Join me in my rights for tenants campaign

franklee

clutton wrote: »

""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 + 7 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 ......

Sorry clutton but I need a landlord who will grant me two months notice fair and square as I rent unfurnished and have a lot of stuff to move, plus need time to arrange finding somewhere else of good quality, change all addresses etc. When my last landlord gave me a properly meant S21 (as he wished to sell) I was happy to move out on the day the S21 asked with no hard feelings as it was his right but found I did need all of the two months to do it in. However if a landlord operates the SoD (as you do) to take away that two months notice then he/she is not the landlord for me as I need that time to arrange moving.

I do realise I could stay past the S21 date but that would compromise my references and I'm just not prepared to give a landlord that power over me. I am a good tenant yet having a possession hearing go against me would make it look like I'm not and compromise the next tenancy so it's somewhere I'm not prepared to go unless I faced a genuine emergency. What decent landlord would take on a tenant who had ignored a S21 and forced his old landlord to court unless there was a good reason to? Would you take on a tenant with that history?

As I know how the S21 works any landlord serving one and giving me the line "don't worry you can stay if all goes well it's just routine" would immediately lose my respect as I'd know right away that he/she was trying to circumvent giving me a proper two months notice. I could not feel settled with such a landlord and would probably move on at first opportunity picking a time to suit me rather than risking facing court action being started at a time to suit the landlord.

Surely it can't be good for landlords in general to encourage tenants to stay past the S21 date as your method actively does. Needing to go to court as routine, instead of obeying the S21 as routine, just makes hard work and uncertainty for all.

franklee

clutton wrote: »

"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 don't think registers are negative, take the gas safe register, or solicitors being registered by the law society, financial services authority register or any other professionals. A register can be a register of professionals rather than a list of offenders.

I do agree that scummy landlords won't be joining but then I won't be renting from anyone who hasn't joined.

madeupname1

ILW wrote: »

From what I can see, many mortgages are cheaper than the rent. Many landlords make a fair amount of money out of it.

The mortgage is just one part of what a landlord needs to pay. You have to add to that:

- estate agency fees
- gas safety certificate
- electrical safety checks (not mandatory, but advisable)
- professionally prepared inventory to minimise risk of disputes
- insurance on property
- cleaning charges at the end of tenancy (even if a tenant leaves a property in a good state there are usually items that need cleaning before a new tenancy can start, for example shampooing carpets)
- call out charges for repairs or replacing items which breakdown (or alternatively paying monthly service contract charges)
- void periods where no rent coming in (in which case need to pay for mortgage, council tax, electricity, gas and water)
- tax at 20 or 40% on the balance of whatever you make

And all this assume the tenancy runs smoothly. If you get a non paying professional tenant ... :eek:

clutton_2

franklee says

""I am a good tenant yet having a possession hearing go against me ""

if you are a good tenant then you will not have to go to court because no application will be made to get you out..

DawnW

madeupname1 wrote: »

The mortgage is just one part of what a landlord needs to pay. You have to add to that:

- estate agency fees
- gas safety certificate
- electrical safety checks (not mandatory, but advisable)
- professionally prepared inventory to minimise risk of disputes
- insurance on property
- cleaning charges at the end of tenancy (even if a tenant leaves a property in a good state there are usually items that need cleaning before a new tenancy can start, for example shampooing carpets)
- call out charges for repairs or replacing items which breakdown (or alternatively paying monthly service contract charges)
- void periods where no rent coming in (in which case need to pay for mortgage, council tax, electricity, gas and water)
- tax at 20 or 40% on the balance of whatever you make

And all this assume the tenancy runs smoothly. If you get a non paying professional tenant ... :eek:

and bear in mind BTL mortgages are MUCH more expensive than residential ones!

redmen9

I find this thread deeply depressing but indicative of the world we live in today. People today are priced out of the property market owing to speculators, Buy to Letters and Pension fund investment purchasers. Houses are completely out of the reach of the average FTB hence the reason that the average age of your first time buyer is now 37!

If these people cannot afford to buy at the current inflated prices, then they need to rent. Let's face it, the majority of Coucil Houses were sold off under the right to buy scheme and housing associations have a limited supply of houses for people to rent.

Private landlords hold all the aces in this arrangement and not only do they coin it in with the rental yield they also coin it in with the capital appreciation of the house.

Renters need secure housing, to move your family into rented accomodation only for the landlord to evict you with short notice is many people's nightmare scenario.

I can only imagine that the poeple shouting loudest and shouting down the OP in this thread are Buy to Let property owners with their portfolios of properties where their mortgages are being paid for them yet despite this, believe that renters deserve little or no rights.

<sebb>

As a person who has rented several different properties for nearly 10 years I can quite honestly say I am happy with the laws protecting the rights of tenants. I've had some horrible landlords in the past, mostly relating to spurious and unreasonable deposit deductions basically allowing them to improve the property at my expense and charging me for fair wear and tear. I've paid up in the past, because I did not know my rights.

Now I do, it will not happen again. The deposit protection scheme was a welcome addition IMO. I dont even mind that the 3x penalty is effectively unefforceable because the threat of it will in most cases make the LL comply.

Tenants just need to be made aware of their rights and how to enforce them IMO.

Emma1973

I was going to keep quiet but I shall have a teensy little say!

I've pretty much seen it from all angles, as a person who's rented most their adult life, private, council and HA. As part of my job where I will support tenants, again private, council and HA. And now my partner is a LL.

As a private tenant I've taken a LL to court for harrassment and illegal eviction, was let down at the last minute by the 'old boy' network sat on the bench. This LL is still in business, still unbelieavably awful and the establishment dont seem to want to punish him!

