Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

clutton_2

""Have you ever tried to rent a car? They too ask for a deposit, or credit card on file, from which to take an excess, before handing you the keys to a car worth 'only' thousands""

when you "rent" a hotel room you are expected to provide a credit card number in case of damage - with unlimited access and no "hotel deposit scheme" to fall back on.......

when you rent - you are borrowing something, not owning it, that is why tenants do not have as many rights to do what they want to a property as the owner - its not their property.........

OP says ""Yes my points may not be popular with the many landlords with their noses in the trough on this board, but they are all valid points""

i am no longer going to engage with someone who uses such inflammatory and insulting language

i provide decent homes, for long term rental in the main, and i respect my tenants and treat them well... and will not have further dialogue with someone who cannot treat others with respect even if they hold different views...

Re the alleged profits we make....

my recently-evicted tenant-from-hell owes me enough rent and damage repairs to mean that i shall make no profit on this property for the next two years...

some trough ........

I'm out of here.

sooz

sorry OP, thanked you in error. It was meant for Clutton.

BTW. Have you sorted your problems with your LL & the shower cubicle? I guess this is what promted your rant.

You said you phoned the LA. Have you put the matter in writing?

Rosemary7391

I'm a tenant. Tenants have plenty of rights - but so many don't know it! Perhaps kids should be told in School about renting - after all very few will go straight from Mum and Dad's to owning a home!

' Good, landlords take properties from real buyers' - What about people who want to rent?

Tenants pay a deposit, which is protected in a scheme (or they can sue for 3X the amount - penalty enough?), if they don't damage the property they can get it back. If the LL doesn't do repairs there are methods for getting them done - environmental health and/or doing it yourself and deducting the money for rent comes to mind. If they want you out, they have to give (assuming no breaches of tenancy) 2 months notice, THEN go to court if you don't go. I don't think tenants get a bad deal, so long as they know what should be done!

penguin83

I am not a landlord or a tenant but spend my day dealing with evictions. The one thing I would like changed is that landlords should have to declare if they have a suspended possession order on the property before they let it. It only takes one missed mortgage payment for the mortgage company to issue a warrant, they dont have to go back to court once the possession order is in place xx

madeupname1

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.

This is ridiculous and almost makes the rest of your post not worth reading. Of course deposits are for the benefit of your landlord. Tenants are supposed to pay rent. They are also supposed to pay for any damage they cause. Those are financial obligations owed by the tenant to the landlord and that is what the deposit secures. What financial obligations does the landlord owe to the tenant? The only one I can think of is the repayment of deposit less deductions. Are you suggesting that the landlord should secure the repayment of the deposit by paying another deposit? Thats ridiculous

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!

Inspections are not supposed to take place that often. Most LL will do one every 3 to 6 months because doing it more than that may consitute harassment. Are you seriously suggesting you can't be bothered to clean once every 3 months to 6 months? If thats the case, I am not surprised you may be having trouble with your LL

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.

The reason this gets served at the beginning of the tenancy sometimes is precisely because of existing regulations. Since LL's have to give 2 months notice of intention to get possession before they even have the right to start possession proceedings LLs serve their notice early so that instead of taking 8 months (for example) to get rid of their tenant, they can do it in 6.

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.

This fees dont go to the LL they go to the Agent. The LL also has to pay fees to the Agent. If you don't like negotiate them down or try to rent privately.

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'.

When tenants move in all I have met want the property to be spotlessly clean. If you have a carpet that is freshly cleaned when you move in, why do you think you should not have to leave it freshly cleaned when you leave? Leaving a place dirty is not the same thing as fair wear and tear. And as we have seem with your post, what tenants consider to be clean can vary HUGELY

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.

Ha ha ha ha ha. So you want the emergency services (who should be out dealing with actual emergencies) to become assessors of whether the structural integrity of the building is in jeopardy? You really think they have nothing better to do with their time?

tbs624

pyueck wrote: »

Jealousy? What are you talking about, I am talking about tenants getting a fair deal!



So what tenants are still getting a bad deal and need more protection


It is an unregulated business!!!!!! Get your facts straight!!!!!!!

Depends on your definition of "unregulated" - there are , as Clutton has already mentioned, plenty of regs and statutes covering the contractual relationship between LL & T. Adding another layer is unlikely to improve matters for either party.

Just some examples for you to look at:
Gas safety , HMO licensing breaches, more HMO breaches/eviction, HMO /fire safety breaches.

... landlords can use the knowledge of an agent to harass the tenant, the tenant gets no such support

Yes, because all LAs are so very knowledgeable.:rotfl:

Tenant harassment is, quite simply, a criminal offence. Tenants have support available from Shelter, Crisis, Law Centres, CABs, Council Tenancy Relations Officers and so on. See here and here for the law in action

And you are paid handsomely for doing so. If you don't like it don't do it. I am talking about the rights of private tenants, landlords providing social housing is irrelevant.

