BTL blacklist

nearlynew

THE_GHOUL_HUNTER wrote: »

your average peasant renter should just be grateful that a kind bTL landlord is willing to put a roof over there unfortunate heads

You have obviously had a better education than your "average peasant" and so deserve much better.

Shakethedisease

I'd be amazed if someone wasn't doing gas safety checks. There are already a lot of well enforced laws covering this.

Really ??? Shelter think otherwise..
http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2010/rogue_landlords_exposed

( Sept 2010 )

Our survey of 184 environmental health officers (EHOs) found that more than 90% who deal directly with private renters had encountered landlords harassing or illegally evicting their tenants......
Almost all have encountered landlords who persistently ignore their responsibilities.
Half believe the main reason for letting unsafe properties is to make as much money as possible.
More than 90% have encountered cases of severe damp, mould, electrical or fire safety hazards in properties they investigated in the last year.

One officer described a property being rented out with no heating, hot water or electricity. Another witnessed a mother and her young child living with no kitchen facilities, no fire precautions and only a halogen heater to heat the house.

Laws may be there, but they're not exactly well enforced. It's time the paltry £1000 fines here and there, were turned into complete bans from letting properties ever again.

Tenants are credit referenced to ensure they can meet their financial obligations as they are the ones paying for the use of the property. Why would you need to credit reference your landlord?

Errr, for the same reasons ? Would you want to rent off a Landlord who had 6 ccj's and 2 missed mortgage payments in the last year ? They're not God's who are somehow immune from cash troubles you know.

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Laws may be there, but they're not exactly well enforced. It's time the paltry £1000 fines here and there, were turned into complete bans from letting properties ever again.

They're much more than £1000 fines.The standard penalty is a £6,000 fine for each item and/or 6 months imprisonment. When they inspect what most people would consider one fault will actually be reported as several. So each conviction is usually a multiple of the above.

On top of that if someone dies due to CO poisoning the landlord would be up for manslaughter.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Errr

Why do you feel that this somehow emphasises your point?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

, for the same reasons ? Would you want to rent off a Landlord who had 6 ccj's and 2 missed mortgage payments in the last year ? They're not God's who are somehow immune from cash troubles you know.

The tenants are protected by ASTs the Landlords and Tenants Act, the Companies Act in some cases and several other laws. Nobody claimed that they are 'gods' BTW. Why the dramatic language?

Given the existing legal protection for tenants how would a landlord's financial problems impact the tenant?

It's pretty clear you don't know what your rights as a tenant are. Fortunately you don't need to, there are several places where you can get free advice, one of them being the CAB. Ironically many of the tenants on this board are wanting to close same.

Even this report by shelter acknowledges this is a small minority of landlords.
The inspections that were conducted will have been done as a result of complaints made by the tenants.
Why should the tax payer fork out for for another body to enforce the same laws in the same way when the tenant can just ring up and report it anyway?
Given we're cutting front line services in the Police, NHS etc to implement something like this would be crass.

In reality, the landlord faces the most risk and has the least protection.

Shakethedisease

They're much more than £1000 fines.The standard penalty is a £6,000 fine for each item and/or 6 months imprisonment. When they inspect what most people would consider one fault will actually be reported as several. So each conviction is usually a multiple of the above.

Can you back this up with ACTUAL conviction stats ? Or evidence of your assumptions ?
Because the figures and evidence Shelter and Enviromental Officers present would suggest that there are many, many cases out there of shoddy and unsafe practices going on by unscrupulous and/or niave landlords and agencies. Panorama did a documentary not long ago also highlighting some of the worse cases of landlords 'milking the system' and providing substandard accomodation. I'd like to see this cracked down on.

I typed 'errr' as I type the way I think.

Oh and I know my rights fully as a Tenant.. however since I bought 2 years ago, the point your making is moot regarding my own circumstances.

Why should the tax payer fork out for for another body to enforce the same laws in the same way when the tenant can just ring up and report it anyway?

Once they've rung up and reported it, the landlord/agency has already delivered the sect 21 notice for 'making a fuss' or being a 'difficult tenant'.

