What can/can't be done by tenants to a property?

Gorgeous_George

Thanks horace. I managed to read through that rather long (cut and) post and a few things need comment.

I think most BTLers would be happy to have the same tenants for many years if they paid their rent. The problem is when a 6-months tenant damages the property before moving on. Having the whole place stink of cigarettes or dogs is expensive to put right when tenants leave. Doing this once every ten years is more acceptable than once every 6 months.

BTLers do not increase house prices. Low interest rates, increasing numbers of single people and increasing immigration causes more homes to be required whereas BTL properties are rented out and therefore do not add to the number of homes required.

There seems to be a lot of people on HPC who have serious chips on their shoulders and think that the world owes them a living.

I can subscribe to the birth date lottery idea. When I bought my 1st house interest rates were at 16.5% and half my salary went on the 100% mortgage (£24,000). Today, a similar employee would be able to pay a £120,000 mortgage to use to about half of his/her salary. Falling IRs have caused house prices to rise and, because of that, I've been lucky. If you buy and IRs rise, you'd be unlucky. BTW, I didn't own a car, have a mobile phone (it was 1985), have a PC, video recorder, digital camera, dvd player (the point being that there are so many more things to spend money on nowadays).



GG

horace_2

Regret a very long winded post. My intention was to post only the link, not the whole dialog.
My error. Sorry.

h

movieman

BTL properties are rented out and therefore do not add to the number of homes required.

While you're right about the real cause of the housing bubble being artificially low interest rates, as I just pointed out in the other thread, there are vast numbers of _EMPTY_ BTL properties around the country now. There is no shortage of housing, just a shortage of housing at a price normal people can afford to pay.

There seems to be a lot of people on HPC who have serious chips on their shoulders and think that the world owes them a living.

How long do you think that Britain will continue to be an even vaguely civilised nation if the BTL 'dream' comes to pass, of a country divided into landlords who own dozens of houses each and renters who can never even think of buying a house of their own?

Home ownership has been an absolutely enormous force for social stability in the UK, because people who owned a house knew that they couldn't afford to riot in the streets, and people who didn't own one knew that they could if they worked hard for a few years and saved some money. If people in future come to the conclusion that they'll never get ahead, what do they have to lose?

In the thirty-some years I've been alive, I've never seen social inequity as bad as it is today, under a supposedly socialist government. I'm just glad I'm emigrating soon.

Gorgeous_George

movieman wrote:

While you're right about the real cause of the housing bubble being artificially low interest rates,

I never said interest rates had been artificially low. In real terms I think that they are quite high at the moment. Yes, low when compared to higher rates.

movieman wrote:

as I just pointed out in the other thread, there are vast numbers of _EMPTY_ BTL properties around the country now. There is no shortage of housing, just a shortage of housing at a price normal people can afford to pay.

Raising IRs will make homes less affordable unless their prices fall by more than the effect that higher IRs have.

I don't think that people who rent are necessarily any more lawless than those who own. Interesting concept though.

I think low salaries are the biggest cause of social inequality. If the UK is to challenge for a share of the world's jobs, then lower wages are here to stay. The government needs to ensure more houses are built to replace the council houses of yesteryear.



GG

Gorgeous_George

horace wrote:

Regret a very long winded post. My intention was to post only the link, not the whole dialog.
My error. Sorry.

h

No need to apologise - it's the content that matters and not the format.



GG

seven-day-weekend

If, as someone wished for in the long post, tenants couldn't be chucked out if they didn't pay their rent, why on earth would anybody ever bother letting out a property?

It would cause a huge shortage of rental property.

shelly

To whoever it is that "Doesn't have permission to post and can't be bothered to register", they need to re-read my original post. They have made lots of statements about me and others in this thread that are wrong.

My OP was purely looking for advice on what's reasonable or not to ask of tenants and what they can/can't do.
Maybe its not a bad thing the person isn't a member if that's all the advice and help they can come up with.


Thanks to everyone else though who has given useful/helpful and constructive advice. We appreciate it.

clutton_2

A Tenancy Agreement is a set of clauses which landlord and tenant agree to. There are a few legal bits which you need to include to protect yours and the tenants own legal interests. You need to include rent, payment day, term, notice requirements, tenants and landlords responsibilities - ie who has agreed to do what. As regards the rest of the clauses, - you can write your own - i have seen a half page AST and i have seen a 25 page AST - its up to you. "Unfair terms" are clauses which the OFT recomend are unfair, but, which i do not think have been tested in the courts as yet. I look at additional clauses in terms of "would i like to live under this clause".

If you include a clause which attempts to take away a persons right accrued under another piece of legislation, that clause has no legal validity in your AST.

But, having said all that, and in spite of the long post above, it is my view that Tenants have a lot more legal rights than landlords. A tenant can be wrecking your property and you have no right of entry (except in extreme emergency) without their permission; a tenant can stay in the property after the end of the AST term and you have to go to court to get him/her out - yet even when the court has ordered them out, they still can choose to stay until you go back to the court and ask the judge to order bailiffs to turf them out. There are 69 different Acts of parliament covering landlord and tenant affairs. The profit margin on most BTLs is small - and costs will only rise as government create more and more regulations to be complied with. You can bank on redecorating and recarpeting far more frequently than in your own home.

If you are going to do this as a business - be pragmatic and only do it if the figures make some sense - would it be better to sell and property and put the money in the bank ? But my most sincere pieces of advice are to join the National Landlords Association - get the real information, keep up to date, have access to a fabulous legal helpline - and to find your own tenants - no one will take as much care as you (learn how to do as many checks as possible, and take up all references, visit their homes, get a guarantor if at all possible and check out their references just as fully). It is better to have a property empty for a couple of weeks, than to spend 4 months trying to get a non-paying tenant out.

good luck

Debt_Free_Chick

bazzzz wrote:

When are you obliged to inform the inland revenue of your BTL? How much tax do you have to pay?

You need to think of your BTL as a business and keep separate records for everything. You then produce accounts every year showing what you've received (rent) and what you've spent. You'll need information from the accounts to put on your tax return.

I know of BTL landlords who claim the inland revenue are not interested. They claim never to have paid tax over a 5-10 year period. Are they talking nonsense?

I can't imagine a situation where HMRC would "not be interested", but no tax would be payable if there were no profit i.e. if it cost you more to run the property than you received in rent.

What happens when you sell? Do people really bother to declare their profits? The BTL I know claim they never have.

The profit on a sale is treated differently to the annual profit (excess of rent over expenditure). On a sale, the profit is assessable for Capital Gains Tax, but there are deductions that can be made and, of course, we each have an allowance of (currently) £8,800 for CGT.

Not declaring any profit - either annual profit, or the profit on a sale - is tax evasion and not something you really want to be mixed up with. The taxman has considerable powers to deal with those who evade their tax liabilities.

Perhaps it's just pub talk.

More than likely :rolleyes:

clutton_2

the stamp duty land tax form, as i understand it, is sent to the IR - so they know when you buy and when you sell, so you cannot really hide.

if you get a good accountant, s/he will advise you on how to minimise your tax bill and save you a lot of money in the long run. i have just changed my accountant as the first one would have cost me thousands in a few years time, as he registered me as the wrong sort of business. Property tax is particularly complex - get proper advice as all our circumstances are different.