Rogue landlords and licensing

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

plenty of owner occupiers and social tenants live in squalid conditions. its more often down to the individual than anyone else.

If a landlord is responsible for a repair and its not done to a reasonable time frame then just withhold rent until it is done. Or have it done and deduct from the next rent payment the sum it cost.

Doesn't really work that way.

The tenant has no right to withhold the rent or to have work done and then deduct the cost from the rent.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Doesn't appear so.

In one of the cases in the article I linked to, there was a set of flats with a fire exit.

That fire exit just opened onto a sheer drop of 3 stories.

I didn't see that
but I find it difficult to believe there is no offence here.

having said that I see no objection to tightening the law where needed

kinger101

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Doesn't appear so.

In one of the cases in the article I linked to, there was a set of flats with a fire exit.

That fire exit just opened onto a sheer drop of 3 stories.

S4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972

Graham_Devon wrote:

Doesn't really work that way.

The tenant has no right to withhold the rent or to have work done and then deduct the cost from the rent.

S11 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985

Shelter provide a good guide for the procedure to follow;

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/tenants_repairs_and_improvements/tenants_doing_repairs

ging84

send landlords to prison
everyone knows you can't collect rent while you're in jail
i don't see why we need to limit it to the rouge ones, they've probably all done something

Conrad

ging84 wrote: »

send landlords to prison
everyone knows you can't collect rent while you're in jail
i don't see why we need to limit it to the rouge ones, they've probably all done something

Lefties always argue we need to be imprisoning fewer people, why the sudden shift?

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

Lefties always argue we need to be imprisoning fewer people, why the sudden shift?

Because they see an opportunity to send rentiers to gaol. It's all very 1917 IMHO.

michaels

Moving from one rental property to another can be a very expensive and disruptive process for the renters, less so for the landlord. Currently there is nothign stopping a landlord serving an S21 on a temant who asks for repairs to be made. This seems to mean their is an inequality in the relationship which some miight consider unfair as it allows the landlord to determine whether they keep their proprties in a suitable state. In theory it would seem not to be in the landlord's long term interest for tenants to be at risk of injury for which the landlord may be criminally responsible and his insurers fiancially responsible but not everyone takes the long term view on such matters.

chucknorris

michaels wrote: »

Moving from one rental property to another can be a very expensive and disruptive process for the renters, less so for the landlord. Currently there is nothign stopping a landlord serving an S21 on a temant who asks for repairs to be made. This seems to mean their is an inequality in the relationship which some miight consider unfair as it allows the landlord to determine whether they keep their proprties in a suitable state. In theory it would seem not to be in the landlord's long term interest for tenants to be at risk of injury for which the landlord may be criminally responsible and his insurers fiancially responsible but not everyone takes the long term view on such matters.

Other things that spring to my mind are:

Financial:
It doesn't make economic sense to allow a property to fall into disrepair, the longer you leave something, the more it will/could cost to put right, and in the meantime it will reduce the desirability of the property to tenants, so also reduces the obtainable rent.

Management:
Attending to repairs quickly leads to a more peaceful life and better relations with tenants, why choose a hassle over peace?
Tenants vacating leads to more work, happy tenants stay longer, so less work. Look after your tenants and they will be more inclined to look after your property.

michaels

All true if your property is nice in the first place and the market supports nice properties but I suspect there is also a market for as cheap as possible rentals where the tenants probably bend the rules with mates living in lounges etc as well as landlords taking the pee and little money for cosmetic improvements as the ladlord may not have the liquid funds or may even decide that fixing up a place for tenants who tend to trash it anyway is not vfm. not every area is ripe for gentrification.

Herzlos

Generali wrote: »

Are there really that many LLs with hundreds of properties? It sounds like a non-problem to me.

I don't think you need anywhere near 100 properties to be in a position to brush off a £1000 fine. 6 properties renting at £500/month means it probably won't hurt for long.

chucknorris wrote: »

Financial:
It doesn't make economic sense to allow a property to fall into disrepair, the longer you leave something, the more it will/could cost to put right, and in the meantime it will reduce the desirability of the property to tenants, so also reduces the obtainable rent.

Only if the decline in rent is worth making changes to avoid. We had a dodgy landlord who had about 50 properties, and told us that ours had paid for itself years previously. So he just lets them run down and sells them off to someone who wants a do-er-upper. Sure he could have gotten more rent for longer if he maintained it but it just wasn't worth his time.