Debate: Do tenants have enough/too many rights?

Guest101

Halle71 wrote: »

If people default on their mortgage Mr Bank Manager does tell them they want them out. - As they should, in some perspective they are the Landlord.

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

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. - No we aren't, unfortunately. We are talking about all tenants. Which is the problem with this post, and others of the OP.

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. - The law does exactly that, you can go to court and claim back any damage (which you can prove) and get your money. It should be pointed out the shop analogy isnt quite correct, as consumers have extra rights, such as sale of goods, which means that the good must be of a good standard and fit for purpose. Which is not always the case. but i do understand what you mean, ie if the tenant has no money, you arent getting it.[/QUOTE]

Reply above in red

Guest101

Missko wrote: »

Certainly not all LL's make profits or even cover the mortgage. It's not always even a choice to be a LL.

Guest: Re the law not protecting against bad luck: Why should folks who have saved hard to buy a house and then had bad luck (ill health maybe, affecting their ability to work) NOT be protected whereas those who are "unlucky" enough not to be able to buy (let's assume most want to) SHOULD be protected?

And as far as I know, "accidental" is just a short way of saying that's not what the original intention was when the propety was purchased.

Anyway, although you told me I wasn't allowed my debate, here it is, "ACCIDENTALLY".

;-)

People with a mortgage, who do have bad luck, can take a payment holiday, recuperate/find re employment, whatever. there is protection.

People who CHOOSE to rent out the property get some protection, but also RESPONSIBILITIES. something which you refuse to accept.

and in your case, there was no bad luck. You CHOSE to move to london, your relationship failed (sorry bout that), and you've chosen to move back. These are choices. You are probably glad you didnt sell and glad you have had good tenants.

Complaining on the principle that someone has 'more' rights than you, is quite silly. It's like complaining that you needed to pass a driving test, but someone else can drive on a foreign licence.

Perhaps most to want to buy, but are priced out of the market but a:
Landlords
and b:
the financial situation.

You're allowed to debate all you like. Just you seem very much against taking responsibility for your situation.

princeofpounds

My thoughts on quite a good laundry-list of ideas:

Get rid of no fault evictions (S.21)

Despite being someone who generally speaks up for tenant's rights, I don't agree with this.

The S21 fulfils an important function in that it permits a property owner to feel more secure in letting out a property as they know they can recover it.

This has positives and negatives, but overall improves liquidity in the rental space.

However, I do think it is ridiculous it should be available on a 6 monthly basis. Even a gym or broadband contract lasts longer than that. Even more seriously, it is shorter than an academic year, which means it can be exceptionally disruptive to family life.

If we want a society of secure families, which I would think it a pretty basic aspiration, then the S21 needs to apply only on longer periods. The right amount might be three years or so, intuitively, but even the most ardent landlord supporter would have to admit that a one year period would cause little harm yet bring disproportionately huge benefits in terms of security for tenants and their families.

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?

I'm sure this could be done better, would be good 'compensation' for landlords for reducing the power of the S21 (which let's not forget was basically designed to evade courts that are too bureaucratic and really rather soft on S8-style issues)

Council powers to incentivise landlord to bring their properties up to minimum standard. (insulation, efficiency, etc)

Not sure the councils are the right bodies to do this, but some kind of system would be useful. I also think there is an issue around decorative order of properties - amongst the cheaper end of the market it's a persistent problem and landlords have zero compulsion and little incentive to ensure it is reasonable. That would be fine if tenants had the ability to invest in decorative order themselves, but they don't. So problems just languish.

• Better resources on .gov websites about tenants and landlords rights (like the shelter website has).

Duplication isn't needed, especially as Shelter receive govt cash. A link and a few lines of advice would be enough.

Better police training on illegal evictions.

If they spend more time in the classroom on this, they'll just forget something else. So whilst I do agree it needs to be covered, there is going to be an indirect cost.

SerialRenter

Thank you for your break down of my comments princeofpounds.

I can't say i disagree with your thoughts.

The thought of some sort of minimum term before an S.21 could be used did run through my mind. 3-5 years would make me a happy bunny. Although frankly this is a tricky one and i'm not sure there's any solution that wouldn't cause an eruption of outrage from landlords.
My primary concern with S.21's is retaliatory eviction. Perhaps a solution could be an allowable defence in court against an S.21 where the eviction could be proved to be linked to retaliation of some sort. Who knows.

As for council powers. I think you're right, i did have a bit of trouble wording this one. I was originally thinking of the council's tenancy officer, or environmental health officer. They obviously have experience with inspecting and making recommendations for rental homes. However I know landlords generally despise them and have been known to evict tenants for phoning the council.

