Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

madeupname1

N79 wrote: »

The reality is that a number of poor and downright crooked LLs use S21 to avoid their obligations by getting rid of a "difficult" T. No amount of new quangoes or arbitration schemes will change that - they will just cost all Ts, even those with good LLs, extra money. The simple solution is to get rid of S21 altogether.

Replace it with a family occupancy lause (use the same wording as the mandatory possession grounds in the rent acts) but extended to allow a LL to give 6 (no typo - gives T plenty of notice) months notice to allow occupancy by the LL or their family. Keep the current S8 grounds for major repair works.

I have tenants at the moment. Nice couple, pay rent on time every time so far (although they have done a couple of things which I have found irritating and which have cost me). Their lease is coming to an end in 2 months time. They initially indicated that they only wanted to stay in the property for 12 months. Now there is a possibility they would want to stay longer. Personally I would prefer it if they were to leave. Firstly I believe that the rent there paying is at a conservative estimate £200 per month under value. I agreed to it on a one year basis because they were prepared to move in right away and there would have been no void period meaning that the rent reduction was covered because they were moving in earlier. If I try to put up the rent by £200 a month I think they would be (understandably) upset. However, the reality is that this is the amount I could get if I offered the Property to someone else. Secondly, there is some work that needs to be done in the house. I would rather it was done with them not in situe because I don't want really want to have to manage them and workmen at the same time. For me, it is extremely useful to know that at the end of the tenancy agreement, I don't have to have an excuse to ask them to vacate the property. I don't need to get them to agree the rent increase; I don't need to negotiate a reduction in rent because of disruption caused by work going on; I don't need to prove that I am planning to move back in as per N79's suggestion or anything else. I can just issue the section 21.

madeupname1

<sebb> wrote: »

If a tenant has a S21 hanging over you as "back-up" for the landlord, does that mean the tenant can just leave whenever they like without notice, and say they were just following the order of the S21?

The T can leave at the end of the fixed term without giving any notice whatsoever. The L, however, has to give the two months notice. If the T leaves before the end of the fixed term, they remain liable for rental payments due under the tenancy agreement until someone new moves in.

<sebb>

madeupname1 wrote: »

The T can leave at the end of the fixed term without giving any notice whatsoever. The L, however, has to give the two months notice. If the T leaves before the end of the fixed term, they remain liable for rental payments due under the tenancy agreement until someone new moves in.

No, the situation I meant was: LL served a (valid) S21 early in the tenancy for possesion after the end of the fixed term of the AST. However, as it was purely for back up purposes, did not follow up on the S21, but did not revoke it either. The tenancy is now periodic, and the S21 still hangs over the tenant. So normally the tenant would have to give a full months notice. But if they have a S21 cant they just leave whenever they like, then say they left because the LL had given them a S21?

madeupname1

<sebb> wrote: »

No, the situation I meant was: LL served a (valid) S21 early in the tenancy for possesion after the end of the fixed term of the AST. However, as it was purely for back up purposes, did not follow up on the S21, but did not revoke it either. The tenancy is now periodic, and the S21 still hangs over the tenant. So normally the tenant would have to give a full months notice. But if they have a S21 cant they just leave whenever they like, then say they left because the LL had given them a S21?

I see. Possibly. I think it would be pretty difficult for a LL to argue that he could apply to Court to get a T evicted anytime after the section 21 notice, but the T had to give the LL 30 days notice before moving out.

franklee

tbs624 wrote: »

I agree with your viewpoint but this thread shows why LLs try to protect themselves (have every sympathy with the OP in the thread, as problem is not of their own making , but then neither is it of his/her current LLs.)

Yes the flat the OP was due to move into was let by the agent/LL to someone else and it's not clear why the OP's holding deposit was ignored. It reads like the LL wasn't telling the agent he had sourced alternative tenants so alternative new tenants beat the OP to the flat in spite of the OP having paid a holding deposit.

