What should the politicians do?

volare11512

I guess FBaby missed their opportunity to be part of the monarchy. I mean we are all born equal after all!

chappers

mrginge wrote: »

How can anyone reasonably comment on one particular case where you have presented one side of the argument?
There may be an issue with that judgement or there may not.

In general though, in my view the balance of legislation should be weighted towards protecting the consumer rather than the supplier. I don't therefore believe a reduction in all tenants rights just to protect a minute number of landlords from extreme cases like the one you describe is justifiable.

I understand that a single case can't be used to make law but it can be used to illustrate inequality in the law.
Maybe I'm just some sort of crazy fool, but how about this as an idea. how's about legislation isn't weighted towards either side but is fairly balanced on both sides.
Both sides knowingly and willingly enter into a contract and providing both sides adhere to that contract everything goes swimmingly, but if one side breaches that contract why shouldn't they forfeit the benefits of that contract.
It is totally wrong that a tenant can stop paying rent trash your house and just sit at the window sticking his fingers up at you knowing he can hang it out and get some more free time in your property.

Equally it is wrong that a LL can just eject someone at their whim.

If the eviction process had a bit more expediency and robustness then it would serve both sides better. LLs wouldn't need to suffer problem tenants and would be more inclined to use proper procedure rather than taking matters into their own hands.
The same rights under law would still remain, just the process would be expedited quicker.
I know someone who was recently evicted from their property willingly due to housing requirements and on the advice of the council, they were told that they wouldn't be helped until they had a date from the bailiffs.
It took 3 months for the LL to get a date from the bailiffs, which was then a further 3 weeks into the future.
The system is so busy here in Oxford the whole process took over 6months from the LL serving notice, now if the two parties hadn't been amicable in this and as a LL that was your property do you really think that is an acceptable amount of time.

This isn't an exceptional case this is normality

To be honest I'm glad I only have one property on the rental market now and I have only kept that one because my tenant has become a good friend and is not in the best of health, pays the rent religiously on time hasn't missed a payment in 10 years.
If and when they move out, I won't be taking a chance renting it again. The rules and regulations on LLs now is too onerous

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

Any intelligent person doesn't go ahead and take risks for the good of society. They take calculated risk because it is worth for them to do so because there is a at least equal if not better chance of a gain.

Unfortunately, your attitude is what has led the government to make it not worthwhile to be a LL because the risks are becoming greater than the rewards, hence more and more LL selling up. Of course, that is great for those who can become home owners, but not so much for those who can't, who are already struggling to find properties to rent, and who will face even more competition to get a decent place to rent.

What exactly is my attitude? That people should accept the risks that come with whichever business venture on investment vehicle they choose because yes that is my attitude. If people cannot accept the risk along with the reward then they should not become landlords.

As you say, landlords are not performing a public service they are however providing a basic human need...shelter. Everyone needs somewhere to live but nobody needs to become a landlord that's a choice.

FBaby wrote: »

Again, totally disagree with this. Besides people who are disabled, or with learning disability, we all start with the same opportunities to become home owner. We can all decide to study hard, go to Uni, earn a decent salary, become a home owner. Of course some people will face more difficult hurdles than others, but the opportunity is there.

The problem is that some people are not prepared to invest the efforts to get there. They are happy with lower paid jobs, reduced hours, less stressful conditions, being SAHM etc... There is nothing wrong with these choices, but you can't have your cake and eat it and think you should then be entitled to the same than people who have put more in to get more, and security is one of these luxuries.

That is utter tripe. We do not all start out with the same opportunities to become homeowners. The quality of your childhood has a lot to do with how you will succeed in life. There are children out there who start falling behind in primary school and never manage to catch up. They don't have the same opportunities that I did and I am not naive enough to think otherwise.

For some people university just isn't an option. They might not be academic enough or they simply might not be able to afford to go to university. Not that attending university guarantees a well paying job anyway. If everyone has to work hard as you say to earn a good salary who is going to do all the important but not well paid jobs? Those people who work in care homes, collect the bins, school dinner ladies (or men), bus drivers, retails workers, do they not deserve a secure home?

Then there are those who have more opportunities such as the ones where the Bank of Mum & Dad can afford to help out with significant deposits. No matter what you might tell yourself it's not an even playing field and we do not all have the same opportunities but we do all have the same basic human need for a home.

FBaby wrote: »

That's not even going into the security of home ownership vs social housing. I also think there is a mislead view of the richness of LLs.

Not sure where that has come from. I certainly haven't suggested that landlords are rich I have merely pointed out with reward comes risk and if someone can't stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen.

Pixie5740

westernpromise wrote: »

So it should be - the mortgagee has security for what he is owed, in the form of the house, so any additional costs recovered by the delay can come out of what the house is sold for when recovered.

That's naive to think that the equity in the house is always enough to cover monies owed.

mrginge

chappers wrote: »

I understand that a single case can't be used to make law but it can be used to illustrate inequality in the law.
Maybe I'm just some sort of crazy fool, but how about this as an idea. how's about legislation isn't weighted towards either side but is fairly balanced on both sides.


Both sides knowingly and willingly enter into a contract and providing both sides adhere to that contract everything goes swimmingly, but if one side breaches that contract why shouldn't they forfeit the benefits of that contract.
It is totally wrong that a tenant can stop paying rent trash your house and just sit at the window sticking his fingers up at you knowing he can hang it out and get some more free time in your property.