You misunderstand the system. There is not enough state housing provision ( cheers Mrs T) Those who cannot afford to buy, or those whose nomadic work patterns make buying in one place a less suitable option, need to have somewhere to rent - the shortfall in property availability is made up by private LLs.

6% is a fair amount, and how many tenants don't dispute it out of ignorance and because they are scared of a bad reference?

That six per cent will include "chancers" amongst both LLs and Ts - those who stubbornly refuse to compromise without some form of arbitration. Are you saying that all Ts are too thick to understand the tenancy deposit schemes and their arbitration process? By the time they are reclaiming their deposit the LL is already likely to have given them a reference, good or bad, as the new LL will have asked for one in advance of them moving into the new property.

Good, landlords take properties from real buyers

It's really not that straightforward despite what you may read over in the HPC "Guide to class war and the housing market"

Address the points raised, don't say your horrified tell me where you think tenants don't deserve what i am suggesting. Yes my points may not be popular with the many landlords with their noses in the trough on this board, but they are all valid points.

There have been several posts which respond to each of your "points" and yet so far you have failed to acknowledge that you have overlooked what provision is already in place to assist Ts who may have trouble with a LL or LA or that you have in places contradicted yourself.

Being rude to others who post on this board, who do so mainly to help Ts whose own LLs are of the type you personally seem to have encountered, doesn't make your arguments/proposals appear more worthwhile.

franklee

tbs624 wrote: »

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

Say you sign up for a fixed term but having established the property is to rent "long term" and an S21 is served as routine. As you are told not to worry it's just routine you do not start arranging to move in the last two months of the fixed term. The landlord/agent can then roll up anytime after the fixed term and say, the rent is going up and if you don't agree you'd be surprised how quickly I can get you out. Or the landlord says I want to move my sister/girlfriend/aunt/family in or I want to sell and if you don't get out pronto I'll apply to court for possession using the old S21 and you will be liable for the court fee and can forget getting a good reference. Also there is the I don't want to repair XYZ and if you don't like it then you'd be surprised how quickly I can get you out as you've had your notice etc.

Now a bad tenant probably wouldn't care less about going to court but a good tenant will be anxious not to as it won't look great on their reference. The tenant has little defence against an S21, that they thought it "wasn't meant" hardly counts and is a tricky defence to use.

Also many tenants do not realise an S21 served just after the start of the fixed term remains enforceable once the tenancy has gone periodic and can be used months or years after service.

There is an argument saying the S21 should be unequivocal and without reservation but again hard to prove.

I like your suggestion of 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 but it ain't so as at the moment the S21 is pretty indestructible.

tbs624

franklee wrote: »

Say you sign up for a fixed term but having established the property is to rent "long term" and an S21 is served as routine. As you are told not to worry it's just routine you do not start arranging to move in the last two months of the fixed term.

Unfortunately , no T can take it for granted that there will be a renewal after expiry of the FT - if you want/need long term then you have to try to negotiate a longer FT in the first place. The use of s21s don't "reduce a Ts rights" as such , which is the claim of the OP.You don't have an automatic right to a new term or to a perpetual stat periodic if the LL as other party doesn't want to continue. The T him/herself can simply leave at the end of the FT without serving the LL any notice and yet the LL *must* serve a two month notice period before being able to apply to court - there are difficulties for both parties. The OP demands that a fee of £200 is paid from the LL to the T if a served s21 is withdrawn and yet it would presumably be withdrawn at the behest of, and with clear benefit to, the T? Should the LL similarly expect the T to pay a fee if the T decides not to leave at the end of the FT?

franklee wrote: »

...... Also there is the I don't want to repair XYZ and if you don't like it then you'd be surprised how quickly I can get you out as you've had your notice etc.

Agree that there is room for improvement over the question of "retaliatory" evictions where there are genuine repairs issues.

franklee wrote: »

....many tenants do not realise an S21 served just after the start of the fixed term remains enforceable once the tenancy has gone periodic and can be used months or years after service....... I like your suggestion of 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 but it ain't so as at the moment the S21 is pretty indestructible.

Thanks for your response Franklee - I know it' s not so at the moment , that's why I said " my personal view" is that it should be:)

lynzpower

Environmental Health often abuse us

Just going back to this- so many tenants do not realise that the HHSRS is there to help them, an asssessment system that should be free of "abuse" a very clear scoring system that anyone can understand landlord and tenant alike should they wish to read up on it.

I dont see how an EHP/O undertaking his duties under the legislation that is there to protect tenants is "abusing the landlord"

Many indeed of the worked examples on the internet provided to EHPS would see the situation balanced so far in favour of the LL that the tenant needs a second opinion that can lead to simple advice or the enforcement option where neccesary.
Off to read that York report if its online :cool:

I think the OP doesn't really have a handle on these issues and is ranting without knowing what she is on about .

amcluesent

>I want to launch a campaign...<

Sounds more like a Marxist manifesto. All property is theft by capitalist "hoarders" and should be collectivised and allocated by the State.

Turning letting from a difficult business into a hopeless business will see all private lets disappear, and people having to live in hedges for sure, the Councils haven't got a brass farthing for public housing.