But i think forcing landlords to improve homes is not the route to take. There would rightly be resistance as not all landlords have the funds, so maybe schemes or incentivisation is the solution, through whatever body would be relevant. Who pays for it? Sorry, don't have the answer to that one.

laidbackgjr

For those asking for 3-5 year contracts - as a tenant how would you feel if you signed up for a 5 year contract and then wanted / needed to move after 1 year - how happy would you be at paying the landlord the remaining rent for 4 years just so you could break the contract and move? I like 6 months at the start as it gives both tenant and landlord an early opportunity to move on if things haven't worked out. I recently had a new tenant who insisted on a 12 month contract when I really wanted a 6 month, they now want to move as they've a new job, but because of the contract they insisted upon having it would theoretically cost them a lot more, lucky for them we are close to reaching a negotiated position to enable them to move and take the new job.

SerialRenter

laidbackgjr wrote: »

For those asking for 3-5 year contracts.

No one is asked for 3-5 year contracts, except miliband, but lets not give him any attention.

We're talking about a period of time before a no fault eviction could be carried out. At the moment it's a minimum of 6 months. I don't see why this couldn't be increased.

p.s. If it wasn't working out after 6 months into a 12 month contract you could always mutually agree to terminate the tenancy.

cloo

I believe a lot of the talk around longer tenancies involves the possibility of 'break clauses' around the six month mark and others, like in commercial leases, where ending tenancy on either side is possible, although it may have to be done absolutely to the letter of the lease to be valid.

[Deleted User]

OK I will bite. I am not a bad tenant. My rent is bang up to date. I have done repairs on the house the LL has refused to do, including repairing leaking pipes, tiling and getting a new bath for a truly awful mouldy bathroom the LL thought was perfectly ok.., somehow. I too had a LL who initially wanted to call round at the drop of a hat (I was going out, and always seemed to be going out, it stopped).

My AST is finished 15th August. He came round a couple of weeks ago saying he wanted to dip his toe in the waters and see if he could sell some or all of his properties. I am presently decorating, with arthritis, back problems, asthma and unstable diabetes. But I am doing it. And to a far better standard than the place was left in. But it is costing me so much in terms of pain. The place wasn't freshly painted when I moved in. But the hall way in particular looks awful and I hope by painting it in vinyl silk (washable) I won't have to worry about washing down to bare walls as you do with the vinyl matt that is a favourte of LL's to hide wall imperfections.

I am a tenant on benefits. There isn't a single agency in the area that will take on tenants in my position. Social housing is an awful process to go through and to be honest, I also have problems with depression, find them difficult to cope with (not a basket case).

So I live in hope the LL will find a buyer (if he sells) who wants a sitting tenant. I have no guarantee social housing will help after my past dealings with them.

I have two children with special needs, both in schools I need to stay within easy reach of as I have problems travelling (had to move my younger son from another school because of this). Both schools are catering for my son's very well, a rare thing.

Having to move is causing me so much worry, I can't even begin to describe it. And the knowledge that if I do find another place, this could happen every six months.., well, what can I say?

Oh and I have two dogs who will have to be rehomed as well, Not important to most but will cause me heart ache.

But the property is ultimately the LL's and its his right to do. I understand that. I just wish I wasn't a private tenant.

laidbackgjr

So what extra protection does a 5 year contract with break clauses after 6 months give over a 6 month contract, renewed every 6 months?

princeofpounds

For those asking for 3-5 year contracts - as a tenant how would you feel if you signed up for a 5 year contract and then wanted / needed to move after 1 year - how happy would you be at paying the landlord the remaining rent for 4 years just so you could break the contract and move?

I think you miss the point slightly.

Why should the obligations on both sides of the contract be perfectly equal in this specific instance?

For a tenant, the issue is one of security of tenure. If a tenancy contract is terminated, you lose your home and all the disruption that involves.

For a landlord, the issue is typically not nearly as critical. It is a business, and even if the tenancy continues for a period you still receive the primary reward of that contract, the rental income.

There are many unequal powers in tenancies which simply represent the differences in position between the two parties:

- Landlords can seek to terminate tenancies early based on certain breaches of the tenancy agreement (S8). For example serious damage to property through negligence. Tenants lack reciprocal rights; for example serious disrepair of property through negligence is not a reason for termination, unless the property is uninhabitable.

- Landlords are permitted to deduct interest costs of borrowing from rental income. Tenants are not permitted to deduct interest costs or rental costs from their income.

This is really not unusual amongst other areas of law:

- consumers receive special protection against corporations contract law
- borrowers receive special protection against creditors in credit law (not many landlords complaining about that)

The idea of perfect symmetry in legal relationships is a total red herring, not understanding that one of the primary functions of law is to protect the weak in society from the strong.