Renting: Security of tenure

N79

Just thought I would suggest a different way of doing things. How about all tenancies last for 9 years.

LL can evict the tennant if they breach the contract (but only via a court). The LL can request the tennant leave (ie ending the tenancy early) by providing 6 months notice and evidence to a court that they need the property to live in or for a close relative to live in.

The tenant can leave at any time with 1 months notice. If they leave in the first year, they pay 3 months rent in penalty. In the second year 2 months and in the third year 1 month. From the fourth year, there is no penalty. This covers the LL costs in finding new tenants if tenants only stay for a short period. After 3 years, they should have made enough profit to cover their costs.

Forget complex deposit protection schemes. Deposits should be held in a bank account owned by the tenant with a block. Ie both tenant and LL must sign to withdraw money. The only other way to withdraw money is under the authority of a court (if there is a dispute). Suddenly, all deposit disputes have to be solved by negotiation with neither party in a stronger position, or by reference to the courts. No one is left fighting to get their deposit back as they never give it away and landlords have to have proper justification for deductions. There is no problem if you go to court in getting the LL to pay up as the bank simply splits the bank account as instructed by the court. This process would take 3 months.

Oh and for those who can not find the deposit, maybe banks could lend the deposit money, for a fee of course so there is no problem in providing a new deposit while distribution of the old deposit is negotiated. Deposits would be equal to at least 2 months rent and not more than 3 months.

You could still use the current ASTs if they suit both parties but the above system provides security of tenure for the tenant. Remember, being a LL is a business, for tenants it is their lives, so the above provides the correct balance of security of tenure for the tennant with the ability to make a profit for the LL (by allowing letting fees to be recouped if tenants leave early).

What do you think?

N79

littlesaint

Melissa177 wrote: »

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.

It's a shame that renting a place to live is not like choosing a mobile phone. When you get a mobile phone you get a choice of what kind of contract you are going to get and you know from the outset. Then tenants could choose a rolling contract that offers maximum flexibility or one that offers long term security. At the moment, you choose a house and get whichever contract the landlord chooses.

I appreciate that some landlords may not have the flexibility to offer a choice of contracts because of lender requirements and their own plans for the property (if they want to sell in 6 months time). But if that was case, they could put the contract type they were prepared to offer on the contract.

coal9011

What is the benefit of a landlord granting his/her tenant better security of tenure?

Well, in my case the answer is that there has been a clear "financial" benefit to the landlord!

I asked my LL how much was his repair/maintenance bill over the past 9 years of my occupancy of his property. After much "head scratching" and and calculations on a piece of paper, he arrived at a figure of £2.56 per week over the period of the tenancy (most of you will have changed your tenant's several times over this period with all the expense that involves)

How many landlords on this site who do not offer longer tenancy agreements giving their tenants better security of tenure can say that their property maintenance costs are that "low"?

So there you are landlords ............. that's one incentive (a financial one) to allow tenants to stay longer in your properties.

Are you in business or what??????

Gorgeous_George

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

I think it would be good to have a kind of ebay feedback system for both landlords + tenants.

eBay feedback is easily abused.

I recently bought a memory card for my daughter's phone. I wanted it quickly so chose a UK based supplier and paid immediately. Sadly, it arrived from Hong Kong two weeks later. I left negative feedback as the seller had lied about the location of the card. In return, the scumbag left negative feedback even though I paid immediately. He offered to mutually withdraw feedback but I think that somewhat negates the point of the FB system. So, I suffer my first negative feedback out of 411. A little miffed I may be. I might have to visit Hong Kong one day and track the b*****d down.



GG

poppy10_2

Guy_Montag wrote: »

While we're on the subject banks should be required to take over tenancies if they repo & to let without permission should be criminal fraud.

Agreed on both counts :beer:

franklee

coal9011 wrote: »

What is the benefit of a landlord granting his/her tenant better security of tenure?

Well, in my case the answer is that there has been a clear "financial" benefit to the landlord!

I asked my LL how much was his repair/maintenance bill over the past 9 years of my occupancy of his property. After much "head scratching" and and calculations on a piece of paper, he arrived at a figure of £2.56 per week over the period of the tenancy (most of you will have changed your tenant's several times over this period with all the expense that involves)

How many landlords on this site who do not offer longer tenancy agreements giving their tenants better security of tenure can say that their property maintenance costs are that "low"?

So there you are landlords ............. that's one incentive (a financial one) to allow tenants to stay longer in your properties.

Are you in business or what??????

Whist you raise excellent points I think the simple answer is many landlords, especially the "new breed' of more recent ones are NOT in business to have a tenant kept reasonably happy and generate a monthly income. In fact the figures do not allow this as house prices are too high.

What these johnny-come-lately landlords are after is the CAPITAL GAIN from rising house prices. The tenant is simply an irritation to cover a portion of the monthly costs. (Indeed there are even some "landlords" who actually leave their properties empty so as to get this capital gain without having to dirty their hands or their properties with tenants).

The last thing they want is to offer their tenants security of tenure as they will be selling out when they judge the market has peaked. Others will follow them out regardless of how often they claim they are in-it-for-the-long-term, I mean who in their right mind would stay in once they see the market falling? The changes to GCT will make this interesting as it cuts tax for short term "investors".

That's not necessarily bad though as if people could afford to buy then we probably wouldn't be here discussing renting in the first place.

Sounds like you've found yourself a good old-school landlord, hang on to him, people like that will be like gold dust!