Renting: Security of tenure

coal9011

Thanks for your comments moneysavingmonkey, but I am not a Landlord although - "for my sin's" - I was a Letting Agent for an old lady who owned a very large property, for 4 years.

I am a Tenant :j and have been renting the same property for the past 9 years.

silvercar

Lenders should provide a "certificate acknowledging letting" or similar, so that landlords can show the tenant that the lender has agreed for the property to be let. Tenants can then feel secure in that if mortgage arrears did build up and the lender repossessed, the tenants rights are more secure than if the lender was unaware of their presence.

Guy_Montag

silvercar wrote: »

Lenders should provide a "certificate acknowledging letting" or similar, so that landlords can show the tenant that the lender has agreed for the property to be let. Tenants can then feel secure in that if mortgage arrears did build up and the lender repossessed, the tenants rights are more secure than if the lender was unaware of their presence.

Excellent idea Silvercar:beer:

I'd second MSM's proposal for compulsory registration of LL. They have this now in Scotland, so I'll be interested to know what the fall out is. I'm a bit wary of training for the sake of it, though.

moneysavinmonkey

lol - thanks GG - that post was classic! cheered me up!

BobProperty

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Excellent idea Silvercar:beer:

I'd second MSM's proposal for compulsory registration of LL. They have this now in Scotland, so I'll be interested to know what the fall out is. I'm a bit wary of training for the sake of it, though.

I think I'll stick with asking judges to give a minimum of 56 days to tenants to get out when repossessed.
IIRC they are starting with HMO's in Scotland and haven't caught up with everyone by a long way. It also costs, which will only get passed on to tenants. I would also think that there would be clever legal ways round it like the property being owned by an offshore company.

Guy_Montag

BobProperty wrote: »

I think I'll stick with asking judges to give a minimum of 56 days to tenants to get out when repossessed.
IIRC they are starting with HMO's in Scotland and haven't caught up with everyone by a long way. It also costs, which will only get passed on to tenants. I would also think that there would be clever legal ways round it like the property being owned by an offshore company.

Why not combine all three - register of LLs, with proof of permission to let as part of it (or proof of full ownership) & 56 days to clear out if the LL gets repo'd.

I'm sure there are clever ways of hiding it but the LL would still require an address in the UK at which writs could be served. That person/company would be responsible for the LL . (As is, I believe, currently the case)

Melissa177

For myself (a tennant until fairly recently), and my friends, we don't want security of tenure - we want flexibility. If we get offered a better job in another city, we want to be able to move quickly.

When I bought, I went for a flat that
- I knew could be rented out easily
- knew the rent would cover the mortgage easily

Security of tenure may appeal to some, but for your young professional crowd, it's not a need.

coal9011

"Security of tenure may appeal to some, but for your young professional crowd, it's not a need".

Good point Melissa177, but such is the nature of life that I feel that there would be more tenants out there who value "security of tenure" then those looking for "flexibility"

Gorgeous_George

I suppose it's horses for courses. A 6-month rolling contract (possibly requiring just 2 or 3 months notice from the tenant to end the agreement early) would suit some. Of course, a traditional (monthly) periodic would provide maximum flexibility for the Melissas of the world.

The LL must get something in return for any additional security of tenure (due to the increased risk) but perhaps a maximum of 3 months' notice from the tenant would suffice. That is plenty long enough to find a new tenant - providing the house is left in a fair condition of course. Maybe a slightly larger deposit equal to 3 months' rent would be appropriate as well.

GG

Notlob

Not too sure if this idea works.

How about a contractual periodic from the start of the tenancy. No term, just a periodic. The idea might fall down at this point, but am I right in saying that by agreeing different notice periods to that provided under statute, under a statutory periodic, they become core terms within the agreement. So both parties can say agree 3 or 6 months notice, or have different notice periods between the parties.

Might not work where lenders are concerned but something to think about

Notlob