Campaign for swifter tenant eviction and landlord access reaches Downing St

Turnbull2000

Tenants, be warned. Changes are afoot.

http://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/News/Story/?storyid=3740&type=news_feed

A petition demanding changes in the current legal system for evicting tenants has been handed in to Downing Street.

It was signed by almost 5,000 landlords after a campaign by Paul Shamplina, founder of eviction specialists Landlord Action, and the Residential Landlords Association, together with Sussex MP Mike Weatherley.

The petition is aimed at speeding up the eviction process when there is clear evidence of anti-social behaviour or arrears on the part of the tenants.

The landlords are also seeking changes to the law to improve their rights of access to their property.

Jowo_2

I do support the swifter eviction of terrible tenants as a landlord can be saddled with them for many, many months. I would like to see landlords having to attend a compulsory course to gain accreditation so they know their full responsibilities and tenants rights, though. If tenants are facing a change in legislation, it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of education for landlords to prevent their ignorance of housing law which is very complex.

I think an accelerated repossession process will make it easier for LHA tenants to secure a tenancy since unfortunately this group is perceived as being a risky group, due to higher risk of arrears and a higher likelihood of not leaving the property when the landlord serves notice (because the local council will tell them to remain there until the landlord has gained a court order or they won't help them).

It's just a shame that the impetus behind it came from a novice landlord who harassed her non-paying tenant out of the property through a media campaign. The landlord was a total amateur who felt her moral outrage meant the the standard eviction processes (albeit these are slow and clunky) did not apply to her.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2673705

However, if it prevents her old tenant from screwing a third landlord, the better. BTW, this tenant, according to her daughter's blog, was later assisted into new housing by the local council after the interim accommodation she had after this then ended and one has to wonder why on earth the local council was obliged to help someone who racked up thousands of pounds worth of rent arrears across multiple landlords.

Turnbull2000

Jowo wrote: »

I do support the swifter eviction of terrible tenants as a landlord can be saddled with them for many, many months. I would like to see landlords having to attend a compulsory course to gain accreditation so they know their full responsibilities and tenants rights, though. If tenants are facing a change in legislation, it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of education for landlords to prevent their ignorance of housing law which is very complex.

Would greater awareness of housing law and obligations really make a great deal of difference? Landlords are in the business of making money from tenants, not to offer a social service, so will understandably wish to avoid maintenance duties where possible, fully aware that they have the power of eviction should the tenant kick up a fuss.

With rents already looking set to rise quite rapidly, these proposals will likely strengthen your landlords ability to demand more of your earnings.

Jowo_2

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Would greater awareness of housing law and obligations really make a great deal of difference? Landlords are in the business of making money from tenants, not to offer a social service, so will understandably wish to avoid maintenance duties where possible, fully aware that they have the power of eviction should the tenant kick up a fuss.

the posts on the Housing forum demonstrate that some landlords don't have the slightest clue, many become accidental landlords when they can't sell the property and will simply waltz in the property they've let out to pick up post and bill tenants for the cost of repairs they should be meeting themselves.

i support the compulsory education of landlords because there's currently no requirement for them to know anything about housing law and this is the only way I think this ignorance can be tackled. it could prevent a lot of disputes and make them think seriously about their responsibilities.

remember that tenants die of carbon monoxide poisoning just because landlords are completely oblivious to their legal requirement to get the boiler tested each year, or are aware of it but prefer to save the £50 and kill their tenants.

Loughton_Monkey

Agreed it is time for some sort of revamp to the silly laws around these days.

When living abroad and renting my main house, I only had one 'defaulter' who paid 3 months deposit, but nothing more. Upon hearing from my neighbour that the tenant had done a "Moonlight Flit", I phoned the agents from Korea, telling them that, and would they go round, confirm it was vacated, and then change the locks.

I could not believe their absolute insistence that they cannot 'go round' (despite reasonable inspections being part of the contract) and they refused to institute legal proceedings until 6 months were up. They told me that legally I had no choice other than sit back, with no income, and wait!

Fortunately, I had a more practical friend just along the road who (on my behalf) simply went in, changed the locks, and I appointed a new Estate Agent the next day and got new tenants back in. I had to threaten the original Estate Agents with legal action to get them to pay me the 3 months deposit (less their agreed % fee) since for some reason, they thought the whole of this money was 'theirs'.

BitterAndTwisted

Your experience highlights exactly what Jowo meant by some landlords' ignorance of the legislation. If you'd understood it you would have known what risks you were taking. Did the agent deduct the appropriate percentage of your rent as the law requires?

I'm all for landlords being properly registered to protect tenants from "accidental" or inexperienced landlords like the one in Hove who's chummed up with Mike Weatherly who seems to think that a LL letting out their "primary residence" should be some kind of special case. Completely forgetting that once the property is let, it's the tenant's primary residence and not theirs once they're no longer living in it: their primary residence patently has become elsewhere as soon as the tenant signs the tenancy agreement and puts the key in the lock.

Having a non-paying tenant is an acknowledged business risk when you become a landlord and it should be borne in mind by everyone letting out any property anywhere.

angrypirate

The whole system needs revamping.

Bad tenants who get ASBOs, fail to pay rent etc etc should be easily evicted.

However good tenants who pay rent on time and maintain the property etc etc should have even more secure rights and should be harder to evict.

abaxas

angrypirate wrote: »

The whole system needs revamping.

Bad tenants who get ASBOs, fail to pay rent etc etc should be easily evicted.

However good tenants who pay rent on time and maintain the property etc etc should have even more secure rights and should be harder to evict.

Maybe the LLs who don't perform required maintenance, should lose the right to own the property?

Cleaver

abaxas wrote: »

Maybe the LLs who don't perform required maintenance, should lose the right to own the property?

Just stop and think for a second - how would this work in the real world?

abaxas

Cleaver wrote: »

Just stop and think for a second - how would this work in the real world?

Like all properties, the state (the queen) owns it and you are allowed to rent via paying tax.

Compulsory purchase mearly means returning to original owner.

PasturesNew

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Fortunately, I had a more practical friend just along the road who (on my behalf) simply went in, changed the locks, and I appointed a new Estate Agent the next day and got new tenants back in.'.

You were completely wrong to do that. That is illegal. You did not follow the law. The laws exist, you must follow the laws of the land. You are not God.

It's part of "the business". You can't just make it up and do what you like.

What if .... the reportee had been a mischief-maker and the tenants hadn't vacated at all? What if they'd just gone on holiday?

What you did was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just saying it like this so there's no mistake in the message I am putting in this post.