Equally it is wrong that a LL can just eject someone at their whim.

If the eviction process had a bit more expediency and robustness then it would serve both sides better. LLs wouldn't need to suffer problem tenants and would be more inclined to use proper procedure rather than taking matters into their own hands.
The same rights under law would still remain, just the process would be expedited quicker.
I know someone who was recently evicted from their property willingly due to housing requirements and on the advice of the council, they were told that they wouldn't be helped until they had a date from the bailiffs.
It took 3 months for the LL to get a date from the bailiffs, which was then a further 3 weeks into the future.
The system is so busy here in Oxford the whole process took over 6months from the LL serving notice, now if the two parties hadn't been amicable in this and as a LL that was your property do you really think that is an acceptable amount of time.

This isn't an exceptional case this is normality

To be honest I'm glad I only have one property on the rental market now and I have only kept that one because my tenant has become a good friend and is not in the best of health, pays the rent religiously on time hasn't missed a payment in 10 years.
If and when they move out, I won't be taking a chance renting it again. The rules and regulations on LLs now is too onerous

Your main complaint now seems to be that application of existing rules is inefficient. That may be the case but it's no reason to change those rules.

As for rules and regulations being too onerous, the huge increase in BTL suggests that however onerous those demands are, the profits achieveable far outweigh any hassle.
Perhaps it's more a case that the general standard of landlords has decreased so much over recent years, that legislation has to be introduced to ensure they operate fairly and reasonably?

Pixie5740

chappers wrote: »

Both sides knowingly and willingly enter into a contract and providing both sides adhere to that contract everything goes swimmingly, but if one side breaches that contract why shouldn't they forfeit the benefits of that contract.

Would that apply to all those landlords with mortgages who don't bother getting an appropriate BTL mortgage or seeking consent to let before letting the property? Should the mortgagee just call the mortgage in?

What about all those landlords who fail to comply with basic landlord legislation? Should they have to forfeit the benefit of the contract i.e the rent for not carrying out necessary repairs, or having valid gas safety certificates, or having the appropriate landlord or HMO licences?

FBaby

That people should accept the risks that come with whichever business venture on investment vehicle they choose because yes that is my attitude. If people cannot accept the risk along with the reward then they should not become landlords.

That rationale is obvious! The point is that if you increase the risks and lower the rewards, people will get out of the business, which is exactly what is starting to happen. It will benefit some who can afford to be homeowners, but will penalise those who were happy to rent, but are now facing harder competition and price increase, the price being the reward to the LL for the higher risk.

We do not all start out with the same opportunities to become homeowners. The quality of your childhood has a lot to do with how you will succeed in life. There are children out there who start falling behind in primary school and never manage to catch up. They don't have the same opportunities that I did and I am not naive enough to think otherwise.

This is for another discussion about social opportunities and of course I don't disagree that some kids will have it much harder to be grab the same opportunities.

However, this is not what I was referring to. Take two couples with the exact same social background. The first decide that both will work FT and put money aside each month. They would love to have children but decide to wait. After 5 years, they manage to save for a deposit and can afford their first home. They then decide to have a couple of children but both continue to work FT to pay their mortgage. They would love a 3rd child but couldn't afford it.

Couple two meet at the same age and within 2 years have two children. The mum decides to stay home and father decides to reduce his hours to 30. He refuses to do overtime, can't be bothered to look for promotions, is happy to enjoy family life. They go on to have 4 more children and he reduces his hours to 24.

Do you really think that the second family should be entitled to the same security than the first? I don't. Having a roof over your head is a right for anyone, having security of having that same roof for unlimited time is a luxury that should come as a reward.

Fireflyaway

I think right to buy or similar housing association schemes should be stopped. Its allowing an individual to cash bin whilst taking another affordable house away from someone who needs it.
Then the costs. We were unexpectedly asked to move from our rented house as the landlord wanted to move back. We had been there less than a year. It cost around £4000 by the time we had paid for checks, rent in advance and deposit. Not everyone would be able to do that so I'd make the deposit lower. Maybe standardise it depending on property size. Then lastly make the notice period a bit longer, 2 months isn't always long enough to find somewhere new and save money.

chappers

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Would that apply to all those landlords with mortgages who don't bother getting an appropriate BTL mortgage or seeking consent to let before letting the property? Should the mortgagee just call the mortgage in?

What about all those landlords who fail to comply with basic landlord legislation? Should they have to forfeit the benefit of the contract i.e the rent for not carrying out necessary repairs, or having valid gas safety certificates, or having the appropriate landlord or HMO licences?

that is exactly the other side of my argument. Rogue LLs should in turn be dealt with swiftly and robustly.

chappers

mrginge wrote: »

Your main complaint now seems to be that application of existing rules is inefficient. That may be the case but it's no reason to change those rules.

As for rules and regulations being too onerous, the huge increase in BTL suggests that however onerous those demands are, the profits achieveable far outweigh any hassle.
Perhaps it's more a case that the general standard of landlords has decreased so much over recent years, that legislation has to be introduced to ensure they operate fairly and reasonably?

It's all part of the same argument, a set of robust rules that are balanced and fair that can be executed swiftly and fairly.
Rather than the clumsy cumbersome process.
I think we are now entering a phase where we will she a massive shrinking of the BTL market, partly due to taxation but partly due to the regulations, the market will return to being a professional market of full time renters rather than a bit extra on the side.