Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

Emmzi

pyueck wrote: »

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.

I am not disputing that SOME landlords are bullying. But your post reads like ALL landlords are scum of the earth and that is simply not true.

vaporate

ILW wrote: »

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

Rather stupid comment when people can not afford to buy a place since they are 'priced out' by the insane house prices for some doss hole...

vaporate

Emmzi wrote: »

I am not disputing that SOME landlords are bullying. But your post reads like ALL landlords are scum of the earth and that is simply not true.

Not far from the truth in my experience.

Annisele

pyueck wrote: »

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.

OK, so these punishments have to be harsh enough to ensure that dodgy landlords are never allowed to be dodgy landlords again. Care to elaborate on exactly what those punishments would be?

I think the problem with your plan is that - even with existing legislation - the dodgy landlords weren't allowed to be dodgy in the first place. The only thing that I can think of that would completely prevent them from being dodgy landlords in the future is the death penalty, which strikes me as somewhat disproportionate. I assume that wasn't what you had in mind - what was?

pyueck

Emmzi wrote: »

I am not disputing that SOME landlords are bullying. But your post reads like ALL landlords are scum of the earth and that is simply not true.

I have never said all landlords are the scum of the earth, what I am saying is tenants need more protection than they currently get. This is especially in a completely unregulated sector, with anybody who can get enough money to buy a house capable of calling themselves a landlord, even if they leave a trail of misery behind them. I don't think this is unreasonable.

pyueck

Annisele wrote: »

OK, so these punishments have to be harsh enough to ensure that dodgy landlords are never allowed to be dodgy landlords again. Care to elaborate on exactly what those punishments would be?

I think the problem with your plan is that - even with existing legislation - the dodgy landlords weren't allowed to be dodgy in the first place. The only thing that I can think of that would completely prevent them from being dodgy landlords in the future is the death penalty, which strikes me as somewhat disproportionate. I assume that wasn't what you had in mind - what was?

Let me give a few:

Allowing tenants to suspend rent payments immidiately in a property where the landlord is not fulfilling their obligations.

Fine a landlord and agent twice the amount if it is found that they have attempted to withold a deposit amount illegally.

Ban landlords from renting properties where they have been found to be regularly in breach of their statutory obligations. Also close down letting agents that allow landlords not to fulfill their obligations.

The compulsory ombundsman scheme would mean that tenants would have a right to compensation if they had not been dealt with fairly.

Prison sentences for illegal eviction cases.

The biggest punishment of all would be my referencing scheme that would quickly put bad landlords and tenants out of business.

pyueck

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

How exactly are you going to pay for all this? Thank god you're not on the leadership debate TV programmes.

First you say you don't want to pay any more than £50 for existing credit checks and referencing and now you propose the development and adminstration of an entirely new database with all the hardware, personel, maintenance, language translation and disputes that go along with it.

Do you imagine that use and consultation of this database will be entirely free to tenants because it's 'on the internet innit' and all costs shall be met by some benevolent deity?

A £10 fee for the landlord per tenancy should cover it.

tbs624

pyueck wrote: »

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.

Do you know who would end up paying for such a service, even if it were workable? Yep, you and all other Ts. Anonymous references? Three points: (1) if I'm to take any note of a reference I'd want to know who it came from and what their own background was. (2) How would we know that a dodgy LL hadn't bunged their T 50 quid to write something nice? (3) The very fact that you have to give a name when writing a (traceable) reference of any form means that you tend to be a little more circumspect about what you write whereas anonymity gives rise to the spectre of unwarranted vindictiveness (they'll never know it was me)

Could the T's references be cross-referenced with what the LL thought of the T?

Should we also have a tenant database? The trouble with that is of course that some LLs will give an okay reference precisely so that they can get a troublesome T out of their own property and into someone else's asap and if the LL has had a T who has been pushy about repairs issue ( whether valid persistence or not) maybe they too would feel the urge to be anonymously vindictive?

pyueck wrote: »

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.

Nice theory, but that's all it is. Good LLs already have no problem with letting their properties and unfortunately if all the good properties have gone Ts have no option but to use the others.

tbs624

pyueck wrote: »

A £10 fee for the landlord per tenancy should cover it.

[sigh]...which will be included in the rent costings......

Annisele

The whole affair sounds like a recipe for litigiousness - and that would inevitably lead to an increase in costs for both LLs and Ts.

The existing law already allows Ts not to pay rent where the LL has breached fundamental obligations. Any extension to that is likely to be welcomed by professional Ts, but resisted by the rest of us. (I mean 'professional Ts' in the sense of 'Ts who try to screw their LL for as much as they can get', not in the sense of 'Ts with a professional job'). [Edit: I meant that Ts can sometimes repair things and deduct the cost of doing so from the rent, not that Ts could decide to just stop paying].

The deposit protection scheme we already have should be sufficient to deal with deposit disputes.

How are you going to enforce the 'banned landlord' thing?

"Close down letting agents that allow landlords not to fulfil their obligations"? We're turning LAs into some sort of police force now? How exactly do you propose the LAs are going to force the LL to comply with the LL's obligations (especially when you want to reduce the amount paid to LAs)? How will the LA pay the legal fees? Why is the LA going to have to enforce this, when it is T that is suffering? Why can't T just enforce his rights directly through the courts?

I'm still neutral on the ombudsman thing, but that does depend on how it's paid for. I'd assumed that whoever wanted to use it would have to pay for it (and that costs would be comparable to court costs) - in that case, I don't have a problem with it. However, I think that other posters have assumed that you meant that all LLs and Ts would have to contribute to it - I don't want that! If the ombudsman is going to award compensation to Ts who have been treated unfairly, it should also be able to award compensation to LLs who have been treated unfairly by their Ts.

I don't know what the current sentences for illegal eviction are, but Shelter seems to think that "a prison sentence of up to 2 years could be ordered on conviction". Sounds like you've already got what you want there.

I think the anonymous referencing idea is a complete non-starter, for all the reasons tbs624 gave.