Another push for rental regulation..

FTBFun

chucknorris wrote: »

I certainly would wish for longer tenancies as a lot of work is generated at a change of tenancy. Although I don't think my target market of young professional sharers would want this, we usually give them a 12 month contract and then let them run onto a periodical, if they wish to stay. The problem is at that early stage of their career they tend to move about a bit and usually do not want to be tied into a longer contract, although break clauses could of course be introduced at suitable intervals to address this issue.

I also don't mind about giving a longer notice period generally, but my fear would be that take a lot longer to eventually evict a 'professional tenant' who has stopped paying the rent.

So more protection for good tenants and less for bad ones?

Sounds reasonable.

Graham_Devon

I suppose we'd then need regulation set up to define a good / bad tenants

System

Would there be a reciprocal change where, with longer notice periods, if the LL gave notice then it is binding without having to be dragged through the courts for months on end to get the people out? The LL would be able to evict them at the end of the notice period as soon as it was up

Road_Hog

As a landlord, I want my tenants to stay put as long as possible. Mine have been there over 10 years. I incentivise them by not putting the rent up.

That said, I'm not for red tape and regulation. It invariably means more costs, someone gets to make money out of it (local councils and the government) and those costs usually spiral. You only need to look at the Homebuyer's Pack (I know that was not for renting) to see what happens, and it was revealed that it was actually installed so that NuLabour could re-evaluate property council tax bands - upwards.

However, I'm in full agreement that there should be security for the tenant, so upping the notice period would not bother me. But that's all that needs done, just a legislation change saying that the notice period has to 3 or 6 months say. Bear in mind that the landlord may have a change in financial circumstances and need to put the property on the market.

It may also be nice that the legislation is changed so that tenants who decide to stop paying the rent can more easily be evicted.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I suppose we'd then need regulation set up to define a good / bad tenants

I guess if tenancy agreements were more stringent/binding/long term then it would be much more economically viable for landlords and agencies to do more indepth and effective checks on prostective tenants. If you know someone is signing up for a guaranteed minimum of (say) 3 years tenancy, then you don't mind paying extra for all the credit checks, references, etc.

Poor tenants would then be rooted out and be left with the dross. Again, I'm sure this happens in the US and often the whole apartment block can be involved with the interviews for prospective tenants.

drc

A._Badger wrote: »

If there is to be more regulation in favour of the tenant (and I'm not saying there necessarily shouldn't be) then it has to be reciprocated with more redress for owners who get stuck with bad ones.

LL's already have redress (S21) and then go through the courts for any damage/lost rent etc.

On the other hand, if a tenant has a bad LL (for example one that refuses to fix problems in the rental property and the tenant complains), the LL can evict the tenant for no reason after 2 months with the law on their side and the tenant has no redress and this can cause a lot of stress and financial worry for the tenant who then has to pay down a new deposit, EA fees, credit check fees, removal fees etc whilst waiting for their deposit to be returned by unscrupulous LL.

BigAunty

I agree that tenants should have longer fixed term tenancies so long as there is an accelerated and simpler process for evicting tenants with rent arrears and anti social behaviour. Lets have some reciprocity here. I agree with Roadhog.

My understanding is that it can take a landlord up to 6 or 7 months to get a property back from a nuisance tenant (two months notice following two month's worth rent arrears, then up to a month or so for a court date for possession, then up to 6 weeks extra notice for the possession date set by the court when the tenants must leave, then up to a month for court appointed bailiffs to enforce possession if the tenants have ignored both the notice from the landlord and the possession order from the court).

Also, judges have discretion over whether or not to grant possession to the landlord when there is anti social issues (whereas if the tenant pays monthly and owes 2 months rent, the judge must award possession to the landlord). My understanding from landlord forums is that judges tend not to grant possession when there are discretionary grounds. That's an area to be addressed.

BigAunty

I always feel sorry for tenants who rent from 'accidental' landlords, those novice landlords who can't sell their own property when they move in with a partner, for example, so pretty much plan to rent it out for the least time possible and who have little knowledge of their legal responsibilities.

As much as I know how buy to let landlords have helped to skew the property market, I assume that they are a bit more business minded and in it for the long-term.

Some way of addressing landlord failures with regards to repairs, deposits, etc, or mandatory certification might be an idea. Some kind of brief course where they learn about tenants rights and their responsibilities would be good.

Road_Hog

BigAunty wrote: »

Some way of addressing landlord failures with regards to repairs, deposits, etc, or mandatory certification might be an idea. Some kind of brief course where they learn about tenants rights and their responsibilities would be good.

That actually sounds like a good idea, although maybe not a course, I'm really against things being turned into a regulation 'industry' where people make money out of it.

I'm an accidental landlord, although I have been a landlord for 12 years now. I rely on the lettings agency to advise me mainly (and organise things like the yearly gas check and hold the deposit). I suppose a landlord's guidance pack produced by the government or local council (for free - otherwise it would turn into an income stream) and posted out via lettings agents and available as a PDF download would be useful.

At the end of the day, I can see loads of legislation coming, because the state can't help themselves. Love interfering and they realise that legislation leads to control and profits/income streams.

When this happens, it will lead to the small landlords selling up, which means that either, rental properties are reduced or professional (as in business and money grabbing/maximising income) landlords take over. Neither is good for the tenant, there is already a huge shortage of rental properties and social housing and professional landlords will push up the rent because they have higher costs and want the most return.

Callie22

One of the biggest problems in renting currently is that there is a tension between what (most) landlords appear to want, and what letting agencies want. We're told that LLs want long term tenants (although in my experience that tends to mean that landlords want tenants who'll stay, but they don't want to have to invest in their businesses to make the tenants want to stay ...) but LAs tend to want tenants to leave - in my experience they seem to value the large lumps of cash they can make at the beginning and end of a tenancy over a longer term steady management income (which generally does tend to involve effort on the LAs part). Lets face it, if you get two lots of tenants in a property over a year, that's two lots of check in and check out fees from the tenants, fees from the landlord ... Probably adds up to more than the 8% (or whatever) a month from management ...

I think that there are lots of LLs out there who would be very surprised a how many tenants they've lost through bad agents, and I really believe that regulation of renting has to take look at letting agencies as much as landlords.