And who was talking about tax payers forking out anything ? Private agencies, like tenant vetting services aren't paid for out of tax payers money, why did you think a Landlord referencing one would be ?
I simply pointed out that I didn't see anything wrong with something like this being set up along the same lines as the tenant ones. And it seems (re the OP's link to the BBC story), that there are some calling for 'something' to be implemented along those lines.

Anyway, am not turning this into a pesonal slagging match, I've said everything I wanted to say. I do think that there needs to be far more done in regards of landlord accreditation, checks and perhaps referencing from previous tenants.

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Can you back this up with ACTUAL conviction stats ? Or evidence of your assumptions ?

I didn't make any assumptions I quoted the law. Which I and the vast majority of landlords adhere to. I'd have to search for conviction stats. ONS might have something so will update later.

In the meantime do you have evidence where a landlord is getting away with not producing safety certificates?

This only covers prosecution your proposals focused on detection. Tenants can still just ring up and complain initially to their landlord then legally if needs be.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because the figures and evidence Shelter and Enviromental Officers present would suggest that there are many, many cases out there of shoddy and unsafe practices going on by unscrupulous and/or niave landlords and agencies. Panorama did a documentary not long ago also highlighting some of the worse cases of landlords 'milking the system' and providing substandard accomodation. I'd like to see this cracked down on.

There are unscrupulous people in all lines of work. The laws surrounding property and tenant's right are relatively strong.
This article by Shelter states that it is a small minority of landlords that are guilty of this.

The 90% figure wasn't 90% of let homes it was 90% where they had inspected as a result of complaints.

What was the actual number that formed this 90%? Do you think the HSE turned up, identified problems and the ignored it? They will have prosecuted, which to me says the system works.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I typed 'errr' as I type the way I think.

Fair enough, I though it was to add ridicule when I read it.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh and I know my rights fully as a Tenant.. however since I bought 2 years ago, the point your making is moot regarding my own circumstances.

If you are aware of the rights of the tenants and that the HSE and others do enforce the law as the Shelter article shows what do you think they are not doing that some other body would do?

You quoted £1000 fines which is much lower than the real penalties. £6000 or 6 months gaol time per breach. Most convictions even effecting only one bit of pipework etc will involve numerous breaches.
This is what led me to think you are unaware of existing tenant's rights.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Once they've rung up and reported it, the landlord/agency has already delivered the sect 21 notice for 'making a fuss' or being a 'difficult tenant'.

It takes 1-2 months to action an S21, that is plenty of time to further your complaint whilst legally withholding payment.

And who was talking about tax payers forking out anything ? Private agencies, like tenant vetting services aren't paid for out of tax payers money, why did you think a Landlord referencing one would be ?
I simply pointed out that I didn't see anything wrong with something like this being set up along the same lines as the tenant ones. And it seems (re the OP's link to the BBC story), that there are some calling for 'something' to be implemented along those lines.

Fair point I did make that assumption. It will end up being funded by the tenant and the landlord though increasing their costs while still not providing anything extra.

You mentioned credit referencing. The tenant is not at risk even if the landlord is not credit worthy. You ignored my question as to how they are.

The article talks about references but due to the complexity, potential for abuse, libel etc it would be unworkable. If you disagree could you give us an example of how a good one and a bad one would read?

Anyway, am not turning this into a personal slagging match

Good.

, I've said everything I wanted to say. I do think that there needs to be far more done in regards of landlord accreditation, checks and perhaps referencing from previous tenants.

If the tenants had no legal recourse on things like Gas Safety Checks, fair enough, I'd agree with you. The fact is they are protected. The HSE inspections quoted in the article confirm that.

Shakethedisease

Oh well, since you ask..;)

In the meantime do you have evidence where a landlord is getting away with not producing safety certificates?

Not getting away with ( how would I prove that ? ), But here's and interesting case from the forum here in January..

