Stronger Rights For Tenants, Please vote

thesaint

SallyD wrote: »

I don't want to hijack the post but perhaps someone can answer this for me from a tenants point of view. I am looking to buy a modest house near my son in Yorkshire. I am not ready to move up there straightaway but want to use it long weekends until I am ready to move permanently. If I had a lodger would the fact that I am not always there give them any special rights over the property? Your thoughts would be most welcome.

No. not at all

[Deleted User]

SallyD wrote: »

I don't want to hijack the post but perhaps someone can answer this for me from a tenants point of view. I am looking to buy a modest house near my son in Yorkshire. I am not ready to move up there straightaway but want to use it long weekends until I am ready to move permanently. If I had a lodger would the fact that I am not always there give them any special rights over the property? Your thoughts would be most welcome.

No it wouldnt have a little read up on licence agreements

Gorgeous_George

I thought a tenancy agreement was valid even if the house was reposessed (through non-payment of the mortgage).

Also, the fact a CO alarm has sounded does not mean that the LL has failed to provide a safe home. It is merely a sign that the alarm has gone off and should be investigated.



GG

thesaint

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I thought a tenancy agreement was valid even if the house was reposessed (through non-payment of the mortgage).

Also, the fact a CO alarm has sounded does not mean that the LL has failed to provide a safe home. It is merely a sign that the alarm has gone off and should be investigated.



GG

Never let common sense get in the way of bashing landlords.

Guy_Montag

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I thought a tenancy agreement was valid even if the house was reposessed (through non-payment of the mortgage).

Also, the fact a CO alarm has sounded does not mean that the LL has failed to provide a safe home. It is merely a sign that the alarm has gone off and should be investigated.



GG

Apparently not -once the bank has a possession order that's you out.

BobProperty

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I thought a tenancy agreement was valid even if the house was reposessed (through non-payment of the mortgage)......

How many times has this been discussed in the last few months? No the tenancy agreement does not change the situation. The court has given possession according to the law of the land to the mortgage holder (presumably the plaintiff).
I suppose in theory the tenant could sue the landlord for breach of contract but if the landlord has just been repossessed they are unlikely to be in a position to pay out compensation.

pickles110564

lynzpower wrote: »

The panel would then be able to intervene and prosecute landlords who habitually neglect thier properties.

I see your are still at it, Where do you suggest a panel to intervene and prosecute tenant's who habitually neglect to pay their rent and leave properties in a trashed state, giving false names to utility companies and various names to catologue companies.

pickles110564

lynzpower wrote: »

funny you should mention this actually, as I was living in a student house, there we were sat there watching neighbours as you do, and my mate goes " can you smell gas" sure enough, we could smell it coming from what was "supposed to be" a diconnected fire in the lounge.

So we called transco, they came round pronto and said, you cant go back in there till its made secure. So we called the LL ( who by this stage, was not best pleased with us, as we had already pointed out other very dangerous findings) and put the transco man onto him. He promptly told the transco guy to !!!! OFF. those words.

Anyone know what our next step should have been?

Your fairy stories get better all the time, is it about time you came down from the clouds and look at both sides of the argument

prudryden

This is great! Reminds me of short stories by Edgar Allen Poe.

Gold_Shogun

Guy_Montag wrote: »

How would this grab you all landlords & tenants:

Upon repossession by a bank, the bank takes over the tenancy & must allow the tenant to stay on for the duration of the tenancy - subject to the usual caveats.

That actually sounds like quite a reasonable idea for the protection of Tenants, and it effectively makes no difference to the LL as they would have already lost the house through repossesion.

However, there are a few points you may not have considered :-
1) ... If you think Landlords are "!!!!!! Capitalist Pigdogs" that are nigh-on impossible to deal with on a reasonable basis (as many of your posts suggest), then you would find that Banks would be FAR worse as Landlords ... Tenants wouldn't be given a single millimetre of Flexibility from their contracts.

2) ... Banks have FAR greater "Lobbying & Bribery Political Power" than Private Landlords have ever had, so the odds of you being able to overcome that hurdle to get any such Law introduced would be remote indeed.

3) ... EVEN IF such a Law was introduced, the Banks would then simply "protect themselves" by adding clauses to any Mortgage Contracts requiring any Lettings or Tenants to be vetted or approved by the Banks (at the Tenants or Landlords expense).
This would effectively make renting MUCH more expensive as the cost thereof would have to be borne by those Tenants wanting to be so vetted (thereby disadvantaging those with poor history or lower pay who are "most at need").

I would not be surprised to find that the nett effect would be to greatly reduce the overall amount of available rental property considerably ... Which would again hit hardest on those who are most at need ...

The "Upper classes" would still buy their own homes as before, the "Middle classes" would still either rent or buy to suit their personal circumstances, but EVEN IF BTL Mortgages and/or ALL your "evil landlords" disappeared tomorrow, the price of houses may well drop somewhat over a period (although NOT radically by enormous amounts overnight) ... BUT ---> the average less well off "Lower classes" would STILL not be able to afford to buy their own homes overnight AND Many More people would suddenly face becoming completely homeless due to the lack of Rental Properties thus created.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to belittle your suggestion (as I personally think it would be great in an ideal world), but rather to point out a few real flaws & dangers in reality.