Renting: Security of tenure

Melissa177

Some LLs want long term tennants, others don't.

In a liquid market - and the rental market is - why not let private individuals come to their own arrangements between themselves?

olly300

Melissa177 wrote: »

Some LLs want long term tennants, others don't.

In a liquid market - and the rental market is - why not let private individuals come to their own arrangements between themselves?

The flexibility doesn't suit LETTING AGENTS.

Plus the statutory notice periods are to protect tenants.

Good LLs who deal with their own properties and have been in the business a long time tend to give an indication of how long they want the rental period to be. The statutory notice periods apply but there is more flexibility in the relationship and before the tenancy deposit scheme came into being they could agree to use the deposit as the last month's rent.

Gorgeous_George

The tenant wants to pay for the time that they are resident and leave without notice.

The LL wants one tenant forever. As this is unlikely, the LL will settle for each tenant staying long enough to cover his costs.

Remember, a LA may charge a month's rent just for finding a tenant. If a tenant moves on after 6 months it will cost the LL another month's rent for a tenant to be found. Good for the LA, bad for the LL.

I would be happy to offer a rolling 12 months contract providing the tenant agreed to stay a minimum of 12 months and agreed to give 3 month's notice. Additionally, I would endeavour to find a new tenant as soon as possible should a break be required.



GG

franklee

The problem is that, whatever is done, the law often leaves loopholes that the landlord can exploit to reduce or eliminate the notice they have to give a tenant.

Like now tenants are meant to be given a minimum two months notice but the so called Sword of Damocles loophole prevents that. This means landlords serve the S21 routinely to all tenants, typically near the start of the tenancy, whether they want the tenant to leave on notice expiry or not. Tenants who get given such notice routinely do not know if it is meant, there is usually some "hint" that the S21 is not actually asking them to leave. This means that if later on the landlord then decides he does want the tenant to leave he doesn't have to bother serving notice at it has already been served and possibly the notice period has already expired.

If the law wanted to give tenants more security of tenure the first thing to do should be to close the Sword of Damocles loophole. I am not holding my breath.

Notlob

Franklee,

Reading between the lines, I have a suspicion that you appear to be ever so slightly against LL's issuing section 21's at commencement of tenancy. Have I got this right?

clutton_2

franklee rolls this chestnut out at every possible opportunity - its his obsession.

IveSeenTheLight

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

perhaps as well as additional security of tenure (which it seems would be in everyones interests) there should be some kind of licencing/compulsary training? What do people think to that?

Reading your posts it seems you have had a horrible time from landlords.
This is something I will never do to my tenants.
I believe in treating people how you would like to be treated.
For my properties I hope that by treating my tenants well, they will treat my property well, so win win for both parties.

I was about to state that I have had to register as a landlord, so there is a kind of liscencing around.
This will hopefully help sort out the rogue landlords you have encountered and ensure that tenants are treated well.
It would be good if there is a register of tenants as well to encourage rogue renters to act more accordingly.

Hope you fins a good landlord or property you can buy for yourself

IveSeenTheLight

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.

I am a landlord in Scotland and have not passed on the costs of registering my properties onto the tenant.
The cost is one off and minimal anyway (55 pounds per landlord and 11 pounds per property) and if it helps tenants know they have a good landlord or some place to report rogue landlords then it is only good for the tenants.

There is no training as such but we do regularly receive e-mails advising on any new laws, new requirements we must provide to tenants etc

I would like to see this extended to have a register of tenants as well.
This will help ensure that as well as the tenant getting good landlords, that the landlords get good tenants

As usual Scotland is the guinea pig, but hopefully in this case there are lots of benefits for all down the road

Couple of quotes from the lanlords register website
Also a link https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/Pages/Process.aspx?Command=ShowHomePage

It is now an offence for private landlords in Scotland to let property without having applied to be registered. Landlords could face a fine or have their rent withheld if they avoid registering.

Under Part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004, private landlords must apply for registration with their local authority. It will be an offence to let any house after April 30 without being registered or having applied to be registered. Unregistered landlords face having their rental income withheld or a £5,000 fine.

"Registration of private landlords will improve the private rented sector by removing the worst landlords from the market and giving tenants the confidence that their landlord is upholding standards.
"From today, councils can act against landlords who are unsuitable or refuse to register. Already we have seen around 75,000 properties registered, meaning the councils know where the property is and who the landlord is, should any issues arise.

Registration of private landlords has a number of aims:

<LI class=MsoNormal>improve private renting in Scotland by enforcing minimum standards in letting <LI class=MsoNormal>oblige those not providing this minimum service to improve, or leave the sector <LI class=MsoNormal>allow tenants, neighbours and local authorities to identify and contact landlords and agents of private rented property
• provide information on scale and distribution of private rented sector in Scotland

franklee

Notlob wrote: »

Reading between the lines, I have a suspicion that you appear to be ever so slightly against LL's issuing section 21's at commencement of tenancy. Have I got this right?

Not quite. If the landlord wants the tenant to leave when the notice expires then it's fine so long as that is clear. My objection comes from landlords letting their tenant's know they can stay long term having served an S21 and yet still expecting the S21 to be valid. I do not see how that can work and yet landlords like Clottie insist it can without saying how.

The S21 notice is meant to be unequivocal and without reservation. It states the landlord requires possession. Not that he may require possession or he may not and he'll make his mind up later on depending on the tenant's behaviour of if he wants to sell or whatever. If the tenant has been "mislead" into thinking the S21 is just routine then he will not use this notice period to arrange moving, so effectively the tenant is living without the right to notice. It's a way of landlords speeding up getting rid of tenants without having to delay the full two months notice period if the tenant is on a periodic tenancy or near the end of a fixed term at the point when the landlord deciedes he wants the tenant to leave.

All I'm saying is that landlords should give tenants a genuine minimum two months notice. Serving notice on the one hand and and then hinting the tenant can ignore it on the other is hardly useful notice. But if the landlord doesn't give a pretty strong hint that the tenant will be able to stay then he risks the tenant obeying the S21 notice and arranging to move.

clutton wrote: »

franklee rolls this chestnut out at every possible opportunity - its his obsession.

You don't think denying tenants their two months notice is relevant to a thread on security of tenure? Or that closing this SoD loophole is relevant to a thread where the OP is asking for people's thoughts on allaying some of the fears that tenants have about security of tenure?

Odd that you've time for a jibe but no time to answer a simple question on how you let your tenants know they can stay having been served an S21 AND still keep the S21 valid... I begin to think that your S21 isn't valid after all but you are in denial, or is it that you think your tenant's aren't bright enough to realise? Maybe you object to tenants tumbling the SoD ruse as it then stops working for you?

moneysavinmonkey

I think it would be good to have a kind of ebay feedback system for both landlords + tenants.. That way a tenant can get a good idea of how the landlord treats their tenants and the landlord can get a good idea of whether the tenants will pay on time and keep the place nice.

This would provide each side with the additional incentive to go 'above and beyond' their duties.

As a further bonus, I would envisage the system would naturally match up good tenants with good landlords and bad tenants with bad landlords.