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2993162

Here are another few varied landlord's that have been fined for various health and safety stuff.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/news/rogue-landlord-fined-10000
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/news/landlord-fined-for-ignoring-rules
http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/news/article/728/private_landlord_fined_for_house_in_serious_repair
http://www.upad.co.uk/blog/2011/02/landlord-fined-7000-for-extensive-mould-growth/

A quick Google brings up pages and pages of news reports of landlords that may have been getting away with stuff like this for years previously. And yes, I know they are a small minority. But, according to Shelter, it's over a million tenants that have been victims of a scam involving private tenancies or landlords in the last 3 years. That's a LOT of tenants. And I know also that the 90% figure relates to 90% of complaints made and not 90% of homes. I just quoted the figure as it stood.

what do you think they are not doing that some other body would do?

Provide references from previous satisfied or unstatisfied tenants ?

It takes 1-2 months to action an S21, that is plenty of time to further your complaint whilst legally withholding payment.

You think the Landlord will give them a good reference after that ? Or that the council will rehome them if they've not been paying the rent and made themselves 'intentionally homeless' ?

I cannot find any advice at all that encourages withholding rent under any circumstances. In fact anywhere I've visited seem to emphatically advise NOT to do this..

Shelter :- "
Unfortunately, some landlords will prefer to evict a tenant rather than do the repairs they’re responsible for. ...
You do not have the right to withhold the rent, regardless of whether the landlord carries out repairs or not. If you do so, the landlord might try to evict you.
However, if you have strong tenancy rights (for example if you are an assured or regulated tenant) it may be possible for you to arrange for the repairs to be done yourself and deduct the cost from your rent - but this is not recommended. "

You mentioned credit referencing. The tenant is not at risk even if the landlord is not credit worthy. You ignored my question as to how they are.

If the landlord hasn't told the bank they've let the property out, then the tenant is at risk, especially if the landlord defaults. Some sort of proof the Bank, and the taxman, and the insurance company knows should be mandatory. Not all letting agencies bother to check anything much ( well, they're not regulated themselves are they ? ).

The article talks about references but due to the complexity, potential for abuse, libel etc it would be unworkable. If you disagree could you give us an example of how a good one and a bad one would read?

Good = Mortgage company knows, HMRC, insurance up to date, safety certificates in order. Repairs carried out in good time, plenty of notice for inspections or visits, deposit registered. Property/garden in good state of repair generally, quiet enjoyment observed etc etc 5 star !!!

Bad.. well take your pick to knock the stars off.

Complexity, libel and potential for abuse re references, does work both ways surely ? I'm sure there are tenants out there who've been slagged off royally, perhaps because a landlord has a personal axe to grind, perhaps over deposits or if they've reported them for something ?

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh well, since you ask..;)



Not getting away with ( how would I prove that ? ), But here's and interesting case from the forum here in January..

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2993162

Here are another few varied landlord's that have been fined for various health and safety stuff.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/news/rogue-landlord-fined-10000
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/news/landlord-fined-for-ignoring-rules
http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/news/article/728/private_landlord_fined_for_house_in_serious_repair
http://www.upad.co.uk/blog/2011/02/landlord-fined-7000-for-extensive-mould-growth/

All this says to me is that dodgy landlords ARE getting convicted. Again that just says to me that the existing system works.

A quick Google brings up pages and pages of news reports of landlords that may have been getting away with stuff like this for years previously. And yes, I know they are a small minority. But, according to Shelter, it's over a million tenants that have been victims of a scam involving private tenancies or landlords in the last 3 years. That's a LOT of tenants. And I know also that the 90% figure relates to 90% of complaints made and not 90% of homes. I just quoted the figure as it stood.

Shelter's figures for the >million scam aren't that reliable the people who would respond to their surveys and be in touch with them are likely to have a grievance in the first place. Therefore their opinions are not likely to be representative of the majority of tenants.

Provide references from previous satisfied or unstatisfied tenants ?

See previous comments on complexity and libel.

You think the Landlord will give them a good reference after that ? Or that the council will rehome them if they've not been paying the rent and made themselves 'intentionally homeless' ?

Previous landlord's reference's are usually pointless from my point of view. I have seen advice on here as to how to get around that. It doesn't take much imagination but before you ask I'm not going to say how.

