Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

amcluesent

<Let's have some reciprocity here.<

We all know the 'professional' tenants! Him - sly pinched faced of the druggie, 'prison tattoo', gimlet eyes on swivels looking for the next chance. Her - tub'o'lard, f'ing like a trooper, fag on lip 24*7.

They'll be down the CAB/Shelter in trice crying their eyes out and demands their 'rights'. When you get them out, they'll have stripped every bit of copper from the house and there will be fleas in every carpet.

That'll have cost you 6 months in lost rent and £1000s in legal fees.

Cleaver

pyueck wrote: »

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.

Rubbish.

If I buy a car I can do anything I like to it. Paint the insides blue, fit sports tyres, add a Sat Nav, tint the windows, add one of those stupid spoliers, take out the back seats and fit a hot tub, just like they do on Pimp My Ride.

If I rent a car from Enterprise then I sign a form to say that I will return the car in pretty much the same condition I took it from them.

The same goes for the difference between renting and buying property.

franklee

tbs624 wrote: »

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 The OP demands that a fee of £200 is paid from the LL to the T if a served s21 is withdrawn and yet it would presumably be withdrawn at the behest of, and with clear benefit to, the T? Should the LL similarly expect the T to pay a fee if the T decides not to leave at the end of the FT?

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

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:)

Thing is it's hard to negotiate a longer FT in the first place. Naturally the landlord may prefer to start with six months to see if the tenant is a good one and so won't offer a longer initial fixed term even if the property is intended to be for long term let. After that the landlord may have restrictions in place by his mortgage lender limiting the length of term he can offer typically to a year.

The S21 in itself is OK as the LL should be able to get his property back, it's the routine service of the S21 and then telling the tenant it isn't really meant is the problem.

What the SoD S21 does is remove the safety net of having two months notice. A notice served where the tenant is told "don't worry it's routine" can't practically be taken seriously every time it's served or the tenant would be packing up and getting ready to move every six months/year. Worse if the tenant goes onto a periodic tenancy as the old S21 can then be actioned any time leaving the tenant living without the right to notice. I'm not sure what a tenant can do about that except to move on but if use of the SoD is widespread where does he go?

Not that I agree with the fine the OP proposes.

I do realise you were giving your personal view of how it should work and I think pretty much the same. I think is the law should be clearer to make the S21 needing to be served without reservation so if a landlord acts in a way to permit the tenant to stay the S21 should become void.

Meanwhile I don't see what a tenant can do except get any permissions to stay in writing so they can't be blamed for ignoring the S21, even if all they are doing is protecting their references. Thing is the SoD landlords/agents are reluctant to put this sort of thing in writing.

I did write to Shelter about the SoD (Sword of Damocles routine serving of S21s as a precaution) and got back that they are aware of this issue and consider it to be extremely bad practice and that they would incorporate it into their campaigning work.

clutton_2

""We all know the 'professional' tenants! Him - sly pinched faced of the druggie, 'prison tattoo', gimlet eyes on swivels looking for the next chance. Her - tub'o'lard, f'ing like a trooper, fag on lip 24*7.

They'll be down the CAB/Shelter in trice crying their eyes out and demands their 'rights'. When you get them out, they'll have stripped every bit of copper from the house and there will be fleas in every carpet.

That'll have cost you 6 months in lost rent and £1000s in legal fees.""


or


middle class, rich, intelligent, beautiful, athletic, female, single parent mum, world class liar and Olympic manipulator.... and on benefits...

clutton_2

franklee - you and i will never agree about a Section 21...

I issue them early in a tenancy most of the time - the last time i did not do so - it took me 10 months to get the tenant out..... - see above....... - leaving £2k of arrears....

Of itself it is not an intention to evict.. it is a notice which ALLOWS a landlord to take immediate court action at the end of the tenancy IF the tenancy has gone bad.... if s/he wants to...

any tenant who runs a good tenancy has nothing to fear....

Those that have arrears and damage the property can thus be evicted as soon as possible.... that is in every landlords' interests .. none of us want non-paying damaging tenants for one day longer than is possible...

Sadly - at the beginning of a tenancy you never know who is going to be saint and who is going to be devil......


i issue them because it saves me 2 months if i have a tenant from hell...

clutton_2

Julie Rugg wants a landlord register and

ILW says ""I can see an argument for a compulsory register of landlords"

from a tenants perspective please how will being on a register improve tenancies ? especially as the scummy landlords wont join it..

franklee

clutton wrote: »

franklee - you and i will never agree about a Section 21...

I issue them early in a tenancy most of the time - the last time i did not do so - it took me 10 months to get the tenant out..... - see above....... - leaving £2k of arrears....

Of itself it is not an intention to evict.. it is a notice which ALLOWS a landlord to take immediate court action at the end of the tenancy IF the tenancy has gone bad.... if s/he wants to...

any tenant who runs a good tenancy has nothing to fear....

Those that have arrears and damage the property can thus be evicted as soon as possible.... that is in every landlords' interests .. none of us want non-paying damaging tenants for one day longer than is possible...

Sadly - at the beginning of a tenancy you never know who is going to be saint and who is going to be devil......


i issue them because it saves me 2 months if i have a tenant from hell...

The point is a S21 can be used when the tenant isn't at fault so that is why I disagree with the SoD routine serving of the S21 as a precaution to all tenants. How can you say a tenant who runs a good tenancy has nothing to fear when tenants can be asked to leave say if the landlord wants to sell or move back in or for any other reason.

