Regulated tenant not all she might be

propertyman

Well not as simple as you think.

If the house is worth £300k and you are offering £100k they see its as cheap buy of " their house" which they do have a right to live in until they leave "feet first" or heavily medicated.

If they are aware of homes worth £300k then what is £100k going to offer them? Not a lot, and at best a rental with little security.

If the tenant knows the local rent officer they may well explain the affect on the rent and appease them.

You migth be better taking your £100k and the refurb costs and ensuring the house is basically sound and investing all that in another investment.

You might even consider alternative modern accom and granting her an assured tenancy which offers considerable security at an equivalent registered rent.

As I explained in the earlier thread, the value is in the reversion and its a waiting game as modernising in situ is for the brave and fortunate, or the harrassment types.

ancientbuilding

People can't bear the idea that a tenant might be dishonest. Surely not?!

So I'll fill in a few more details.

The tenant found me, and told me she had a terrible landlord who was making her life really difficult and (like some other corresondents on this thread might) I believed her and agreed a sum for vacant possession before negotiating with the owner. The sum agreed was enough for her to buy her own 3-bed semi locally at that time.

Then when it came to settlement day she wanted more!

And I've had her ever since because I have better things to do than mess about with cons - although I will say I periodically sue her or her son over various things, and sometimes succeed - but somehow the prejudices of the courts are such that I don't think she would ever be evicted despite all.

She knows what she can get away with.

theartfullodger

Sigh!!!

So you thought you were getting a bargain (no, of course not, silly me...) and then found she knew her rights & wished to exercise them.

If you really think you might win in court go ahead: As you describe it I suspect you'd be throwing more more money after bad...

Please keep us informed regarding the progress of your case.

Cheers!

ancientbuilding

The idea was to help this poor pathetic woman and at the same time get an antique house to restore (notice my name?). I paid very nearly full market value at the time and had she accepted the payment for her tenancy it would have cost me about 10% over market value.

I knew all that, but not everybody is obsessed with money, and I could afford to do it.

It really is remarkable what a state people get into when you challenge their preconceptions. Sometimes it almost becomes hysteria.

45002

Sounds like someone didn't do the Homework before purchasing a property with a 1977 Rent act tenant in place !

I had 3 landlords since I 1st moved into my flat in early 80's and my last and current LL I now have No sympathy at All for them.

They hardly had any legal advice at All on Regulated Tenants before purchasing the property...

One of my LL even tried to serve a s21 on me :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

jamie11

ancientbuilding wrote: »

The vast majority of regulated tenants are civilised and honest folk, but occasionally you get one that isn't. I have one, and I am writing about her because such tenants create chaos for verybody else and a great amount of mistrust, so there needs to be a way of dealing with them.

For more than the last 30 years I have had a tenant who does everything she possibly can to make the house unmanageable, and for some long time I did not even realise that was what she was doing. Here is my description from another thread:


(to jamie11, who appears to have no understanding of what the tenant might be doing)

Don't go picking on me to support your fantasies mate. I understand very well what a regulated tenancy means. I was patient with my tenant even though he caused me a fair bit of trouble towards the end of his life.

I bought the property in full knowledge that it was a long term investment, and treated it accordingly.

ancientbuilding

If you look at the statistics for criminals who come before the courts and are found guilty of one crime or another I am certain even without checking that a goodish proportion of them will be tenants.

Assuming that some of you actually accept this virtually inevitable fact, then some of you will be able to perceive that statistically some tenants are dishonest.

Sorry, but that's how things can be in this world. Just give it some thought.

Angelicdevil

ancientbuilding wrote: »

If you look at the statistics for criminals who come before the courts and are found guilty of one crime or another I am certain even without checking that a goodish proportion of them will be tenants.

Assuming that some of you actually accept this virtually inevitable fact, then some of you will be able to perceive that statistically some tenants are dishonest.

Sorry, but that's how things can be in this world. Just give it some thought.

Quick! Someone fetch the jacket!

adouglasmhor

ancientbuilding wrote: »

statistically some tenants are dishonest.

Statisticaly some landlords are mentally !!!!!!, some landlords are criminals and some tenants are thouroughly law abiding. Any more meaningless statements you wish to make?

ancientbuilding

If you look at the court records of criminal convictions you must inevitably discover that a goodish proportion of those criminals are tenants. That will be obvious to everyone, I think.

It therefore follows that some tenants are criminals no matter what your personal prejudices may make you wish to believe.

Just give it some thought.

As to the other prejudices being expressed here about value of property it makes no difference to me what you think because I know the reality by experience.

I also have very little interest in money. It just causes envy and discontent, and enough is plenty.