I cannot find any advice at all that encourages withholding rent under any circumstances. In fact anywhere I've visited seem to emphatically advise NOT to do this..

That would still not stop me from doing it. Some tenants in perfectly good accommodation withhold their rent because they can't afford it and cite BS reasons. I had one back in 2003 or 4 that had a friend claim to be from corgi in a phone call and that the boiler was unsafe when I started chasing for non-payment. I'm pretty sure that in a genuine case people would withhold payment.

If the landlord hasn't told the bank they've let the property out, then the tenant is at risk, especially if the landlord defaults. Some sort of proof the Bank, and the taxman, and the insurance company knows should be mandatory. Not all letting agencies bother to check anything much ( well, they're not regulated themselves are they ? ).

Every single agency I have used has checked this. Why wouldn't they? If they failed to there are legal implications for them.
Do you have an example of one that doesn't?

Good = Mortgage company knows, HMRC, insurance up to date, safety certificates in order.

OK, but if they're not you could do a lot worse to them than not giving them a star as they will have committed criminal offense or breached their mortgage terms which have major consequences.

Repairs carried out in good time

Sounds OK but what is 'good time'? This is where it starts getting tricky. What if there are strong winds that damage lots of home etc and getting hold a roofer is a nightmare? There are many genuine reasons why there can be delays. The number of houses even built on time is a tiny proportion. Under the current system in the event of a dispute this would be assessed on a case by case basis not a set of stars.

, plenty of notice for inspections or visits,

Notice periods for inspections appear in every tenancy agreement I have seen.

deposit registered.

It's an offense not to do so. It can be readily checked by the tenant. There is an automatic £1000 fine and in the event of a dispute it can be even more.

Property/garden in good state of repair

Surely the tenant can weigh that up for themselves when they view it before agreeing to the tenancy.

generally, quiet enjoyment observed etc etc 5 star !!!

There are laws enforcing all of that as well. Basic maintenance is in the landlords interest as well. If it is in a terrible state when you look at it don't take it. If it a wreck after you've been in it a few months then maybe you're a bad tenant.

Bad.. well take your pick to knock the stars off.

But it's highly subjective and open to abuse.

Complexity, libel and potential for abuse re references, does work both ways surely ?

Absolutely, I can't give bad references for bad tenants or employees for that matter for reasons of libel/slander.
The stars system you propose would still have this problem. You can say positive things but any negative assessment (or not enough stars) and you're open to legal action.

I'm sure there are tenants out there who've been slagged off royally, perhaps because a landlord has a personal axe to grind, perhaps over deposits or if they've reported them for something ?

Can't give bad references as mentioned. Most you can do is refuse to give one.

Please don't misconstrue this as an attack on the rights of tenants. It isn't and I rent myself from time to time. I just think that these proposals are too vague, subjective, open to abuse and are therefore unworkable.

The existing laws are an adequate deterrent for the vast majority and are actually enforced as we have both shown. There will always be some rogue landlords and tenants that break the rules regardless of the penalties but they do not prosper in the long run and there are more than adequate means of dealing with them. It is the same with everything else - even with the death penalty there would still be murders.

I'm sorry but I just don't see any additional advantage to the proposal.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There are of course pro's and con's to both, but whining about it on the internet won't change any of them.

Spamish knows what he's talking about here.
6000+ posts on this forum alone, and he hasn't managed to change the inevitable.

Shakethedisease

Shelter's figures for the >million scam aren't that reliable the people who would respond to their surveys and be in touch with them are likely to have a grievance in the first place. Therefore their opinions are not likely to be representative of the majority of tenants.

Feel free to quote from other sources if you feel Shelter aren't 'that' reliable. But you haven't yet backed up your assumptions on 'what things say to you' with actual figures unfortunately so far. I go by published stats and figures that are out there, now.

Previous landlord's reference's are usually pointless from my point of view.

Then you are in the minority, since most landlords do ask for them ? Or perhaps you feel we could all do away with this unnecessary and pointless practice ?

