Tenants' rights when renting a home

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

What I find interesting is that same people who demand 'moral hazard' when buying a house with a mortgage, are the same people who demand a raft of legislation to protect people from renting. Aside from structural problems that cannot be seen by the naked eye, if a property looks shabby and uncared for, then don't rent it. If a property you are renting is neglected then move on.

It's not rocket science. Tenants should have the 'moral hazard' of finding themselves a nice place to live and of moving out if they thing the landlord is neglecting the building.

Think you are misunderstanding "moral hazard".

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ILW wrote: »

Think you are misunderstanding "moral hazard".

Think you're mistaking opinion for fact.

homelessskilledworker

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

What I find interesting is that same people who demand 'moral hazard' when buying a house with a mortgage, are the same people who demand a raft of legislation to protect people from renting. Aside from structural problems that cannot be seen by the naked eye, if a property looks shabby and uncared for, then don't rent it. If a property you are renting is neglected then move on.

It's not rocket science. Tenants should have the 'moral hazard' of finding themselves a nice place to live and of moving out if they thing the landlord is neglecting the building.

You are joking right?:rotfl::rotfl:

Even you can surely tell the difference between regulation and moral hazard.
For example(and I can think of millions) I want food regulation to make sure nobody takes a dump in my takeaway curry or has a wizz on my fish and chips as an alternative to vinegar and then blames me for not taking a sniff test.

olly300

real1314 wrote: »

You've simply described the difference between the two situations. You haven't given any reason the two cannot be treated with similar regulations.

I think everyone knows that a sale is a one-off event. However, the sale of a property as long term implications. Are people who buy houses much more aware of the risks, concerns and implcations of their purchase than renters are of their commitment?

You could put "caveat emptor" against rental commitments, with similar consequences.

When you buy a property you employ experts with qualifications, training, insurance and who belong to professional bodies to look at the flaws in the property.

When you rent a property you look at the flaws yourself. Anyone else involved doesn't have to have any qualifications, training, insurance or to belong to professional body.

So yes the stronger law is need to regulate unsafe rentals. If like with the gas safety laws as a landlord and a letting agent you were clearly going to end up with a prison sentence if you rented out an unsafe property, then not doing maintenance would be rarer.

Conrad

The question is whether tenants will welcome rising rents that will accompany increased obligations in time and money for landlords?

This minds me of QT audiences always applauding sentiments that urged a return to old fashioned lending values, and then be not quite so happy when it comes to thier turn being declined for a mortgage.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You are joking right?:rotfl::rotfl:

Even you can surely tell the difference between regulation and moral hazard.
For example(and I can think of millions) I want food regulation to make sure nobody takes a dump in my takeaway curry or has a wizz on my fish and chips as an alternative to vinegar and then blames me for not taking a sniff test.

There is plenty of regulations in the rental market already, just as in the food market.

To use your own example, if you went to a fast food joint with dirty equipment and unhygienic looking staff but still decided to have a burger because it cost only 10p, then you've made your choice and you take your chances.

Similarly in renting. If you go to look at an apartment and it looks uncared for and neglected, but the rent is dirt cheap, then you've made your choice and you take your chances.

Meaning - people should take responsibility for their own actions.

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Even you can surely tell the difference between regulation and moral hazard.
For example(and I can think of millions) I want food regulation to make sure nobody takes a dump in my takeaway curry or has a wizz on my fish and chips as an alternative to vinegar and then blames me for not taking a sniff test.

I missed this one.:) Love it.

Of course without those food regulations people would be taking a dump in takeaway food all the time.

Or filling up the vinegar pot in the chippy with urine - what a picture!

Did this sort of thing happen all the time before the law was tightened up?

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

I missed this one.:) Love it.

Of course without those food regulations people would be taking a dump in takeaway food all the time.

Or filling up the vinegar pot in the chippy with urine - what a picture!

Did this sort of thing happen all the time before the law was tightened up?

it certainly foiled HSW's plan to gain his revenge by opening a chippy around the corner from grant shapps' house.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

wotsthat wrote: »

I missed this one.:) Love it.

Of course without those food regulations people would be taking a dump in takeaway food all the time.

Or filling up the vinegar pot in the chippy with urine - what a picture!

Did this sort of thing happen all the time before the law was tightened up?

You can just see the kid in the takeaway thinking "Hmnnn, I think I'll take a wizz on these fish and chips here. Oh hold on!! Food regulations say I can't! Phew, I could have fallen foul of regulations just then! I dodged a bullet there!"

He's joking right?:rotfl::rotfl: (to use hsw's words and smileys).

homelessskilledworker

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

There is plenty of regulations in the rental market already, just as in the food market.

To use your own example, if you went to a fast food joint with dirty equipment and unhygienic looking staff but still decided to have a burger because it cost only 10p, then you've made your choice and you take your chances.

Similarly in renting. If you go to look at an apartment and it looks uncared for and neglected, but the rent is dirt cheap, then you've made your choice and you take your chances.

Meaning - people should take responsibility for their own actions.

What utter rubbish, I can see why wotsthat has been so attracted to you.
As far as I am concerned you cannot REGULATE food enough along with kids toys, water and sewage, to name just a few.

Take water for example, it might be a nice crystal clear looking glass of refreshing water to you or me, but might have a number of dangerous chemicals or parasites that you are never going to know about untill it is too late, or a kids wonderful looking colourful toy that has been covered in lead paint. I want near certainty that examples such as I have given are safe, MORAL hazard does not even enter into these type of situations.

Now just for you, MORAL HAZARD, seeing as though you have no concept what it is. Say a business man/woman starts a new enterprise, or a punter bets on a 10/1 at Chepstow, or someone invests in any number of shares or get rich quick schemes, OR someone decides to buy property in a location of their choice to the standards they see fit for themselves at a price the deemed correct with hopes maybe of future gains. All of these people took a risk, and sad as it might be in SOME cases, they have to take it on the chin themselves should things go wrong.... MORAL HAZARD