Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

westernpromise

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

Wow, lucky, or maybe youre made of sterner stuff than most of us- or perhaps just in a position where

You havent been in a complicated chain
You are single and have a job that can transfer anywhere or
You and partner both have jobs which can transfer anywhere.
You have no elderly relatives living in an area you need to be near
Youve never had a survey thats dashed all your hopes and dreams
You happily accept whatever school is nearest to the house you choose whether Ofsted good or bad.
Youve never had a buyer +solicitor who was super picky and slower than a three legged tortoise.
You have never had 2 or 3 buyers pull out at 11th hour
You have never offered on several houses , only to be gazumped
Youve never been gazundered at last minute during a sale

Youve never been biting your nails for days as buyer fails to exchange and argues over previously arranged completion date.
You have never ended up paying for both rental and mortgage for months .



If as I presume unless Very fortunate, you must have suffered at least some of the above hassles, yet found moving isnt stressful --it must be because you're the calm and collected type (I envy you) --but surely the majority of people find moving house really stressful?

I'm afraid you wholly misunderstood what he wrote.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

I would have thought it would be possible to have longer tenancies along side shorter tenancies.

It is, you just ask for it. Where it tends to fall apart, and I've experienced this, is that the tenant wants this because it is better for them, but then they aren't prepared to pay any more for something that they acknowledge is better for them. So they'll bid you £2,500 a month for a one-year tenancy or £2,500 a month for a three-year tenancy.

So you go back and say, OK, I'll do three years but for that I want £2,650. They say, No way, the flat's only worth £2,500. So I say, If you aren't prepared to pay any more for a three-year tenancy than a one-year, it can't be worth having and obviously isn't important to you. So one year it is. They then stay four years and the rent goes up by RPI each year.

Empirically, the value of a three-year tenancy over a one-year is, in my experience of letting, nil.

Herzlos

A 3-year tenancy must be worth more to most landlords though - it's more guaranteed income and saves the costs and hassle of changing tenant potentially twice in the same period.

I thought most tenants would agree to a rent + annual RPI increase, where the calculation is known in advance.

westernpromise

My property is characterful, immaculate and meticulously maintained, the neighbours are quiet professionals, and the area is fantastic. I know all this, but the tenants see only the present condition of the property and the area. I therefore know, as they yet do not, that once they are in, they will want to stay. Typically, they will stay about four years, in fact. You don't lightly move out of a flat where, if any appliance ever malfunctions, the landlord replaces it with a brand new Neff one the next day. None of this Beko garbage thank you.

So there is no advantage to me in agreeing a three-year tenancy when every one-year tenancy turns into a four-year tenancy.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

westernpromise wrote: »

My property is characterful, immaculate and meticulously maintained, the neighbours are quiet professionals, and the area is fantastic. I know all this, but the tenants see only the present condition of the property and the area. I therefore know, as they yet do not, that once they are in, they will want to stay. Typically, they will stay about four years, in fact. You don't lightly move out of a flat where, if any appliance ever malfunctions, the landlord replaces it with a brand new Neff one the next day. None of this Beko garbage thank you.

So there is no advantage to me in agreeing a three-year tenancy when every one-year tenancy turns into a four-year tenancy.

Is your place mainly aimed at young, well paid professionals? I think longer term tenancies are more valuable to families, with all the complications over school catchment areas.

westernpromise

Pretty much, yes. What happens is they stay till they get to 1 or sometimes 2 children then regretfully leave to be where the schools and houses are. But they never see it coming and still ask about 3-year tenancies...

GreatApe

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

Wow, lucky, or maybe youre made of sterner stuff than most of us- or perhaps just in a position where

You havent been in a complicated chain
You are single and have a job that can transfer anywhere or
You and partner both have jobs which can transfer anywhere.
You have no elderly relatives living in an area you need to be near
Youve never had a survey thats dashed all your hopes and dreams
You happily accept whatever school is nearest to the house you choose whether Ofsted good or bad.
Youve never had a buyer +solicitor who was super picky and slower than a three legged tortoise.
You have never had 2 or 3 buyers pull out at 11th hour
You have never offered on several houses , only to be gazumped
Youve never been gazundered at last minute during a sale

Youve never been biting your nails for days as buyer fails to exchange and argues over previously arranged completion date.
You have never ended up paying for both rental and mortgage for months .



If as I presume unless Very fortunate, you must have suffered at least some of the above hassles, yet found moving isnt stressful --it must be because you're the calm and collected type (I envy you) --but surely the majority of people find moving house really stressful?

Half the times I've moved home where when I was a child and none of those things on your list can bother children as they are not aware of them. So the argument of wont someone think of the children is mostly dud

Other times I moved for work while I was renting, I think maybe 3 times soon after university and again it was no problem at all. Moving rentals is clearly much less of a problem than moving owned homes which is a point I was trying to make earlier

I have had two properties fall through and neither bothered me much. One in particular was a great deal so I was a bit unhappy for maybe ten minutes before I moved on with my life. And it was not a stressful sad crying unhappy more of a dam that was a good deal I lost unhappy.

And one of my main points is that owners have to move (willingly and due to circumstance) and its more stressful and costly for them than for renters so to see renters having to move as a problem while forgetting that owners also have to do this is to cry foul needlessly

lisyloo

A 3-year tenancy must be worth more to most landlords though - it's more guaranteed income and saves the costs and hassle of changing tenant potentially twice in the same period.

If you have good tenants then yes it is.
If you have bad tenants and the security of tenure makes it more difficult to get rid of them then NO.

I thought most tenants would agree to a rent + annual RPI increase, where the calculation is known in advance.

I wouldn't personally.
Our landlord has proven to be not that good and I'm not (in this case) prepared to pay an increase (we haven't been asked to pay one).
If I am asked to increase I now have the option of leaving (or negotiating the things I want).
Why would I agree to an increase up front when I don't know if the landlord (or aspects outside of their control like the neighbours) are any good??
I'll say it again. Some of us don't have anxiety about a lack of security of tenure and prefer flexibility.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

The point I was trying to make in reply another post that said 99.5% of renters are not evicted by the courts is that the majority of people told by their landlord that they want them out will move before it gets to court.

The percentage I think would/could depend on the type of property, a lot of landlords who rent to 'bottom of the market' would have more evictions, because councils tend to inform the tenants that they will not re-house them if they 'made themselves homeless' so they have to be evicted to be re-housed by the council.

ANGLICANPAT

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm afraid you wholly misunderstood what he wrote.

You're right, sorry, late night sketchy skim reading to blame. Short on sleep worrying about one of the family's serial attempts at buying!