That would still not stop me from doing it. Some tenants in perfectly good accommodation withhold their rent because they can't afford it and cite BS reasons. I had one back in 2003 or 4 that had a friend claim to be from corgi in a phone call and that the boiler was unsafe when I started chasing for non-payment. I'm pretty sure that in a genuine case people would withhold payment.

Shelter and the CAB are the majority of tenants first port of call when coming across tenancy problems. Most would take it and I've supplied you with direct quotes. Are you suggesting tenants go elsewhere for advice ? Where ?

Every single agency I have used has checked this. Why wouldn't they? If they failed to there are legal implications for them.
Do you have an example of one that doesn't?

Mine. Moved in on Thursday, day 1 myself and my 4 children, youngest 5 months old, we'd moved 200 odd miles and I'd arranged schooling for 3 of them to start on the Monday.
Day 2, estate agent at the door with a group of 8 viewers. I don't know who was more shocked ! The property was up for sale as well and had been for months. Estate agent had no idea it was being let out, mail still arriving for the landlord too. Letting agents one of the biggest in the area. Where were the checks then ?

I received call after call for viewings from the estate agent for months and quite a few vaguely threatening emails from the landlord re eviction as soon as the tenancy was up if I didn't allow them. He particulary emphasised what a good landlord he was letting me 'opt' for 'group' viewings once a week. I allowed a viewing 2 WEEKS after moving IN because I didn't know any better.. taking myself and my ( breastfed ) baby out wandering about in the !!!!ing rain for 2 hours ( I didn't drive).. while I wondered what the hell I was actually paying £650 a month FOR ?

I soon wised up re tenancy law I can assure you. There were no more viewings, and I just ignored all calls and emails regarding same from then on. He backed down only after I emailed quoting 'quiet enjoyment' law, no more viewings while I'm paying you to live there as my home thank you. Do what you like once I'm out. Oh and that I'd rather be evicted than have to breastfeed in a crowded Asda cafe ever, ever again ! But, I DID pay the extra £70 a month he demanded pcm once the 6 months was up. As I was frightened I'd have nowhere else to go that was anywhere near the kids schools and they'd just settled in. That's somewhere it's not nice to be and lots like me then face it every 6 months.

Sounds OK but what is 'good time'? This is where it starts getting tricky.

Yes it does. But leaving a family without heating or hot water for 2 and a half weeks in the middle of December isn't particularly good ( again from experience ).. especially with a baby. I didn't complain too forcefully, but the plumber said the boiler needed a parts or the whole thing ripped out and replaced, but he couldn't do it till the landlord paid up in advance. He didn't, and the plumber just applied temporary pressure fixes each time, with us both aware it was only a matter of time till it 'went' again. Happened 3 times during our tenancy and it was bloody cold.

Again, 'good time' and 'practice' mean a lot. I wasn't under the illusion that my landlord could click his fingers and it was done the next day. But he didn't seem to even TRY, and never paid for the parts and labour that the plumber, he employed, insisted needed doing. He knew I had very young children living there.

Can't give bad references as mentioned. Most you can do is refuse to give one.

Why couldn't this be reciprocated ?

Notice periods for inspections appear in every tenancy agreement I have seen.

You really, really need to start reading the other housing forum here and get a reality check. A lot of landlords have no idea.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3030920

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3072522

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3041086

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2958872

Landlords and letting agencies with absolutely no idea what they are doing. And they're just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I hate doing all the 'quotey' thing and break down, rinse and repeat. And I'm enjoying debating with you.:o But I suggest you're living in a little bit of an 'ideal world' bubble when it comes to this sort of thing.

Just because you're a good landlord, doesn't mean everyone else is. Just because you would withhold rent, doesn't mean it's the advice that's going out from most main advisory ports of call at the moment.
Just because you can 'refuse a reference'.. doesn't mean that one day in the future the same 'right of reply' shouldn't be available to tenants too. Legal action available to Landlords AND tenants alike.

Just because something is 'in the tenancy agreement' doesn't make it lawful either.

I think it may be yourself who needs to do a fair bit more reading up on this. You need to look a little wider and not just 'what I would do'. And a few stats and back up figures would be good. Otherwise, Shelter and their studies and their 1 million scammed tenants, are a far, far more reliable and solid statistic than any vague airy fairy thoughts you might have...

