Debate: Do tenants have enough/too many rights?

thesaint

benjus wrote: »

Having been a landlord, tenant and both at the same time (and now neither), I've had issues on both ends - there are bad tenants and bad landlords. When this question arises (as it frequently does), I usually summarise it in these terms:

• A tenant dealing with a bad landlord stands to lose their home.
• A landlord dealing with a bad tenant stands to lose some money.

I know which one I think deserves stronger protection under law.

Landlords dealing with a bad tenant can lose a lot more than just "some money".

benjus

thesaint wrote: »

Landlords dealing with a bad tenant can lose a lot more than just "some money".

For example?

Being a landlord is an investment; investments have a monetary value, which is why I said "some money". Investments don't always work out optimally and a landlord should be prepared for that. If they are so exposed that a bad tenant could drive them to bankruptcy or to losing their own home then I would suggest that they are either not managing their investments competently, or have been exceptionally unlucky. I don't think either case deserves protection under law.

Missko

Error.
Error.

cloo

That's the trade one makes for the profit of being a LL. I had a little trepidation when I first rented out my place and moved in with my other half, as I knew there was then at least 6 months in which I would not be able to reclaim the house if I wanted to.

But why would anyone rent a place, and go to the trouble of moving, paying deposits etc if they knew they could be asked to leave in less than half a year?

So the minimum period is there for a reason for both sides.

benjus

Missko wrote: »

What if they're an "accidental" landlord, Benjus, someone who lost their job and had to move back with parents and maybe couldn't sell the place?

I don't see what difference it makes tbh... many "accidental" landlords have done quite well out of their "accidental" investments. It's quite rare that you just can't sell a place (although it's common enough to not be able to sell a place at a nice price).

Missko wrote: »

And the tenants can just rent another place without a backward glance?

Moving house costs money and causes a lot of disruption. Tenants with children in the local school may not be able to find another suitable place nearby. etc. etc. The bottom line is that being told to move house against your will is not pleasant.

Guest101

Missko wrote: »

What if they're an "accidental" landlord, Benjus, someone who lost their job and had to move back with parents and maybe couldn't sell the place?

And the tenants can just rent another place without a backward glance?

U keep saying accidental.

No its not accidental, you didnt accidentally advertise the property, or accidentally sign a tenancy agreement, or accidentally accept rent payments.

What you had was bad luck. So should the law be stronger protector on bad luck? no it shouldnt.

The tenants might like the place, they might be saving for a deposit, they might have kids at local school... Its their home. and if they choose to leave their home, thats their choice, this is someone else (ie your mortgage provider in your case) decided that for them (you).

So how would you feel if mr bank manager says, we want you out?

Miss_Marple_2

I think what is fundamental to a tenant / landlord relationship is that, even though the landlord may own the house, it is the tenant's home.

If a landlord cannot mentally make that separation, then they are probably not cut out to be a landlord.

(Just to say that I am neither a tenant nor a landlord)

SerialRenter

The system mostly works.

If i did have the power to change things though i'd do the following:

• Get rid of no fault evictions (S.21)
• Improve the system for evicting tenants with arrears/who have caused damage to the property/growing drugs/etc. i.e. Speed the process up. Move it away from the overcrowded courts?
• Council powers to incentivise landlord to bring their properties up to minimum standard. (insulation, efficiency, etc)
• Better resources on .gov websites about tenants and landlords rights (like the shelter website has).
• Better police training on illegal evictions.
• More cookies.

Halle71

Guest101 wrote: »

U keep saying accidental.

No its not accidental, you didnt accidentally advertise the property, or accidentally sign a tenancy agreement, or accidentally accept rent payments.

What you had was bad luck. So should the law be stronger protector on bad luck? no it shouldnt.

The tenants might like the place, they might be saving for a deposit, they might have kids at local school... Its their home. and if they choose to leave their home, thats their choice, this is someone else (ie your mortgage provider in your case) decided that for them (you).

So how would you feel if mr bank manager says, we want you out?

If people default on their mortgage Mr Bank Manager does tell them they want them out.

If people don't pay their rent then a landlord has a right to tell them they want them out.

We are talking about 'bad' tenants after all and I would imagine one of the worst/most common problems of a bad tenant would be non payment of rent.

The only reasons I would ask our tenants to leave, would be if they damaged our property or did not pay rent. If I went into a shop and vandalised it or stole from it I would expect repurcussions and I don't see why my business should be treated any differently. But I'm not sure the law does protect landlords in the same way.

Missko

Error.
Error.