Stronger Rights For Tenants, Please vote

pickles110564

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Don't like the business, get out of it. No-one makes you be a landlord - whereas I have no choice but to be a tenant.

Everyone has a choice, 13 years ago we started with one grand buying properties no one else wanted.
We have just exchanged today on a house that we will turn in six months into a 600 hundred grand property to go with our 4 rentals.

Get off your @rse , stop blaming every one else and turn your life around.
rgds
Pickles

litaus

pickles110564 wrote: »

Everyone has a choice, 13 years ago we started with one grand buying properties no one else wanted.
We have just exchanged today on a house that we will turn in six months into a 600 hundred grand property to go with our 4 rentals.

Get off your @rse , stop blaming every one else and turn your life around.

Who's he blamed? For what? I must have missed that post.

absolutebounder

spurs_nut wrote: »

Screw the college boy and the CONservatives.

They can jog on!

Never had you down as a !!!!!! spurs mut

Gorgeous_George

My tenants can stay as long as they wish - providing they keep to the tenancy agreement.

I've even released my current tenant early (after less than 5 months of a six month tenancy). Oh, and I have handed him his deposit in full - three weeks before he moves out!



GG

Guy_Montag

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

My tenants can stay as long as they wish - providing they keep to the tenancy agreement.

I've even released my current tenant early (after less than 5 months of a six month tenancy). Oh, and I have handed him his deposit in full - three weeks before he moves out!



GG

If all landlords were like you then there wouldn't be a problem. Regrettably a substantial minority are stupid, incompetent or just plain nasty & it's these that we must legislate for. We must protect the vulnerable against the nasty.

Most of my landlords have been pleasant enough (though a bit sticky with the deposits), one (actually a letting agency acting as a landlord) was a combination of all three listed above.

If you feel that tenants have enough rights perhaps you should, with a trade body, set up a landlords' code of conduct which goes beyond the regulatory minimum in an effort to cut off what appears to be a growing movement (spawned by those educated, young citizens who are unable to afford to buy houses) to increase tenants' rights.

Rents limited to RPI(X) & abolition of section 21 eviction notices - just call me Red Montag

ukbondraider

Although my experience in this area is not that great it would appear that tenants already have too strong rights. What gets to me is how a landlord has to go to court to evict a tenant if the tenant doesnt pay his rent. If I rented out my house I would want to be able to kick the tenant out the first day any rent is late let alone a non payment.

People are just too lazy/careless/stupid. They need to be kept on their toes and they need to be constantly threatened with things like homelessness to make them more considerate in what they do and thus be more in line with society

Gingernutmeg

ukbondraider wrote: »

People are just too lazy/careless/stupid. They need to be kept on their toes and they need to be constantly threatened with things like homelessness to make them more considerate in what they do and thus be more in line with society

I'm assuming you don't think that this statement has to apply to landlords too, but only tenants?

That attitude annoys me so much. Let me give you my own example - my partner and I are good tenants. We pay the rent early each month, have been told by the LA that we are some of the best tenants they have, we've carried out numerous repairs and improvements to the property (that the LL won't do). However, despite this we are still, in effect, 'constantly threatened with homelessness', as all the LL has to do is give us our notice and we're out. If we complain about legitimate problems with the flat, we risk this. It's not a nice way to live. I don't 'choose' to rent, and my situation is not through not working hard either (which seems to be the general assumption from LLs). While tenants may have rights, they certainly don't have much security.

jyonda

In Germany the law respects the tenants right to security of tenancy because it is their home. This is far more important than letting every Tom, !!!!!! and Harriet invest in a BTL for their retirement instead of having alternative stable pension investment options.
The people with money/property are taking advantage of the people without simply because they can and there's no legislation/taxation to stop it.

Tiger_greeneyes

I don't think the 'rights' needs looking at, more the fact that both the landlord and the tenant need to uphold their positions more seriously and more responsibly.

For instance, I rented a house for 8 months until January this year. For over two months we didn't have a working cooker - the one that was there was beyond repair. On a weekly basis, I contacted the letting agents to find out how much longer we had to wait for a working cooker. Eventually it was replaced.

There's no way we could have reduced our rent because it would have been taken out of our deposit. In other words, we had to put up with it until the landlord could be bothered to get around to sorting it out. It cost us hundreds of pounds in takeaways - it was the only way we could get a cooked meal. In hindsight, we could have bought the cooker for less than we spent on buying takeaways.

Our rights were to have a working cooker. The landlord just didn't bother to uphold his side of the contract and we had no comeback - other than to pay for it ourself, lose some of our deposit or possibly lose our tenancy before we were ready to move out.

There was nothing wrong with our rights as tenants, they were in place.

There should be better solid/legal back up for upholding the terms of the contracts on both sides.

Both times I've rented, the landlords have expected me to put up with issues of that nature - because they know that tenants have to put up with it because they're locked-in to the contract for the duration of the tenancy. Most tenants won't want to move - moving isn't pleasant, easy, or cheap. Tenants do tend to be over a barrel.

If landlords were legally forced to sort out problems with the property as soon as they could, then that would be far more useful than anything else.

Generali

ukbondraider wrote: »

Although my experience in this area is not that great it would appear that tenants already have too strong rights. What gets to me is how a landlord has to go to court to evict a tenant if the tenant doesnt pay his rent. If I rented out my house I would want to be able to kick the tenant out the first day any rent is late let alone a non payment.

People are just too lazy/careless/stupid. They need to be kept on their toes and they need to be constantly threatened with things like homelessness to make them more considerate in what they do and thus be more in line with society

Why should I and my family be made homeless because I wanted a gas safety certificate? Or a water heater that had a thermostat that worked (and didn't raise the temperature of the cold water to scalding point)? Or didn't want to pay a 20% increase in rent and sign a contract that let my LL throw me out on a whim?

In many years of renting I have paid my rent late once. That was a genuine mistake. Most of the LLs I have experienced have been lazy, greedy, small minded rentiers that would rather put their tenants lives and health at risk than shell out for even minor repairs.

I'm sure not all LLs are like that but in my experience the vast majority are. They make their money from others' misery.