Stronger Rights For Tenants, Please vote

jyonda

I'm not a wannabe Landlord

I'm a wannabe homeowner but I'd be happy to continue renting if the security of tenure was there. I realise it best to own eventually but not at any price.

peter999

prudryden wrote: »

Sounds a bit envious.

Count your money, forget about the tenants, they're a pain in the arsse !! :rolleyes: :rotfl:

peter999

scrummy_mummy_2

It's not tenant rights that need to be increased...it's the buy to let market as a whole and the landlords operating within it that needs to be regulated.
If I decide to become a doctor (overnight because I think I could give it a go) I can't just set up and mess with peoples lives...I have to train, register and keep up continual professional development training as things change...thinking of being a pilot actually...think the uniform would look great on me!
Anyway.....if the buy to let market was centrally regulated, in particular landlord's who choose to manage their own property, many of the problems frequently described on this forum would be reduced. (Can't say eliminated because problems never go away)
I think tenants versus landlord rights are about equal IF everyone plays by the legislation already in place.....however.....many landlords don't know or are unable to interpret it (same for tenants) and so have to 'make it up' as they go along. Problem city!
If it was me steering the ship, I would add a term into the buy to let contract/agreement that if a landlord chooses to manage his own property, they must attend an accredited traing programme, register with a national register of landlords and provide proof of this as a condition of their offer.
No training...no money and no 'have a go' landlords!

Off to British Airways now, I believe there's a Jumbo on the pan waiting for someone to fly 350 unsuspecting bods to Hong Kong!
I can do that!!!!!
Hurrah!

Generali

jyonda wrote: »

Me myself, what is going on in that signature?

Gravy train = Property investing genius uses equity from rising house prices to aquire more and more properties gaining more and more equity whilst some poor sucker pays off their mortgages!...

Until rising IR's take the mortgage repayments above the market rates for rent then everyone wants to sell and down come the prices further and further.

As Warren Buffet says, "A rising tide floats all boats, it's only when the tide goes out we can see who's been swimming naked".

When HPs aren't going up or are even falling (that never happens though, right?) we'll see where the market really is. The exaggerated returns from leverage cut both ways.

Gold_Shogun

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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.

Exactly the same thing can be said about Tenants ...
... And don't forget that a Houseowner or Landlord generally risks FAR more in terms of potential financial losses than any Tenant

---

> The Tenant can easily run up ADDITIONAL rent arrears of hundreds/thousands whilst the LL seeks to repossess the property for previous-arrears (which often remain unpaid in spite of CCJ's, etc), AND vindictive/uncaring Tenants can (and often do) also effectively destroy or severely damage the property before leaving ... In almost 40 years of letting property, my family have seen FAR more cases of "Dodgy Tenants ripping off the LL" than vice-versa.
The LL is often left to both fix the mess AND carry the financial losses personally, whilst the Tenant often simply flits off effectively 'scot free' to the Tenant's "Next Target/Victim".

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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.

My personal Code of Conduct, Respect, & treatment of Tenants goes well beyond the legal minimum ... But many (although not all, fortunately) Tenants are simply not interested in treating their LL with the same "fairness & respect", but rather in seizing every possible opportunity to feather their own nest by deliberately avoiding their obligations to look after the property and pay the agreed rent timeously (or often at all).

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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

I don't know how old you personally are, but those of you who have been kicking around a while may remember that the last time (back in the 60s & 70s) that your "Red Montag" approach (of giving Extremely strong & Unbalanced Security of Tenure Rights to tenants) was tried, it actually had the exact opposite of the proposed effect, as it became so hard for a LL to remove ANY "Smeghead/Non-Paying Tenant" that Landlords simply refused or could not afford to risk letting property to almost anybody ---> The nett effect of which was to create a chronic lack of available & affordable self-contained rented accommodation for many years thereafter.
"Red Montag" indeed :rolleyes: ... Haven't you learned yet that compulsory communism didn't work & never did as far as the peasants it was supposed to empower ? (Ask the Russians )

I personally consider that the "balance of legislation / power" between LL & Tenant is probably fairer now than it ever has been (although it is still unfairly skewed in favour of the Tenant when it comes to enforcing the Tenant's financial & property-care obligations)
... A few decades ago, it unreasonably favoured the Tenant at the cost of the LL, and for a few decades before that it unfairly favoured the LL at the expense of the Tenant.

Cheers
Bob

Gold_Shogun

pickles110564 wrote: »

There should be stronger rights for landlords. Every month you wonder if the monies will be paid and what stories and lies you are going to hear.
If my tenants were to pay on time every month they can stay as long as they like ... Why would we want the hassle of getting new ones in?

Well said ... I agree wholeheartedly.

As a general rule IF I am happy with my Tenants & they look after the property & pay the rent timeously, I always give them Xmas week as a free bonus, and I only tend to review the rent level every three-to-five years or so ... As I would MUCH prefer to keep a good Tenant at an overall lower-than-market value instead of constantly risking a chance of a "Smeghead Tenant".

It's much wiser overall to take "the Long View".

Generali

Exactly the same thing can be said about Tenants ...
... And don't forget that a Houseowner or Landlord generally risks FAR more in terms of potential financial losses than any Tenant .

The LL takes a business risk. Why should they have extra protection against that?

---

> The Tenant can easily run up ADDITIONAL rent arrears of hundreds/thousands whilst the LL seeks to repossess the property for previous-arrears (which often remain unpaid in spite of CCJ's, etc), AND vindictive/uncaring Tenants can (and often do) also effectively destroy or severely damage the property before leaving ... In almost 40 years of letting property, my family have seen FAR more cases of "Dodgy Tenants ripping off the LL" than vice-versa.

