Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

lynzpower

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.

No sorry, this is ridiculous and breaks every data protection aspect in the book.

Why should the LL ( who is possibly dodgy!) suddenly become a data controller?

SueC_2

pyueck wrote: »

Here are my demands:

And therein lies the problem.

I'll be interested to hear how you get on with that.

ET1976

Annisele wrote: »

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.

This is such a good point.

I think more legislation would actually reduce the number of good landlords out there, as those with a conscience would increasingly worry that they couldn't keep up with the legislation and just wouldn't become landlords in the first place.

sooz

OP - do you work for the government?

Because your post sounds exactly like some of the half baked, knee jerk reactions that this government has been coming out with recently.

I suspect you were in favour of the 'Landlord trip advisor' forum suggestion?

You forgot one demand.

Ban all landlords. All property should be free.

But thank you for giving me a great laugh.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

pyueck

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

You're either very young or very naive as some of your suggestions are so impractical in the real world they're laughable.

Try to address the points than make wild insults.

Emmzi

I am afraaid your sweeping generalisations put me off befofre I even read the points.

If you want this to be taken seriously, I would try using more moderate language.

pyueck

G_M wrote: »

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.

........

I think people are missing my point when it comes to section 21 notices. I have no objection to a proper section 21 notice that is genuinly given by a landlord who wants their property back in two months time. What I have an objection to is a letting agent (like my one) who as standard practice give all new tenants a section 21 when they receive their tenancy agreements. Then the agent sends the tenant a renewal 'questionnaire' and the tenant fills it in. The tenant assumes oh they have sent me a renewal questionnaire, i must be staying here after my term. Then bang out of the blue the agent says the landlord wants their property back in a week as they gave you a section 21 that expires next week. It is this sort of common practice that is my problem with section 21's. For this reason they should only be sent out when the landlord actually wants posession of the propety and not as an insurance policy if they decide they want the property back at the end of the tenancy, when the tenancy only had a few weeks to run. To stop 'insurance' section 21's being sent out, there should be a rule that for any section 21 sent out, if it is later withdrawn, a £200 fee should be payable to the tenant.

pyueck

Emmzi wrote: »

I am afraaid your sweeping generalisations put me off befofre I even read the points.

If you want this to be taken seriously, I would try using more moderate language.

Im talking about real things that have happened to real tenants. Not nice I know, but its the reality. All landlords think of themselves as good landlords, unfortunately many are very poor landlords. The law needs to protect tenants as unfortunately letting agents and landlords currently bully often vulnerable tenants into submission.

pyueck

ET1976 wrote: »

This is such a good point.

I think more legislation would actually reduce the number of good landlords out there, as those with a conscience would increasingly worry that they couldn't keep up with the legislation and just wouldn't become landlords in the first place.

I disagree, we need harsh rules, that punish dodgy landlords so severely that they are neither allowed to or would have the will to act like it again. From my opinion the less people who buy properties to let the better, it will only push property prices up and increase the amount of people who have to live at the will of the very variable quality of and completely unregulated mass of landlords and letting agents in the UK.

pyueck

lynzpower wrote: »

No sorry, this is ridiculous and breaks every data protection aspect in the book.

Why should the LL ( who is possibly dodgy!) suddenly become a data controller?

This can be easily solved. On leaving a property, and once the deposit has been returned, every tenant should be given the opportunity to leave a written statement on the landlord and letting agent. These references can be anomous. The references would be held by a central body, which every landlord and letting agent must register with. A prospective tenant would be free to look at all anomous references for both the landlord and tenant. Problem solved, tenants lives greatly improved. This would work wonders as a landlord and agent with bad references would struggle to get tenants. Good landlords and agents with glowing references would find their properties flying off the shelf. It would push up the standard accross the industry.