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Feel free to quote from other sources if you feel Shelter aren't 'that' reliable. But you haven't yet backed up your assumptions on 'what things say to you' with actual figures unfortunately so far. I go by published stats and figures that are out there, now.

I don't have any other figures and ironically haven't been on here so much as been doing some stuff for a tenant. If I find any alternatives I'll post them at a later date. The 1 million figure just doesn't ring true to me though and a survey for an organisation like shelter (which I think is a valuable one btw) is likely to be skewed due to their respondents being more likely to have been victims of bad landlords.

Then you are in the minority, since most landlords do ask for them ? Or perhaps you feel we could all do away with this unnecessary and pointless practice ?

I value them for my commercial tenants. I don't really value them for my residential tenants.

Shelter and the CAB are the majority of tenants first port of call when coming across tenancy problems. Most would take it and I've supplied you with direct quotes. Are you suggesting tenants go elsewhere for advice ? Where ?

I haven't really had many complaints with landlords I have had although there haven't been many to be fair. I have a major issue with the management of company of a couple of flats I have as I am pretty sure I am being defrauded and yes I stopped paying and we are in the second year of a a court case now

Maybe it's just me but if I am paying for a service and there is a problem I stop paying until they sort it out. My next port of call would be legal action and I represent myself.

Mine. Moved in on Thursday, day 1 myself and my 4 children, youngest 5 months old, we'd moved 200 odd miles and I'd arranged schooling for 3 of them to start on the Monday.
Day 2, estate agent at the door with a group of 8 viewers. I don't know who was more shocked ! The property was up for sale as well and had been for months. Estate agent had no idea it was being let out, mail still arriving for the landlord too. Letting agents one of the biggest in the area. Where were the checks then ?

I received call after call for viewings from the estate agent for months and quite a few vaguely threatening emails from the landlord re eviction as soon as the tenancy was up if I didn't allow them. He particulary emphasised what a good landlord he was letting me 'opt' for 'group' viewings once a week. I allowed a viewing 2 WEEKS after moving IN because I didn't know any better.. taking myself and my ( breastfed ) baby out wandering about in the !!!!ing rain for 2 hours ( I didn't drive).. while I wondered what the hell I was actually paying £650 a month FOR ?

I soon wised up re tenancy law I can assure you. There were no more viewings, and I just ignored all calls and emails regarding same from then on. He backed down only after I emailed quoting 'quiet enjoyment' law, no more viewings while I'm paying you to live there as my home thank you. Do what you like once I'm out. Oh and that I'd rather be evicted than have to breastfeed in a crowded Asda cafe ever, ever again ! But, I DID pay the extra £70 a month he demanded pcm once the 6 months was up. As I was frightened I'd have nowhere else to go that was anywhere near the kids schools and they'd just settled in. That's somewhere it's not nice to be and lots like me then face it every 6 months.

I'd have told him to stick his £70 but I do see your reasoning for not doing so.

You stopped the quiet enjoyment issue by quoting the law. The law IS a deterrent. If the above is anything to go by for a landlord to get away with it they need a tenant that they think is ignorant of their rights and an unusual lack of morality to want to do it in the first place.

I can understand after something like that you wanting it to be harder for it to happen again. I still think the existing system is adequate and I suspect that the reason a minority of llds might be getting away with unreasonable behaviour is that the system is not being used by the tenant.

Yes it does. But leaving a family without heating or hot water for 2 and a half weeks in the middle of December isn't particularly good ( again from experience ).. especially with a baby. I didn't complain too forcefully, but the plumber said the boiler needed a parts or the whole thing ripped out and replaced, but he couldn't do it till the landlord paid up in advance. He didn't, and the plumber just applied temporary pressure fixes each time, with us both aware it was only a matter of time till it 'went' again. Happened 3 times during our tenancy and it was bloody cold.

Again, 'good time' and 'practice' mean a lot. I wasn't under the illusion that my landlord could click his fingers and it was done the next day. But he didn't seem to even TRY, and never paid for the parts and labour that the plumber, he employed, insisted needed doing. He knew I had very young children living there.