As far as I understand it from landlordzone, if this causes the OP to renege on the notice they gave their current landlord then that LL can charge the tenant double rent under IIRC the Distress for rent act for the period the tenant is late leaving:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/commercial/distress.htm

Also if a tenant reneges on their notice I think I read from the legal professionals on landlordzone that the landlord doesn't need to counter serve a S21 before applying to court for possession he can go right ahead with it anyway based on the tenant's notice (and if this isn't right then it should be introduced if it means the SoD is abolished too). Besides to remove any doubts the landlord could counter serve an S21 as soon as he gets the tenant's notice rather than leaving all tenants under the SoD S21 permanently.

Whereas if a landlord mucks a tenant about by serving an S21 and then saying he won't action it and then changing back to saying he will the tenant has no comeback. The tenant as loser will be liable for the landlord's court fee should it get to court and will probably have his references compromised by the possession at court making it harder for the tenant to secure a new tenancy with a reputable landlord.

The tenant can't leave every time a S21 is served if he gets served as routine every new fixed term in every tenancy so what can he do to make sure he gets proper notice in which to arrange moving and be sure he has at least two months to move before the landlord can apply to court for possession?

franklee

N79 wrote: »

An interesting discussion. Just my two pennies worth.

The elephant in the room is S21. If you abolish S21 then most of the problems go away (including those raised by our angry OP). The reality is that a number of poor and downright crooked LLs use S21 to avoid their obligations by getting rid of a "difficult" T. No amount of new quangoes or arbitration schemes will change that - they will just cost all Ts, even those with good LLs, extra money. The simple solution is to get rid of S21 altogether.

Replace it with a family occupancy lause (use the same wording as the mandatory possession grounds in the rent acts) but extended to allow a LL to give 6 (no typo - gives T plenty of notice) months notice to allow occupancy by the LL or their family. Keep the current S8 grounds for major repair works.

What knock on effects does this have?

1) Rent assessments. Change the rules on S13 referals to committee such that all referals for rent increase of less than say RPI + 2% are automatically rejected. This will let the market stop rents ratcheting up and will end the problem of LL's falling into the trap of ever decreasing rents.

2) Antisocial Ts. Split S8G14 into a mandatory and discretionary ground 14a would be discretionary and on a balance of probabilities and 14b mandatory. I could even just about cope with allowing councils and the police to issue notices in cases where the LL wont (although my principles shudder at the thought).

The other big issue is repairing obligations. We started off with T's having repairing obligations and no security and got much maligned Rachmann practices (who, not being a member of the establishment, was just the estabishments scapegoat for practices that the establishment were merely practising themselves - others were far more culpable and nasty than he was). Then we got security of tenure and LL repairing obligations and few LL's (what a surprise). Then we had LL repairing obligations and no security of tenure - nearly full circle.

What we never tried was a split of repairing obligations between LL and T. Minor repairs = T's responsiblity, structural and major repairs = LL's responsiblity. Believe it or not this sort of split is actually the European norm rather than England's 20th century flip flop knee jerk reaction changes ever decade or so. Obviously there are disputes on the boundary but imagine how many fewer threads here from Ts complaining that their LL wants to come in to do the boiler service or the contractors want to come at an inconvenient time etc. Now the T would be responsible for these minor maintainance tasks and could organise them themselves - just like a home owner. Ultimately this would lead to lower rents because LL's costs will be down and because we could have a bonfire of the red tape and rules that has driven up rental costs in the last few decades to deal with the problem of the fact that we took away a T's responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Yes these changes would end the amateur LL who lets their house for a few months because they cant sell but, quite frankly, I think that is a good thing for two reasons. The first is that it removes some of my competition. The second, and main reason, is that it removes LL's who have no intention of providing long term housing stock, thus again helping people who want to rent long term.

Interesting points raised there, I think we could learn a lot from looking at European methods as they have a more stable system all round whereas we are so often boom investing short term for capital gains and then bust leaving many tenants being moved on. I'd welcome control of and having to pay for minor repairs if the security of tenure was better.

tbs624

franklee wrote: »

As far as I understand it from landlordzone, if this causes the OP to renege on the notice they gave their current landlord then that LL can charge the tenant double rent under IIRC the Distress for rent act for the period the tenant is late leaving:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/commercial/distress.htm ..

There has been "lively" discussion on this on on a number of threads on here

nmluser

I totally agree with Agency and referencing fees.....Agents are just robbing the customers.