Landlords are not greedy

clutton_2

yes it was a brief look - but the headline of the LACORS link is

""ANUK/IDeA Model Landlord Development Manual 04/01/2007"" as i said 18 months out of date

part 3.3.1 on Taking of Deposits makes no mention of the TDS

but i will have a longer look tomorrow

i think NLA spent far too much time and members money fighting a nonsense law suit with regard to an amalgamation issue earlier this year.....

there are times when i want to shout at them - ASK US what we think - we pay our subs - you represent us........

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

yes it was a brief look - but the headline of the LACORS link is

""ANUK/IDeA Model Landlord Development Manual 04/01/2007"" as i said 18 months out of date

............Hence:

tbs624 wrote: »

.....(c) the idea of the LACORS provision of the LDM was that it would be updated, amended, made specific to local areas etc , as and when necessary, and used as part of LL training schemes

franklee

clutton wrote: »

""Surely the whole point is that the tenancy being binding on the landlord's lender makes a difference to the way the tenant is treated should a repossession occur.""

i simply dont know franklee - when i have bought properties with tenants in situ, i am required to send a copy of the tenancy agreement to the lender as part of the conveyancing process. But am not required to send copies of the new tenancy agreement to the lender when i get a new tenant - so the lender is never aware of who, if anyone, is living in their property.

Lenders are very mercenary - if they dont get their mortgage payments, they can, quite legally, invoke legal action to repossess if a landlord is 2 months in arrears - few of them do this at such an early stage.

I'm pretty sure this from shelter as discussed on MissMoneypenny's thread is right (a BTL mortgage that didn't allow you to let out on an AST would be odd):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=22703759&postcount=195

clutton wrote: »

Never having been in arrears, i dont know how it works from a LL's perspective, but, i would hope that the Governments recent initiatives have at least made lenders write to "the Occupier" soon than they used to in the past - which was never.

Those initiatives went all quiet after the first announcements IIRC, wonder how they are doing. Will they bind a lender who didn't give the consent to let, I really doubt they can. Also if a tenant moves in after the occupier letter was sent then do they get a new seven weeks notice? I doubt it and there have been cases of a landlord re-letting after the lender obtains a possession order! Also the tenant could still be left with the uncertainties princeofpounds mentioned.

clutton wrote: »

you also say

"" Unless you mean a tenant may be able to make a claim against the LL's insurance if the booting out breaches the tenancy agreement? ""

i did not mean that - but an interesting thought.....

My landlords policy insures me for certain risks (fire flood earthquake etc) and certain types of tenant behaviour - such as damage to the property (but i have to pay a huge excess). Since the policy is in my and the lender's name, i pay the premium, and the sole purpose of the policy is to protect the property for the lender (and for me) against tenant damage, then i don't see how any tenant could claim on my insurance .....

my comment ""as that include a much better public liability protection for tenants." was my thinking about if there is accidental injury/damage to my tenant -

if say the chimney fell through the bedroom ceiling or something like that (and it was not caused by lack of maintainance) then the tenant is going to be more than covered for their injury aqnd consequential losses as long as i have a BTL insurance policy - rather than a residential one - which clearly does not cover tenants, as it is not a BTL policy.

Right-o, as I first thought no help in the repossession case then.

PasturesNew

A register would be handy for:
- LLs to at least step up to the plate and declare they are LLs, reducing the number of idiots
- Tenant to feel assured of a better service
- Less opportunity for scams to go on maybe, although a fool and his money are soon parted
- Point of contact in case of emergency. If one could look up online who owns/manages any given property it would be handy .... speaking as somebody who just had a minor flood from above, with an absent tenant and no idea who the agency is that deals with that flat.
- Chance for LLs to actually find out about the laws/legislation, because the act of registering will take them to the point of such information - and will make a lot of them bother to find out.

As they have an unspoken power over the lives of tenants, it would give a bit more confidence to a tenant if they felt the LL was a bit more 'accountable'.

franklee

clutton wrote: »

yes it was a brief look - but the headline of the LACORS link is

""ANUK/IDeA Model Landlord Development Manual 04/01/2007"" as i said 18 months out of date.

Yes I noticed that, wish they'd put the date in the manual.

theartfullodger

The Scottish Government have, according to landlordacccrediation Scotland, started a consultation process re. private landlords and iuncluded in this is ..

Landlord registration

• Increasing the maximum fine for failing to register and bring it in line with HMO licensing fines, this would be an increase from £5,000 to £20,000.
• Including information on the register about applications that have not yet been processed or approved and cases where an applicant has been refused or de-registered.
• Allowing local authorities to charge a fee for the addition of a letting agent to an existing registration.

See...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/06160610/0

Cheers!

Lodger

Emma1973

have just been going through the huge amount of paperwork that came with a Selective License which i hold in the Manchester area

That is precisely where we are! Were you at the last Landlords Forum at the Town Hall? It got rather heated and a long time was spent discussing (or grumbling about!) the licensing issue! As was confirmed there only 1 person has been prosecuted, all the chap from the Licensing Dept could say was 'we are looking at others, we need to get evidence', every LL in there knew LLs without licences who'd been reported again and again and nothing has been done! As was pointed out by people there, they were preaching to the converted, they were LLs who'd done what was required of them, and rather than spending time and money on them, they should be spending it targetting the unlicensed!

I must say I'm not against licensing at all, if I was to move into another private property in those areas, I would be double checking my LL was licensed. It just the blatant p***-taking of those who cant be bothered to register and dont because they know they can get away with it that annoy me! LL licensing is like a rottweiler with no teeth, all looks and no bite!

kippen_noedel

PasturesNew wrote: »

A register would be handy for:
- LLs to at least step up to the plate and declare they are LLs, reducing the number of idiots
- Tenant to feel assured of a better service
- Less opportunity for scams to go on maybe, although a fool and his money are soon parted
- Point of contact in case of emergency. If one could look up online who owns/manages any given property it would be handy .... speaking as somebody who just had a minor flood from above, with an absent tenant and no idea who the agency is that deals with that flat.
- Chance for LLs to actually find out about the laws/legislation, because the act of registering will take them to the point of such information - and will make a lot of them bother to find out.

As they have an unspoken power over the lives of tenants, it would give a bit more confidence to a tenant if they felt the LL was a bit more 'accountable'.

OK lets make it fair

Make a register of tenants that landlords can access. Or would that be a breach of human rights ?

Then we can be sure the tenant is less likely to abscond without giving notice.
Less opportunity for scams.
etc, etc , etc

Tenants have more rights than landlords in many circumstances, its certainly easier for a tenant to rip of a landlord than the other way around. At least the tenant only has the deposit to lose and possible inconvenience if the the house is repossessed.

If the tenant is a bad one the landlord stands to lose a hell of a lot more.

Tassotti

kippen_noedel wrote: »

OK lets make it fair

Make a register of tenants that landlords can access. Or would that be a breach of human rights ?

Then we can be sure the tenant is less likely to abscond without giving notice.
Less opportunity for scams.
etc, etc , etc

Tenants have more rights than landlords in many circumstances, its certainly easier for a tenant to rip of a landlord than the other way around. At least the tenant only has the deposit to lose and possible inconvenience if the the house is repossessed.

If the tenant is a bad one the landlord stands to lose a hell of a lot more.

Actually, there is a list of bad tenants online through various sites, although not provided by the government, but by LL's themselves.

I always agree to do anything that shows/prosecutes bad LLs. The bad ones give a terrible name to us good ones!!

However, all the new legislations to combat this costs the good LL a premium, while the bad ones get away with it.

To be honest, it is just another form of tax on us good LL's, whilst doing nothing to protect tenants (which it is supposed to do)

kippen_noedel

Tassotti wrote: »

Actually, there is a list of bad tenants online through various sites, although not provided by the government, but by LL's themselves.

Yes, I know
but if the government want an official register of LLs then let us have an official register of bad tenants.