If the tenant is at fault, especially early in the fixed term, then the S8 is quicker. Otherwise the landlord has at least four months to make his mind up whether he wants the tenant to leave and if so to serve the S21 without losing any time to evict the tenant.

Many agents round here keep ALL tenants permanently under a S21, even those agents who use regular six month fixed terms. I'm all for beefing up the S8 to help a LL deal with clearly bad tenants but to leave good tenants without a full two months notice as routine is wrong.

A tenant weary of getting S21 notices that the landlord hints aren't meant will have little choice but to ignore them and then possibly face the hassle of losing a court possession hearing with the attendant stain on his reference and having to pay the landlord's court fee. He'd have to do this as people just can't move house at the drop of a landlord's hat. The two months notice isn't some academic thing it's meant to be time to arrange to move.

It cannot be justified to have a tenant ready to leave every six months on the off chance that this one time out of many the S21 is finally meant. And as I said it's even worse for a tenant on a periodic tenancy with a valid expired S21 as they've had their notice and have no rights to more.

Frankly the landlord should serve the S21 only when he has made a decision he wants the tenant to go. Surely the law intended a tenant get two months notice fair and sure under the S21, not a here is your notice but I probably don't quite mean it till I do.

The worst of it is the landlord likely has to soft soap what the S21 means to the tenant to STOP the tenant obeying the notice and leaving as it asks.

clutton_2

""How can you say a tenant who runs a good tenancy has nothing to fear when tenants can be asked to leave say if the landlord wants to sell or move back in or for any other reason.""

because by the very definition of renting - temporary loan of property - (as opposed to owning) and by legislation .. a landlord is entitled to repossess his own property for himself and his family to live in....

AFter having served a S21 even if a landlord goes to court 1 day after the end of the fixed term, it will still take at least a couple of months to get a court date, then the tenant can ask for a further 42 days and the court more often than not gives it... giving 2 months + 6 weeks..... so it could be argued that a tenant going through the courts has amomst twice as long in which to find alternative property than one who who has not had a S21 ......

lynzpower

clutton wrote: »

Julie Rugg wants a landlord register and

ILW says ""I can see an argument for a compulsory register of landlords"

from a tenants perspective please how will being on a register improve tenancies ? especially as the scummy landlords wont join it..

I have answered this question before.

At the least it will show me that the LL has got a gas certificate if he wont show it to me

It will give me the LLs address so I can serve letters should I wish to , or even let them know about issues they may want to know about - including issues with thier letting agent. We have seen many peoples whos LLs refuse to give address and serve to the letting agent. How many peoples letting agents went bust leaving them confused and not knowing where to turn ?

I hope that the Landlords register will show that they have consent to let - so I dont get turfed with a moments notice. I am not sure if you are evading this question but personally this is THE most important thing to me when I am about to commence a legal relationship with someone.

I also hope that the LLs register will show the HIP for the property too.

It will professionalise the business and I think give tenants and prospective tenants the confidence that their LL is legit and traceable. If the scum landlords wont join it and they continue to let without being registered Id imagine it would be an inprisonable offence and that their gains would be illegally gained and seized. Same as unqualified gas engineers for example or other people who have responsibility for health and safety.

I cant see what the point of the resistance is to be honest, the sooner the better. Every other industry has clear standards - LL&TL is confusing, piecemeal and bitty. Rogue landlords use this to their advantage as we well know.

As the report you posted points out, if the Private rental market is doing so much of the governments job for them- AND the taxpayer via HB and LHA
ispaying thier mortgage for them, the least they can do is to register and prove that they are legit to their customers, be it a tenant or the taxpayer.

clutton_2

Lynz - you do make some cogent points, some of which i agree with - such as

""I hope that the Landlords register will show that they have consent to let - so I dont get turfed with a moments notice. I am not sure if you are evading this question but personally this is THE most important thing to me when I am about to commence a legal relationship with someone. "" i agree this is especially important for tenants


however there are a number of points i am not so sure about...

with regard to your last paragraph.. there are millions of folks in receipt of Government funds eg ... commerce can apply for a plethoria of grants for industry - why single out landlords )as the recipients of government funds) for inclusion on a Register..... ?

"registers" seem to me to have a connotation of something very wrong.. such as the sex offenders register; CRB registers; and i think this notion of a LLs register will further "criminalise" the landlord business un-necessarily....

""I also hope that the LLs register will show the HIP for the property too"" - think you mean ERC - but i do agree

Since Dr Julie Rugg has nowhere in her report formalised what information she thinks should be on a register then i think it is early to be making assumptions that LGSC and ERCs and Consent to Let...

I agree some form of formalisation would be good... maybe have a Landlords Professional Body like GASSAFE is now - and all landlords should have to register before they could advertise property... Landlords would need to pay for this, and it would then be up to the LANDLORDSAFE COMPANY to verify the required information.....

However..... how will you police this ? That is the question... if it aint policeable - what is the point of it ?

just how many people do you imagine it will take to check out all this paperwork ?

and bottom line... scummy landlords will not join......

Sadly, the Selective Licensing which was a part of the 2004 Act has been a dismal failure in terms of voluntary licensing by landlords, and local authorities are waaaay behind schedule in attempting to get these awful landlords found and then registered and / or taken to court.... councils cannot cope now with their statutory duties.... let alone if you may them the administrators of a Landlord register....

just a few random thoughts

i dont know what the real answer is... but i do know that if more and more legislation is brought in to LL&T matters then the number of available rental properties will fall significantly.....