The LL can (and do) take risks with the health/lives of their tenants. How much money is my life or that of my children worth to you? I've had LLs put my life in danger to improve their margin. I'd be interested to know what pound note value you put on a 2 year old's life. Or that of my 8 month old. Or mine for that matter!

The LL is often left to both fix the mess AND carry the financial losses personally, whilst the Tenant often simply flits off effectively 'scot free' to the Tenant's "Next Target/Victim".

I'd be left grieving my wife and children. You'd be left a few bob out of pocket.

seven-day-weekend

As somebody has already mentioned, not so long ago, tenants had so many rights that the landlord could never get his/her house back. Therefore, nobody ever let their houses and there were not many places to rent.

I think it was Margaret Thatcher who brought in the idea of the assured shorthold tenancy. Lots more rental properties then came onto the market.People who wanted to rent could do so, but Landlords could also get their house back if required.

Seems fine to me. Why should I rent my house out for years at a peppercorn rent and never be able to get it back? I may want it for my own use. I may want to sell it. I may even just want to leave it empty. Why shouldn't I be able to do these things? It's my house,I've paid for it!

There has to be give and take on both sides.

Generali

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

As somebody has already mentioned, not so long ago, tenants had so many rights that the landlord could never get his/her house back. Therefore, nobody ever let their houses and there were not many places to rent.

I think it was Margaret Thatcher who brought in the idea of the assured shorthold tenancy. Lots more rental properties then came onto the market.People who wanted to rent could do so, but Landlords could also get their house back if required.

Seems fine to me. Why should I rent my house out for years at a peppercorn rent and never be able to get it back? I may want it for my own use. I may want to sell it. I may even just want to leave it empty. Why shouldn't I be able to do these things? It's my house,I've paid for it!

There has to be give and take on both sides.

True.

However, under current laws LLs aren't held to account, generally speaking. Perhaps it would be possible that both sides could take risk (e.g. LL and tenant both having to put a deposit in - the tenant could use the LL's deposit to repair the cooker/boiler/whatever if the LL refuses to do so in good time, LL could get a charge against the tenant's wages if appropriate). Deposit being held by a neuteral 3rd party.

Gold_Shogun

Generali wrote: »

{Guy_Montag} ..... 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.
&
{ME} ..... Exactly the same thing can be said about Tenants ...
... And don't forget that a Houseowner or Landlord generally risks FAR more in terms of potential financial losses than any Tenant .
&
{YOU} ..... The LL takes a business risk. Why should they have extra protection against that?

Who asked for "extra" protection ... Certainly not me ... Instead of trying to "bs" my reply out of context, try re-reading Guy_Montag's original post ... You would then see that I merely stated that any such "suggested legislation" should apply EQUALLY & FAIRLY to BOTH the LL and the Tenant ...
--> YOU are the one who appears to desire "one sided legislation" to favour ONLY the Tenant.

Generali wrote: »

{ME}

---

> The Tenant can easily run up ADDITIONAL rent arrears of hundreds/thousands whilst the LL seeks to repossess the property for previous-arrears (which often remain unpaid in spite of CCJ's, etc), AND vindictive/uncaring Tenants can (and often do) also effectively destroy or severely damage the property before leaving ... In almost 40 years of letting property, my family have seen FAR more cases of "Dodgy Tenants ripping off the LL" than vice-versa.
&
{YOU} ----> The LL can (and do) take risks with the health/lives of their tenants. How much money is my life or that of my children worth to you? I've had LLs put my life in danger to improve their margin. I'd be interested to know what pound note value you put on a 2 year old's life. Or that of my 8 month old. Or mine for that matter!

What are you on about, you Troll plonker ... Your reply has absolutely NOTHING to do with my comment about Tenants failing to pay/destroying the property.
Your stupid comment is nothing but a "Red Herring whinge" to try & whitewash the valid point I raised ... NO Tenant of mine has EVER had either their life OR their kid's lives endangered by me or my family as LL !!!
---> Furthermore, Tenants have a HUGE range of Official bodies, Council Departments, CABs, Govt. Inspectors, Police, etc, etc to represent the Tenant's Safety & Rights AGAINST Landlords and ALL of whom have the powers to prosecute wayward LLs and/or force them to correct LL failures ...
---> Now compare ALL that "Tenant Power" relative to the average LL, and you will find that NONE of those bodies are really interested in helping a Good Landlord enforce the "Supposedly Equal" Rights against a Bad Tenant ... Their standard response is usually "Nothing to do with us, pal, our job is to help the Tenants. You'll have to take action against them yourself at your own expense as it's a civil matter"

Generali wrote: »

The LL is often left to both fix the mess AND carry the financial losses personally, whilst the Tenant often simply flits off effectively 'scot free' to the Tenant's "Next Target/Victim".

I'd be left grieving my wife and children. You'd be left a few bob out of pocket.

Once again, your BS/dimwit comment about your family has absolutely NOTHING to do with my post about Tenants doing a "moonlight flit"
---> Furthermore, IF (& that's a VERY BIG/RARE IF) a landlord were to deliberately cause the death of a Tenant's family as you suggest, you cannot seriously be suggesting that he would "merely be out a few quid" unless you are seriously mentally deficient, as ALL those aforementioned Officials & Govt. bodies would ALL be queing up in a big line to "take their turn at crucifying" the Landlord.

... Kindly get serious and get a life if you want to debate me on the ACTUAL ISSUES I raised instead of posting your meaningless & unrelated drivel as a diversion tactic.

This well-armed lamb says Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!
Bob