupy.