Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

pyueck

I want to launch a campaign to increase the rights of tenants from the unscrupulous activities of landlords and letting agents. I think for too long agents have been allowed to get away with too much at the expense of tenants. Landlords also need to realise that they have obligations to tenants, and these obligations must be taken as seriously as a tenants obligations to landlords. Here are my demands:

- Ban deposits - Deposits are unfair, they assume that it will be the tenant and not the landlord that break the tenancy agreement/their statutory obligations. Tenants must go to court for their rights, while landlords can make spurious claims and the tenant must go to arbitration or court not to pay. Its not fair. If deposits must remain then there should also be a landlord deposit, of the same value as the tenant deposit, which a tenant can make a claim from.

- Ban inspections - Inspections are infringements on tenants right to enjoy their home in privacy. If you pay the rent, the council tax etc its your home and you can live in it how you like. If you don't want to wash the dishes or clean the shower this is your choice. The landlord should only get access when it becomes their home, and then can look into repairing the place then. Landlords listen, you rent somewhere out, get your nose out!

- Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property and decide, based on the law who is responsible for a repair. Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do. If the person says its the landlords responsibility, and it is impacting the persons enjoyment of their home, rent should be suspended until it is repaired. In any case where the person does not have access to essential facilities of the property, e.g. shower, the landlord should have to pay the cost of alternative accomodation. That will get their fingers out!!!!

- Section 21 notices - These should only be served when a landlord genuinly wants the property in two months and should be non-withdrawable unless the landlord is willing to pay £200 to the tenant to withdraw it. All cases of issuing section 21's 'just in case' should be banned as they are there to torment the lives of tenants and reduce their rights.

- Utility suppliers - Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses. The tenant pays it, they should decide.

- Agency and referencing fees - Agency and referencing fees should be a maximum of £50 pp. Some agents charge £250 and this is completely out of touch with the service provided for this. Also agents should have to advertise their agency fees with the property, as many agents don't tell people their fees until the person has already negotiated the rate.

- All letting agents should be members of the housing ombudsman, no more opt in, tenants need a right of redress in every case.

- Professional cleaning - Despite the term 'Professional cleaning' being deemed unfair by the OFT, it is still used by many agents to try and explain why they are witholding £100 for cleaning a perfectly clean carpet. The test should always be on whether something is in a state expected after the property being occupied and cleaned by reasonable tenants. If its clean its clean, don't con us with 'professionally cleaned'.

- The term access to property in an emergency needs to be clarified. I would like to see it replaced by something along the lines of 'The landlord may enter the property without the permission of the tenant, only if the emergency services determine that entry into the property is required to protect the structural integrity of the building, the safety of others or an immidiate crime is suspected to be being carried out in the property'. The excuses of 'sorry I thought I could hear the tap running' is not acceptable.

- Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years. For too long landlords have relied on the fact that letting agents would always keep quiet about a dodgy landlord so long as the ageny fees keep on rolling in. Tenants have just as much right to a reference on the landlord as the landlord does on the tenant.

bap98189

pyueck wrote: »

- Ban deposits - Deposits are unfair

Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property

You may want to rethink your ideas. They would appear to contradict each other.

ILW

pyueck wrote: »

I want to launch a campaign to increase the rights of tenants from the unscrupulous activities of landlords and letting agents. I think for too long agents have been allowed to get away with too much at the expense of tenants. Landlords also need to realise that they have obligations to tenants, and these obligations must be taken as seriously as a tenants obligations to landlords. Here are my demands:

- Ban deposits - Deposits are unfair, they assume that it will be the tenant and not the landlord that break the tenancy agreement/their statutory obligations. Tenants must go to court for their rights, while landlords can make spurious claims and the tenant must go to arbitration or court not to pay. Its not fair. If deposits must remain then there should also be a landlord deposit, of the same value as the tenant deposit, which a tenant can make a claim from.

- Ban inspections - Inspections are infringements on tenants right to enjoy their home in privacy. If you pay the rent, the council tax etc its your home and you can live in it how you like. If you don't want to wash the dishes or clean the shower this is your choice. The landlord should only get access when it becomes their home, and then can look into repairing the place then. Landlords listen, you rent somewhere out, get your nose out!

- Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property and decide, based on the law who is responsible for a repair. Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do. If the person says its the landlords responsibility, and it is impacting the persons enjoyment of their home, rent should be suspended until it is repaired. In any case where the person does not have access to essential facilities of the property, e.g. shower, the landlord should have to pay the cost of alternative accomodation. That will get their fingers out!!!!

- Section 21 notices - These should only be served when a landlord genuinly wants the property in two months and should be non-withdrawable unless the landlord is willing to pay £200 to the tenant to withdraw it. All cases of issuing section 21's 'just in case' should be banned as they are there to torment the lives of tenants and reduce their rights.

- Utility suppliers - Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses. The tenant pays it, they should decide.

- Agency and referencing fees - Agency and referencing fees should be a maximum of £50 pp. Some agents charge £250 and this is completely out of touch with the service provided for this. Also agents should have to advertise their agency fees with the property, as many agents don't tell people their fees until the person has already negotiated the rate.

- All letting agents should be members of the housing ombudsman, no more opt in, tenants need a right of redress in every case.

- Professional cleaning - Despite the term 'Professional cleaning' being deemed unfair by the OFT, it is still used by many agents to try and explain why they are witholding £100 for cleaning a perfectly clean carpet. The test should always be on whether something is in a state expected after the property being occupied and cleaned by reasonable tenants. If its clean its clean, don't con us with 'professionally cleaned'.

- The term access to property in an emergency needs to be clarified. I would like to see it replaced by something along the lines of 'The landlord may enter the property without the permission of the tenant, only if the emergency services determine that entry into the property is required to protect the structural integrity of the building, the safety of others or an immidiate crime is suspected to be being carried out in the property'. The excuses of 'sorry I thought I could hear the tap running' is not acceptable.

- Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years. For too long landlords have relied on the fact that letting agents would always keep quiet about a dodgy landlord so long as the ageny fees keep on rolling in. Tenants have just as much right to a reference on the landlord as the landlord does on the tenant.

I would suggest you may be happier if you buy a place.

pyueck

bap98189 wrote: »

You may want to rethink your ideas. They would appear to contradict each other.

No we currently live in a world with deposits. If deposits exist, and landlords try and charge tenants for their responsibilites out of this deposit then the tenancy deposit scheme should regulate this practice. If all deposits were banned, then this problem would go away.

pyueck

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest you may be happier if you buy a place.

No. When you buy somewhere you have use of the property until you sell it or rent it out. When you rent a property you should have the same rights as an owner for the period of time in which you pay to use the property. I personally don't think buying a house at the current time is a good investment, and this is no reason why my rights as a tenant should be ignored.

poppysarah

Ban unfair charges from LA to extend tenancies ..

elvis86

I agree with almost everything you have said. If a landlord decides to rent out a property, they have to accept that for the duration of the tenancy, the property effectively "belongs" to the paying tenant.

I don't think its feasable to get rid of deposits, as there needs to be something in place to ensure that tenants can't just up and leave without fear of recourse. However, I believe that the current deposit scheme should be extended, so that an independent agent carries out inspections on properties at the beginning and end of tenancies, and it is they who decide whether any deductions should be made. Often the amounts in question are "only" a couple of hundred pounds, a lot of money to a tenant, but not enough to justify the hoops one has to jump through in order to legally challenge a letting agency or landlord.

Annisele

I've been a tenant for over ten years, but even so I disagree with almost everything you've said. There's already a huge stack of legislation for landlords to comply with. The decent LLs care about complying with that legislation - and IMO those LLs don't need any more legislation; their internal 'I wish to be fair' takes care of them. The dodgy LLs will remain dodgy no matter what new legislation is introduced - they don't comply with existing legislation, so it would be very surprising indeed if they were to suddenly decide it was a good idea to comply with new legislation.

I think that a better solution is to educate tenants about their rights (and responsibilities). I've found that LLs are far more likely to behave as I want them to behave if I: a) treat them fairly; and b) point out what the consequences of not complying with particular bits of legislation might be.

pyueck wrote: »

I want to launch a campaign to increase the rights of tenants from the unscrupulous activities of landlords and letting agents. I think for too long agents have been allowed to get away with too much at the expense of tenants. Landlords also need to realise that they have obligations to tenants, and these obligations must be taken as seriously as a tenants obligations to landlords. Here are my demands:

Ban deposits - Deposits are unfair, they assume that it will be the tenant and not the landlord that break the tenancy agreement/their statutory obligations. Tenants must go to court for their rights, while landlords can make spurious claims and the tenant must go to arbitration or court not to pay. Its not fair. If deposits must remain then there should also be a landlord deposit, of the same value as the tenant deposit, which a tenant can make a claim from.

I really don't think deposits are a problem. Prior to the deposit protection scheme, I have had LLs decide that they didn't want to pay up for some rather bizarre reasons - but filling in claim forms and letting them know I was serious about getting my money back worked. So long as the tenant knows that they need a UK address for service, there shouldn't be too much of a problem getting paid - after all, the LL owns a substantial asset. If there is a problem getting paid, it will generally be the fault of the LL or the tenant rather than the law - and people will be idiots whatever the law says.

- Ban inspections - Inspections are infringements on tenants right to enjoy their home in privacy. If you pay the rent, the council tax etc its your home and you can live in it how you like. If you don't want to wash the dishes or clean the shower this is your choice. The landlord should only get access when it becomes their home, and then can look into repairing the place then. Landlords listen, you rent somewhere out, get your nose out!

I might be in the minority, but I've had some LLs who did inspect and some LLs who did not inspect. On balance, I much prefer the ones who did inspect - during the inspection, you could tell them 'by the way, the xyz looks as though it might need some work doing to it' and be reasonably confident that they'd care. The non-inspectors often gave the impression that so long as the rent was paid they wouldn't mind a few holes in the roof.

I entirely agree that some LLs (in my experience usually LAs) can be a bit aggressive in their inspecting, but I haven't yet needed any legal solutions to sort them out. Sometimes a quiet word sorts things, though I did once have to write a letter asserting my right to 'quiet enjoyment' of the property (not always a smart move, but I was intending to leave that place at the end of the fixed term anyway). My point is that Ts already have the right to refuse inspections, and I think that banning them is a bit draconian - some Ts (like me) like them.

- Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property and decide, based on the law who is responsible for a repair. Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do. If the person says its the landlords responsibility, and it is impacting the persons enjoyment of their home, rent should be suspended until it is repaired. In any case where the person does not have access to essential facilities of the property, e.g. shower, the landlord should have to pay the cost of alternative accomodation. That will get their fingers out!!!!

All good in theory, but who is going to pay for that? You're going to need a bundle of decent builders/plumbers/electricians to do the inspecting, and somebody will have to pay the equivalent of a call out fee for them. Often once you've got a tradesman to diagnose a fault, it won't take him much longer to fix it - but under your plan I will always need two tradesmen, one to say who is responsible for a repair and then another one to sort it out. I'd rather just wait in for the one person.

- Section 21 notices - These should only be served when a landlord genuinly wants the property in two months and should be non-withdrawable unless the landlord is willing to pay £200 to the tenant to withdraw it. All cases of issuing section 21's 'just in case' should be banned as they are there to torment the lives of tenants and reduce their rights.

I actually agree with you on this one - but again, I'm not sure that it's too much of a problem in practice. At the start of all of my tenancies I've had a discussion with the LL as to how long I intended to stay. The only time I've had an early s21 served on me, it was served by an LA without the LLs knowledge - and the LL was pretty upset when he found out about it. Getting it withdrawn wasn't a problem.

- Utility suppliers - Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses. The tenant pays it, they should decide.

I'm not sure that any contractual terms preventing the T from changing energy suppliers is enforceable anyway. The times I have wanted to change, I've asked permission and it has always been granted - LLs usually don't care much about who is supplying the property so long as prepayment meters don't get installed.

- Agency and referencing fees - Agency and referencing fees should be a maximum of £50 pp. Some agents charge £250 and this is completely out of touch with the service provided for this. Also agents should have to advertise their agency fees with the property, as many agents don't tell people their fees until the person has already negotiated the rate.

Learn to negotiate on fees as well as rents! I tend to find that fees come down once I ask 'what exactly am I paying you for, and why is it this expensive?'.

- All letting agents should be members of the housing ombudsman, no more opt in, tenants need a right of redress in every case.

Neutral on this one - but I don't think that having to use the court system is all that scary.

- Professional cleaning - Despite the term 'Professional cleaning' being deemed unfair by the OFT, it is still used by many agents to try and explain why they are witholding £100 for cleaning a perfectly clean carpet. The test should always be on whether something is in a state expected after the property being occupied and cleaned by reasonable tenants. If its clean its clean, don't con us with 'professionally cleaned'.

You can hardly ban 'professional cleaning'! I tend to get cleaners in when I leave a place (I know, I'm lazy). I usually ask the LA for a recommended cleaner - they can hardly get upset with the cleanliness of a place if you've followed their recommendations. In any case the deposit protection scheme should sort out that kind of scam - and if it doesn't, further legislation on top of the deposit protection won't help.

- The term access to property in an emergency needs to be clarified. I would like to see it replaced by something along the lines of 'The landlord may enter the property without the permission of the tenant, only if the emergency services determine that entry into the property is required to protect the structural integrity of the building, the safety of others or an immidiate crime is suspected to be being carried out in the property'. The excuses of 'sorry I thought I could hear the tap running' is not acceptable.

Really hard to define 'emergency'; I prefer the rather loose definition we have now instead of trying to pin it down.

- Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years. For too long landlords have relied on the fact that letting agents would always keep quiet about a dodgy landlord so long as the ageny fees keep on rolling in. Tenants have just as much right to a reference on the landlord as the landlord does on the tenant.

There's nothing to prevent Ts from asking LLs for references now. Some of the (IMO) worst LLs are accidental ones who wouldn't have five years of history anyway.

G_M

There are a multitude of laws giving tenants extensive rights already. Yes, the property is the tenant's 'home' for the duration of the tenancy (so eg the LL canNOT enter without permission etc) but it is also a hugely expensive asset belonging to the LL, which the LL is entrusting to the tenant.

There are a large number of tenants who abuse that trust, either by defaulting on rent or causing damage - hence the deposit. The deposit schemes now provide for processes to resolve disputes.

Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do

There is a huge amount of leglislation and case law imposing obligations on LLs to repair. The problem is usually that tenants don't know their rights, not that they have no rights!

Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses.

This is already the case, subject to introduction of card meters which are difficult to remove and adversely affect future letablity

Deposits are unfair, they assume that it will be the tenant and not the landlord that break the tenancy agreement/their statutory obligations.

The LL is providing an asset worth £300,000 - that's why the tenant is asked for a nominal deposit!

Inspections are infringements on tenants right to enjoy their home in privacy.

Inspections aree nothing to do with 'checking washed dishes'! They are about a) condition of the property (I see it as an opportunity for tenants - to tell me about repairs) and b) use of the property (ie is it being used as a cannabis farm/brothel?)

Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years.

There is nothing to stop a tenant asking his prospective LL for references, just as many LLs choose to ask tenants for references. It's a free country!

The term access to property in an emergency needs to be clarified.

As with much law in the UK, this is covered by precedent. The courts decide.

The test should always be on whether something is in a state expected after the property being occupied and cleaned by reasonable tenants.

Actually the test is whether it is in the state it was in at the start of the tenancy, less wear and tear. hence the importance for both parties of a detailed inventory. Nothing wrong with that!

All cases of issuing section 21's 'just in case' should be banned as they are there to torment the lives of tenants and reduce their rights.

If tormenting peoples lives was the objective, I wouldn't recommend becoming a LL ! And just how does it 'reduce their rights?' 2 months notice is the right of a monthly periodic tenant. The S21 does not remove that. In a fixed term contract, the tenant has security for the agreed period of time. Nothing removes that right.

........

clutton_2

what a very angry OP

and tarring all landlords with the same brush...

0bviously s/he had a tough time and now thinks all landlords are awful ...


sad


Thyere are already over 100 Statutes and Regulations which control Landlord and Tenant issues...

please read them and then come back and tell us what is missing...........

tbs624

pyueck wrote: »

I want to launch a campaign to increase the rights of tenants from the unscrupulous activities of landlords and letting agents. I think for too long agents have been allowed to get away with too much at the expense of tenants. Landlords also need to realise that they have obligations to tenants, and these obligations must be taken as seriously as a tenants obligations to landlords. Here are my demands:

The majority of Ts and LLs have a reasonable, good even, working relationship: making “demands” is never a good way to go about things, for either party..

pyueck wrote: »

- Ban deposits - Deposits are unfair, they assume that it will be the tenant and not the landlord that break the tenancy agreement/their statutory obligations. Tenants must go to court for their rights, while landlords can make spurious claims and the tenant must go to arbitration or court not to pay. Its not fair. If deposits must remain then there should also be a landlord deposit, of the same value as the tenant deposit, which a tenant can make a claim from.

Deposits are, or should be, safeguarded under tenancy deposit schemes - what is needed now is for judges to apply the law as was originally intended, so that errant LLs absolutely have to get the reg done within that 14 days. They should not be allowed to charge a T for registering the deposit (this should have been forseen)

pyueck wrote: »

- Ban inspections - Inspections are infringements on tenants right to enjoy their home in privacy. If you pay the rent, the council tax etc its your home and you can live in it how you like. If you don't want to wash the dishes or clean the shower this is your choice. The landlord should only get access when it becomes their home, and then can look into repairing the place then. Landlords listen, you rent somewhere out, get your nose out!

Okay, you misunderstand what the “inspections” are for - they are not about looking at your washing up skills. They are so that the LL can comply with his s11 statutory repairing obligations - he is allowed to inspect the condition and state of repair of the property. Many LLs check things like alarms, sockets, lighting, fire extinguishers etc as part of their duty of care to their Ts. They can only comment on a T’s lifestyle if what they are doing is illegal or is likely to result in damage to the property. Last nights balti dishes in the kitchen sink don’t enter it to it. Ts should make use of the inspection to discuss any concerns that they have about the property. I’d agree, however, that some LAs and some LLs need to have a clearer idea of what the implied covenant of “right to inspect” actually covers.

pyueck wrote: »

- Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property and decide, based on the law who is responsible for a repair. Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do. If the person says its the landlords responsibility, and it is impacting the persons enjoyment of their home, rent should be suspended until it is repaired. In any case where the person does not have access to essential facilities of the property, e.g. shower, the landlord should have to pay the cost of alternative accomodation. That will get their fingers out!!!!

So, hang on, you don’t want a LL to “inspect” but you do want him to jump when repairs need doing? T’s are legally obliged to inform a LL of repairs issues in writing but often don’t bother, until say a leak has worsened etc. It’s a nonsense to say that there is nothing that Ts can do if repairs don’t get done. Start by googling “Lee-Parker v Izzet” , have a look at Shelters guide here or talk to your local Council’s private sector rentals team.

pyueck wrote: »

- Section 21 notices - These should only be served when a landlord genuinly wants the property in two months and should be non-withdrawable unless the landlord is willing to pay £200 to the tenant to withdraw it. All cases of issuing section 21's 'just in case' should be banned as they are there to torment the lives of tenants and reduce their rights.

There also needs to be protection for LLs who do actually want/need their property back. Picture the LL whose T has said s/he intends to go. LL lines up new T but dare not sign them up in case current T fails to actually leave on expiry of their Fixed Term. I’m not sure that I agree that a s21 always “reduces Ts rights” - if you sign up for a Fixed Term how does a s21 reduce your rights? My personal view is that if both parties are happy with the periodic agreement arising under statute following on from the original FT then any s21 served as part of the original tenancy set up should become void so that the T continues to have at least 2 full months notice of intent to repossess rather than being subject to the old SoD.

pyueck wrote: »

-- Utility suppliers - Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses. The tenant pays it, they should decide.

Absolutely agree. Test case needed via OFT and unfair contract terms. There is no justification for a T to be potentially tied into higher utility charges. the benefits to LLs are of course that the utility companies will write off small amounts from between tenancies and they don’t have to ring round to find which supplier has been used by the exiting Ts. ( Not a hugely onerous task but Ts should be required to confirm that info to the LL). I would simply write to an LA/LL saying that I had secured a better deal at x company , give their full contact info and confirm that I would switch it back at the end of the tenancy. It may mean that they cut their nose off to spite their face by kicking you out at the earliest legal opportunity but in the meantime it's highly unlikely that any judge would award a discretionary eviction if the only "breach" was that you had switched utility suppliers.

pyueck wrote: »

-- Agency and referencing fees - Agency and referencing fees should be a maximum of £50 pp. Some agents charge £250 and this is completely out of touch with the service provided for this. Also agents should have to advertise their agency fees with the property, as many agents don't tell people their fees until the person has already negotiated the rate.

I’d like to see their charges in foot high letters on their windows but Ts can and should ask “are there any other costs involved in this let” Take in your own proforma and ask the LA to sign to confirm that the amounts below are the total sums that will be due and VAT is/isn’t included in x, y or z)

pyueck wrote: »

-- All letting agents should be members of the housing ombudsman, no more opt in, tenants need a right of redress in every case.

You *have* a right of redress, through the courts. Do you really think that there being yet another unwieldy Ombudsman role would improve matters? There should however be a minimum training and qualification requirement before someone can work as an LA

pyueck wrote: »

-- Professional cleaning - Despite the term 'Professional cleaning' being deemed unfair by the OFT, it is still used by many agents to try and explain why they are witholding £100 for cleaning a perfectly clean carpet. The test should always be on whether something is in a state expected after the property being occupied and cleaned by reasonable tenants. If its clean its clean, don't con us with 'professionally cleaned'.

You can only be asked to return in the same condition as when let save for f, w&t - if it wasn’t professionally cleaned at the start, no requirement for it to be so at the end. That said some Ts do leave the most appalling filth behind them, so cleanliness is clearly subjective from either party’s view.

pyueck wrote: »

-- The term access to property in an emergency needs to be clarified. I would like to see it replaced by something along the lines of 'The landlord may enter the property without the permission of the tenant, only if the emergency services determine that entry into the property is required to protect the structural integrity of the building, the safety of others or an immidiate crime is suspected to be being carried out in the property'. The excuses of 'sorry I thought I could hear the tap running' is not acceptable.

Any LL who lets him/herself into a T’s home without the T’s consent would have to be able to justify that “emergency access” in a court, if challenged by the T. Tenant harassment and unlawful eviction ( ie doing anything likely to make a T give up their tenancy) are both criminal charges.

pyueck wrote: »

-- Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years. For too long landlords have relied on the fact that letting agents would always keep quiet about a dodgy landlord so long as the ageny fees keep on rolling in. Tenants have just as much right to a reference on the landlord as the landlord does on the tenant.

Of course the LA would keep quiet - the LA acts for the LL but think your suggestion through. Maybe previous Ts wouldn’t want to be bothered? If I had moved on from a place 1-4 years previously I really don’t think I’d want my contact info passing on to some random new T. Many people are generally wary of giving references so am not sure that you’d glean much from them. If a LL is a member of a LL association, has perhaps signed up to a local accreditation scheme etc they are likely to be decent LLs and you can just ask if the current /last T would mind you contacting them.


Don’t always assume that things are improved by adding extra regulations, committees, quangos etc - the solution is often already in place already, maybe needing a bit of official tweaking, and much wider publicity amongst both Ts and LLs.

Obviously the majority of posts on here are when things are going wrong and one party, possibly both, is/are behaving in an unacceptable manner but not all LLs fail to do repairs/maintain their properties, let themselves in as and when , or fail to return Ts deposits, in the same way that not all Ts trash property and run off with the furniture , leaving rent owing.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]