You have had a bad experience with a lld who sounds like a real low life. That doesn't mean that this is the norm. If everything is as you described he should have put you in a hotel while he got it fixed.

You really, really need to start reading the other housing forum here and get a reality check. A lot of landlords have no idea.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3030920

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3072522

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3041086

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2958872

Landlords and letting agencies with absolutely no idea what they are doing. And they're just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I hate doing all the 'quotey' thing and break down, rinse and repeat. And I'm enjoying debating with you.:o But I suggest you're living in a little bit of an 'ideal world' bubble when it comes to this sort of thing.

I think it is equally niave to take anything that is posted on MSE about house buying or landlords on face value. Unfortunately, some of the posters on here like to make BS posts to give false credence to their views. Landlords seem to be especially hated mainly for having bought properties. I'm not saying that all of these are but it would be very easy to get a false impression from reading these boards.

You also only get one side of the story. I have a tenant that moved out on Sunday, left the place needing a vacuum, general clean, etc, had ruined a settee, replaced a set of curtains with inferior ones, took the iron and various other issues. If you speak to her I'm the worst person in the world because even though I overlooked most of it I said I needed a replacement settee or it was coming out of the deposit.

Since then I have had false promises, abuse, the new tenant has been messed about, etc. If you asked her for a reference on me it would be the worst in the world when in reality I have given her more time to replace it and agreed this with the new tenant for her. All I've done to generate this reaction is refuse to repay the balance of the deposit until I know that there is going to be a replacement or I need to get one myself out of the deposit money and then know how much is left to return.

I am very sure I have been very accommodating but if she were to give a reference I probably wouldn't get another tenant. How would you get around that without some independent verification of the claims made?

If the proposed system was in place and the reference cost me a tenant I'd take legal action. Unfortunately civil law is very expensive if you get representation and most of the time the cases only really benefits the solicitors and judges regardless of the verdict.

With regards to repairs, look at this from my point of view, if there is a fault that occurs and there is a tenant in there. If I can fix it and keep them happy there are less issues with the tenancy and nothing needs doing that might put off future prospective tenants.

I've invested a lot of money in my properties I could not imagine not wanting to look after them. If I didn't I'd struggle to let them, they'd lose value and I'd lose any existing tenants. I'm sure the vast majority of landlords think the same way.

Just because you're a good landlord, doesn't mean everyone else is. Just because you would withhold rent, doesn't mean it's the advice that's going out from most main advisory ports of call at the moment.
Just because you can 'refuse a reference'.. doesn't mean that one day in the future the same 'right of reply' shouldn't be available to tenants too. Legal action available to Landlords AND tenants alike.

Just because you met a bad landlord doesn't mean the rest are.
As mentioned I don't put too much weight on references for residential tenants. I do value credit references but we have already discussed that.

Just because something is 'in the tenancy agreement' doesn't make it lawful either.

If there is something in the tenancy agreement and it is unreasonable then it can invalidate the whole document.

If it is reasonable, and the point we discussed was, then it is legally binding upon being signed.

I think it may be yourself who needs to do a fair bit more reading up on this. You need to look a little wider and not just 'what I would do'. And a few stats and back up figures would be good. Otherwise, Shelter and their studies and their 1 million scammed tenants, are a far, far more reliable and solid statistic than any vague airy fairy thoughts you might have...

You mentioned this earlier in your post as well.

I doubt Shelter had a million respondents to their survey. They will have surveyed people they dealt with and then extrapolated to give a figure for the whole population of tenants. Shelter are unlikely to have someone filling in their survey unless they had a problem. So when they apply the same percentage of negative responses to the whole population of tenants they get an over estimate. I doubt most people (outside of this board where landlords are compared to Hitler and reptiles) would think the figure of a million is likely and would also acknowledge that Shelter do have a vested interest and so would not be too concerned if a disproportionately high number was produced by their surveys.

It's like asking a helpdesk what they think of a product. They will usually think it is far worse than it is because all they hear are the issues all day long.

I hope this reads OK, I'm pretty tired at the moment.