Another push for rental regulation..

IveSeenTheLight

lostinrates wrote: »

not doubling the rent or whacking it up by fifty percent.

do you have experience examples of rent doubling or increasing by 50%?

If so, over what time period?

Genuinely interested.

Personally, the rent I charge has not increased anywhere near those percentages.

lostinrates

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

do you have experience examples of rent doubling or increasing by 50%?

If so, over what time period?

Genuinely interested.

Personally, the rent I charge has not increased anywhere near those percentages.

No, i am not talking about our system, i am simply saying predictable doesn't mean punative.....it is being suggested that predictable rent increases might be a poor deal foe the tenant, i am saying in my experience that is not the case. People tend to assume the worst, and that clause for increase would be wide over a long time period. Ime this was not so.

wotsthat

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't tend to use agencies because they just seem to p*ss off my tenants all the time (when I have occasionally used them in the past).

I think that tenants should never receive a direct charge from a letting agent. All costs should go to the landlord.

Clearly costs will be passed on but if a landlord receives a £200 bill for running a tenants credit check they are in a much better position to negotiate it downwards or question it's validity.

My experience of letting agents (as a guarantor) is that they are vultures preying on people with limited options. I can't find anyone with a good word to say about them.

AdmiralX

Many landlords rent substandard accommodation: noise, smells, damp walls, unsafe electrics, boilers and heating that have problems, water escape from roof, communal areas that are unhygienic and had never been
cleaned, old washing machines, trees and hedges reducing the light. An envornmental Health Officer from the Council to told me that handrails can be missing from communal staircases though they are statutory requirement.


Many of such problems that plague the lives of tenants and theit children are not regarded as breach of responsibility of landlord or letting agent but the Law should change to make them responsible on this: "the standard of rented accommodation should be acceptable; there should be a statutory level on minimum provision of amenities and hygiene"

AdmiralX

Callie22 wrote: »

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.

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.

Good points: the cause of the problem is the landlord: there are 2 extremes and in between (a) the landlords who own property in a well managed block and have to maintain standards, as the majority there would not tolerate slips - first hand experience; and (b) the unscrupulous ones who thrive in this situation: they own a flat in blocks in poor state of repairs and badly managed or bully the other good lessees not to vote for repairs. This item of repairs determines the rental value and the standard of accommodation. Repairs in blocks can not easily passed in a rent and sometimes they are so so high as to reach at least half the annual rental value.

Graham_Devon

Road_Hog wrote: »

"Longer tenancies, with predictable rent increases"

Do you agree with the second bit as well? Longer tenancy agreements but built in rent increases in return?

If they are relating to the european way of doing things, which the article says they are, predictable rent increases will mean a cap on the amount rent can increase.

drc

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that if you are a tenant and you make a complaint about something being unsatisfactory in a rented property or if something needs fixing, the LL can simply give you notice if they don't want to do it or if they just don't like you. Seems totally unfair to me and a form of blackmail.

Graham_Devon

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

It's difficult though when so many prospective tenants fail credit checks. Last year I had one property with nine in a row failing. So for this one six-month let, I would have had to pay for ten sets of referencing?

Well my business has to pay for criminal record checks. We don't ask the potential employee / employed individual to pay for it. It's part of running a business.

Same as paying for other regulation. We don't expect staff to pay for their H&S training, fire training, resuss training and all the other things we have to pay out for to keep staff employed.

The checks cover YOUR business and YOUR income. It doesn't do anything for the tenant, so why expect them to pay to cover your rear, in your profitable business?

Callie22

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I agree.
I'd happily let my tenants sign up for longer tenancies.
The question remains how many tenants want to tie themselves into longer term rentals?

As a tenant I'd like longer tenancies - six months is nothing, and it can be quite stressful to live on a periodic tenancy, jumping everytime the letterbox rattles when it gets near rent day, wondering whether you've just been served notice. I'm a point in my life where I would like a little more security - I have a permanent job, a relationship etc etc, and I don't want to be moving every year. I'd like to be able to plan a holiday, for example, without wondering whether in six months I'm going to need the cash to move instead. Although, I do of course see the flip side of that, that there are people who want short term lets - students, young professionals etc.

However ... I wouldn't want a longer tenancy without greater regulation of the rental market. I don't want to end up tied into a two, three, four year tenancy with a landlord who won't do repairs, or a crap letting agent, and I don't want to have to spend the entire tenancy fighting for a decent level of service.

The problem in this country is that the whole rental market is built around short-termism. I've rented for a good few years (my username isn't my age) and I would genuinely question whether *most* landlords really do want long term tenants. In my experience, most of the landlords I've ever rented from want to be able to sell up when they think the market is better, and don't want to invest anything other than the absolute bare minimum in their properties. They want to have six-monthly rent rises regardless of the market - the attitude I've come across is 'there's always another tenant, if you don't like the rent/the lack of maintenance, then get out'. There's just a bit of a lack of common sense - I've moved out of a house because the LL wanted to put the rent up £50 a month. The house wasn't worth it, so I didn't want to pay it. The house was then empty for two months and rented out again at exactly the same price we were paying - what did the LL gain from that?

madeupname1

Callie22 wrote: »

I would genuinely question whether *most* landlords really do want long term tenants. In my experience, most of the landlords I've ever rented from want to be able to sell up when they think the market is better

I'm surprised by your experience. From my own perspective as a LL I wont enter into 6 month lets, but then I am not in it for the short term. When a tenant moves out I find that it takes me about a month to get the property let out again. This gives me time to clean the property; carry out repairs/replacements/maintenance (which typically means getting a workman who is available to come by and do the work); getting potential tenants around for viewings and then carrying out the referencing and finishing paperwork. Doing that every six months isn't worth the effort so I personally wont go for anything less than 12 months minimum let extendable thereafter. On the other hand, I don't like to let for more than 12 months on an initial basis because, if there turns out that there is a problem with the tenants, you don't really want to have to rely on discretionary grounds or two months arrears to get them out.

Callie22 wrote: »

and don't want to invest anything other than the absolute bare minimum in their properties.

Beyond providing decent living accommodation, it doesn't pay to spend vast amounts on rental properties (unless your in the luxury end of the market and can charge accordingly). Example - a former tenant left iron burns in virtually all of the carpetted rooms. The carpet had been in the property about 5 years by the time he left but, before he moved in, they were in good condition (no stains / burn marks etc). Because the carpet was 5 years old when he left, the perceived wisdom was that I wouldn't be able to retain much if any of his deposit because the carpets in rental property arent expected to last much more than than that. In my own home, I would expect a carpet to last at least 10 years. The lesson I learned - no point in investing in expensive / high quality fixtures because if they get trashed then tenant wont want to pay to replace or fix.