I also support elderly and vulnerable tenants, and have to say the properties I see in the worse state of repairs with very reluctant LLs are the Housing Associations! And who can I get to help me if I get no joy from LL's? Shelter, Enviromental Health Officers, Solicitors, Private Sector Housing Teams, Housing Officers, Housing Ombudsmans and more. So there is loads of support for tenants out there!

As the partner to a LL I wouldnt say we were raking it in, far from it actually! Like a previous LL we are going to be paying for one of the houses for several years after a rogue tenant totted up 26k's worth of damage, 6 months unpaid rent and court fees. So yes, deposits can be useless cos it certainly didnt cover the damage. And getting the money out of the tenants? No point cos they were on benefits.
The cost of repairs can be more substantial than people think, certainly more than the deposits.

He is registered with the Local Authority, he has his selective licences where necessary, and a fat lot of good they are, Manchester City Council have prosecuted 1 person since they came in several years ago! He has his gas certificates, epc's, has his council inspections, the insurance, the inventories, etc? So what more should he do, just putting more charges on him means he would have to factor it into the rent!
And the houses happen to be his pension plans so he wont be relying on state benefits to support him when he retires!

Oops, it did turn out a bit long, but my conclusion is still that tenants have a lot more rights and support than LL's!

clutton_2

manchester city council have still not completed their first tranche of Selective licensing - and y et have applied to Whitehall for a second tranche of areas to be "compulsorily Selected" - just another cash-cow for councils via private sector landlords at £500 per property.........

""the properties I see in the worse state of repairs with very reluctant LLs are the Housing Associations!""

i also have seen terrible conditions in HA/Council properties - and yet they hound private landlords to get their properties up to standards they themselves seem to ignore........

glasshouses and stones comes to mind....

RobertoMoir

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.

- 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!

I'm going to critique both of these points together.
If you ban deposits AND inspections and say that the LL doesn't see the property until after the tenant has moved out then it's now become very difficult for a LL to recover the costs of fixing up a trashed house, should that happen.

Do you feel the deposit protection schemes are useless then? Maybe there are practical sides to this and problems ensuring that amateur LLs comply with them, but I think it's a reasonable concept.

- Landlord repairs - There should be an arm of the tenancy deposit scheme which is independant that can within a week come out to a property and decide, based on the law who is responsible for a repair. Too often landlords get out of completing repairs by simply refusing its their responsibility and there is nothing the tenant can really do. If the person says its the landlords responsibility, and it is impacting the persons enjoyment of their home, rent should be suspended until it is repaired. In any case where the person does not have access to essential facilities of the property, e.g. shower, the landlord should have to pay the cost of alternative accomodation. That will get their fingers out!!!!

How would the deposit scheme's "repair assessor" be funded? Why would you need a deposit scheme if you've already abolished deposits as per your first point, anyway?

So anyway, moving on from that. The man from the now non-existent deposit scheme, whose wages are apparently paid for by unicorn farts and pixie dust because they don't have the money from deposits any more, turns up within a week (oh, how many assessors would you need to guarantee the turnaround of inspections within a week, by the way?) and says the LL has to fix it right now.

The tenant then says "I can't be at home to let your repairer in this week, and I don't want them here when I'm not around". Is rent still suspended? What happens if there's an argument over whether or not a repairman turned up at an agreed time? What would happen to a tenant who was gaming this system to get rent-free time?

You'd probably have to add an "reasonable time" for LLs to source parts to make a fix for some items. How would infringement on that be handled?

Oh yes. And you've just doubled the amount of visits needed to fix even the most trivial of "drippy tap" type problems. Congratulations.

- 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.

Not sure about all of this. I certainly agree with the last part about issuing "just in case" notices.

"- Utility suppliers - Landlords should be banned from having any say over which utility supplier the tenant chooses. The tenant pays it, they should decide."

OK. With the proviso that they can't do anything that changes the character of the property without the agreement of the LL (e.g. having a coin operated meter fitted).

- 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.

So you're infringing on the free business rights of the agency? How did you arrive at £50 as a reasonable cost by the way? I agree that some fees can be a rip-off, fair enough, but how did you arrive at the answer that £50 was ok but, say, £60 wouldn't be. Is there something to support that as a reasonable figure or do you just like the sound of the number?

- All letting agents should be members of the housing ombudsman, no more opt in, tenants need a right of redress in every case.

Ok... if you really think that more bureaucracy is the answer. Not so sure myself, but ok...

- 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'.

Have to agree with this. Of course the property should be left in the state it was found in, and a mechanism for ensuring that should be available.

- 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.

The excuses of 'sorry I thought I could hear the tap running' is not acceptable.
Absolutely agree. But you go too far in the other direction.

- Landlords should have to provide references of ALL the people they have rented a property out to in the last 5 years.

I'm wary of "have to". What about your privacy if you'd rather not be contacted about a LL you rented from 4 years ago?

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.

Tenants have just as much right to a reference on the landlord as the landlord does on the tenant.
Agree there.

Clearly you have some issues with LLs. I'm sure your reasons behind these 'demands' are good ones based on your experiences, but what you've outlined here is nothing more than swinging the pendulum wholly in favour of tenants. If someone were to propose a set of rules that are fair and equitable to both parties then I'd certainly support that... for the little my support is worth :rotfl:.

However LLs should have rights too shouldn't they? What about the inability to evict people who simply don't pay their rent, without a tremendous struggle? What about the small minority of tenants who do trash houses?

Fairness is a two way street. And by that standard your "demands" are not fair at all.