Warning For All LL's Re Illegal Eviction and Not Protecting Deposit

DaftyDuck

... or, alternatively, find a good managing agent (they do exist), to do the intermediary work for you*.


*Whilst still being aware the legal liability remains with you.


There is no excuse for not doing it correctly.

johnbusby

benjus wrote: »

No, you are not correct. You don't become a landlord by default. You might choose it as the least worst option in a difficult situation, but it's still a choice. If you are receiving money and providing a service, it is in some sense a business. There is simply no excuse for not bothering to find out your responsibilities.

Agreed, the term 'accidental landlord' is a nonsense. What part of the process is accidental? Do they accidentally ask for consent to let from their mortgage provider, then accidentally advertise the place to tenants, then accidentally collect the deposit and rent? It's a weasel term used to absolve amateur landlords of their responsibilities...

Miss_Samantha

What about the non-paying tenant?

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

This is not correct. It might be from a legal perspective (although even then, I am not sure renting one property automatically qualifies you as owner of a business), but many LL have become so by default, some because they’ve inherited the property, others because they’ve moved in with a partner and sometimes, selling the property is not a reasonable option.

They still have a responsibility to learn how to do things properly, and not by trial and error. They might not have intended to become a landlord, but the impact their actions have on their tenants' lives is just the same as that of a landlord with a huge portfolio. People's lives can be thrown into disarray and their health affected by poor landlords, its not ok for them to be ignorant and incompentent just because they mean well.

johnbusby

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

What about the non-paying tenant?

They should uphold their end of the contract and pay the rent on time...obviously

HappyMJ

FBaby wrote: »

the main one being not bothering to do the annual gas safety check if a fire was to occur leading to injury or worse to the tenant.

Gas safety check has nothing to do with "if a fire was to occur". If a fire does occur it's highly likely to be preventable by the tenant or an electrical fault. Having a faulty gas appliance leaking carbon monoxide into the room is not going to set any alarms off. The alarm legally required is a smoke alarm which will only be set off only once a fire occurs. A carbon monoxide alarm is required if there is a solid fuel fire....such as a coal fire. A room sealed boiler does not require a carbon monoxide alarm.

If an annual gas safety check was not carried out it doesn't mean the tenant's life is in danger. Having one won't stop fires.

cloo

I think there should be landlord registration to protect LLs as much as tenants. Yes, people should do their research, but there's no reliable way of an LL know that a law has changed which may affect them, or a legal precedent had been set. If all LLs were on a central register, they could be sent notification of changes and action points.


I was actually affected by the Superstrike judgement. My tenant moved in about 5 months before deposit protection came in, on a 6-month AST. I checked at the time whether I should protect the deposit and at the time the answer was 'no'. Had it not been for the fact that I started a job in a property organisation a few months before I needed to sell my rented house, I would never have know about it. I know my tenant asked for housing advice as she wanted to delay leaving, so had I not returned her deposit with the sec21 as seemed the only way around it, she would have been told to use that judgement against me and invalidate the sec21, thus shafting the sale. I can't see how even a fairly sorted LL would have known about that ruling.

Miss_Samantha

cloo wrote: »

I was actually affected by the Superstrike judgement. My tenant moved in about 5 months before deposit protection came in, on a 6-month AST. I checked at the time whether I should protect the deposit and at the time the answer was 'no'.

The issue was not that judgement but rather that so-called professionals and even the tenancy deposit schemes had not read the law.

That's a general issue in the industry.

benjus

cloo wrote: »

I can't see how even a fairly sorted LL would have known about that ruling.

By being a member of a landlord association? And/or following landlord websites/forums/blogs? There are plenty of resources out there for landlords.

Marvel1

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

OP, I watched this yesterday. I did feel for that woman, but damn! She made some errors. It baffles me that people don't learn what being a landlord entails. I mean, you wouldn't try and rewire a house without the required training, so why assume you can be a landlord?.

Exactly, some just assume I don't want to sell and I will just rent it out and receive money each month for doing nothing by using a letting agent. Then it goes wrong.