Tenants' rights when renting a home

homelessskilledworker

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19843467


Tenants can sometimes have an uneasy relationship with landlords when it comes to determining who is responsible for the upkeep of a property.

Occasionally, this can become serious, as with the case of 92-year-old Helen Bora.

Recently, she was moved into sheltered housing by Camden Council in London following a dispute with her landlord.

"I rented a flat on the top floor of a building," says Mrs Bora, who was honoured for her work with the French resistance during World War II.

"After five years the landlord sold. The new owner neglected the place for 10 years."

"Two years ago there was a thunderous noise one night. When I opened the door the next day, the entire ceiling had come down and rainwater was still gushing through."

After several incidents, the local authority successfully prosecuted the property's owner.



There seems to be a swell of opinion just lately that more regulation is needed in the private rented sector, and not before time. Also we are now constantly hearing about rents being far too high, what anyone can do about that will be limited though.

MobileSaver

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

the local authority successfully prosecuted the property's owner.

There seems to be a swell of opinion just lately that more regulation is needed in the private rented sector,

The local authority successfully prosecuted the property's owner, seems to me the current regulations are working fine!

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Wouldn't this be more appropriate for the housebuying and renting board? I'm sure you'll get a much better response.

MODS: The op has accidently posted this in the worng board, could you please help him out and move this?

Graham_Devon

MobileSaver wrote: »

The local authority successfully prosecuted the property's owner, seems to me the current regulations are working fine!

The property shouldn't be in such a state in the first place...and allowed to be rented out.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The property shouldn't be in such a state in the first place...and allowed to be rented out.

True, but regulation to sort that out would require an annual inspection. So there are what, about 3 million private rentals. Say one inspector can inspect (assuming the tenants will grant access) 1,000 properties a year (about 4 every working day) so you need 3,000 inspectors. The cost of that would be enormous and would be passed on to tenants. I'd rather just exercise my ability to move when out of contract than pay a couple of hundred a year for someone to come around my house and tell me that it is habitable.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

True, but regulation to sort that out would require an annual inspection. So there are what, about 3 million private rentals. Say one inspector can inspect (assuming the tenants will grant access) 1,000 properties a year (about 4 every working day) so you need 3,000 inspectors. The cost of that would be enormous and would be passed on to tenants. I'd rather just exercise my ability to move when out of contract than pay a couple of hundred a year for someone to come around my house and tell me that it is habitable.

I'm not suggesting every house is inspected. I'm suggesting if a complaint is made, the house is inspected promptly.

This wasn't the case in the article and isn't the case generally.

Callie22

MobileSaver wrote: »

The local authority successfully prosecuted the property's owner, seems to me the current regulations are working fine!

I suspect the only reason they successfully prosecuted was because of the type of tenancy she had - just going off her age (and the fact that she talks about being there for at least fifteen years) I'd bet she was a protected tenant so didn't need to worry about eviction resulting from her going to the local authorities. For tenants on an AST in an similar situation, they'd be evicted long before a complaint ever reached that level.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not suggesting every house is inspected. I'm suggesting if a complaint is made, the house is inspected promptly.

This wasn't the case in the article and isn't the case generally.

It isnt that clear from the article what the chain of events was and when the local authority was brought into the loop, so there isn't much point using this example as a reference point for what regulation is required in order to bring rental property up to standard.

The trouble with a system which only reacts to complaints is that I suspect that a lot of people who are in sub standard accommodation wouldn't make a complaint about it as they probably wouldn't understand their rights or what standards the landlord was required to adhere to. It also doesn't really add anything as there is already a framework within which you can complain and the landlord can be taken to task by the local authority. Prosecution takes time and a portfolio of evidence...

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It isnt that clear from the article what the chain of events was and when the local authority was brought into the loop, so there isn't much point using this example as a reference point for what regulation is required in order to bring rental property up to standard.

No, but it was a feature on the beeb this morning.

squeeks

chewmylegoff wrote: »

True, but regulation to sort that out would require an annual inspection. So there are what, about 3 million private rentals. Say one inspector can inspect (assuming the tenants will grant access) 1,000 properties a year (about 4 every working day) so you need 3,000 inspectors. The cost of that would be enormous and would be passed on to tenants. I'd rather just exercise my ability to move when out of contract than pay a couple of hundred a year for someone to come around my house and tell me that it is habitable.

That isn't right. A landlord will always charge the most they can get in the market, regardless of their overheads, so a legal requirement to have such an inspection would fall with the landlords operating costs and yield, rather than with the tenant.

For example:
If the house required a new boiler, you don't get 4k added on to the rent that year, it is an operating cost for the landlord.

Or on the flip side

The BTL mortgage gets paid off, as it is a rare one that isn't interest only... so the landlords overheads have dropped significantly. The tenant doesn't suddenly get a discount equal to the now satisfied mortgage payment.

The cost for a landlord to operate their business doesn't have a direct link to the cost of renting a property from them. The cost is directly linked to how much tenants can or are willing to pay.

On the other hand house prices are only limited in price by how much individuals are willing and able to borrow... and where relatively lax BTL lending competing in the same residential market becomes a problem.

** another way of viewing it **
Give all tenants free money (tax credits, HB etc..), rents rise, margins on BTL increase.
Give BTL businesses free money (tax relief, low interest rates etc..) rents stay the same, margins for BTL increase.
Take money away from tenants (increased cost of living, no tax credits, HB etc..), rents fall, BTL margins reduce.
Take money away from BTL businesses (tax increases/operating costs) rents stay the same, BTL margins reduce.

There is obviously a balance, if availability of rental properties drop, the cost may go up (supply/demand etc..), but it isn't directly linked as other options are available, like shared accommodation, living with family and of course buying.

chewmylegoff

squeeks wrote: »

That isn't right. A landlord will always charge the most they can get in the market, regardless of their overheads, so a legal requirement to have such an inspection would fall with the landlords operating costs and yield, rather than with the tenant.

For example:
If the house required a new boiler, you don't get 4k added on to the rent that year, it is an operating cost for the landlord.

Or on the flip side

The BTL mortgage gets paid off, as it is a rare one that isn't interest only... so the landlords overheads have dropped significantly. The tenant doesn't suddenly get a discount equal to the now satisfied mortgage payment.

The cost for a landlord to operate their business doesn't have a direct link to the cost of renting a property from them. The cost is directly linked to how much tenants can or are willing to pay.

On the other hand house prices are only limited in price by how much individuals are willing and able to borrow... and where relatively lax BTL lending competing in the same residential market becomes a problem.

Businesses always pass on costs to their customers - that's just how they work. If it becomes more expensive to be a landlord then it becomes more expensive to be a tenant. Market rate rent is a balance of what tenants are prepared to pay versus what landlords are prepared to accept. Increased regulatory costs which have to be paid by every landlord put pressure on that equation and will lead to higher market rents.

To take your £4k boiler example that does indeed get passed on to the tenant. If the tenant had the obligation to maintain the property and repair or replace the applicances then market rate rent would be lower than it is.