Tenant's rights

macaque_2

The country needs rented property and someone offering good quality rental accomodation at reasonable terms is performing a valuable service.

Unfortunately, the housing boom has led to a growing band of undesirable amateurs. Typically they own 2 or 3 properties or hang on to their old house when they buy a new one. They have no idea of what constitutes fair or reasonable treatment of a tenant. They spring unreasonable rent rises, or suddenly put the house on the market having accepted the tenant on the basis of a long term arrangement. Others make vexatious claims against the tenant at the end of the agreement.

In my view an unacceptably high proportion of BTLs have neither competant nor sufficiently ethical to carry the responsibility of renting homes to people. I think tenants need better protection under the law.

Melissa177

What kind of rights, out of interest?

I mean, how would you enforce LLs to be "good LLs"?

pinkshoes

macaque, you have to look at this from both perspectives.

I agree that tenants should have more rights, but don't forget about all the landlords that post on here that are stuck with lousy tenants, so maybe we need a system where both tenants AND landlords have more rights.

6 of one and half dozen of another if you ask me!

Not all landlords are bad, but those who are give all landlords a bad name, and not all tenants are bad, but those who are make landlords warey of all other tenants.

So can I vote for the "I'm neither a tenant nor a landlord but I think both should have more rights" button?

Barcode

I am a tenant and I agree.

I'm 26 and have been renting privately since I was 18. I set out very naive, assuming that the EA and/or LL were trustworthy until proven otherwise. I now know to be more cautious, and have resorted to doing things like taking dated photos of EVERYTHING before moving in, putting them in a sealed envelope and handing to an official. That's due to two deposit disputes (the money mysteriously reappeared when we mentioned small claims court).

And don't get me started on the inability to fix things in a reasonable manner. I really think there should be some sort of course people must go on before they can let out properties. Am fed up of dealing with people that think tenants should jump off a cliff if they told them to.

Guy_Montag

To place a landlord on their register, the local authority will have to be satisfied that they are a fit and proper person to let property. The authority can take into account any relevant information including:

* any relevant convictions, particularly in relation to fraud, violence or drugs
* any evidence that the applicant has failed to take adequate steps to deal with antisocial behaviour in his or her properties
* any evidence that the applicant has failed to comply with the law relating to housing or letting, including management, money and physical issues
* any evidence that the applicant has practised illegal discrimination in any business activity
* the fact and nature of an agency arrangement for the management of the property

From the blurb about the Scottish Register of Landlords

macaque_2

Melissa177 wrote: »

What kind of rights, out of interest?

I mean, how would you enforce LLs to be "good LLs"?

The things that concern me are:

Longer notice periods. Too many landlords promise tenants long lets when they have no intention of doing so. My previous landlord assured us that he wanted to let the property to us for 3 years. Twelve months later he sold the property. I then discovered from the neighbour that he had already planned to sell it when he did. This little act of deceit cost us a lot of money and disruption.

It should be a criminal offence for a landlord to enter the property without the tenants permission.

Punitive damages should be applied where landlords vexatiously dispute deposits. (although the new arrangements may solve this).

The frequency of inspections by the agent should be limited by law.

There should be mandatory standards for the quality of the property and amenities. Tenants should not be fobbed off with old and damaged washing machines etc.

The landlord should only be permitted to show prospective buyers under strictly controlled circumstances.

silvercar

Some people are very good at tarring everyone with the same brush!

macaque_2

pinkshoes wrote: »

macaque, you have to look at this from both perspectives.

I agree that tenants should have more rights, but don't forget about all the landlords that post on here that are stuck with lousy tenants, so maybe we need a system where both tenants AND landlords have more rights.

6 of one and half dozen of another if you ask me!

Not all landlords are bad, but those who are give all landlords a bad name, and not all tenants are bad, but those who are make landlords warey of all other tenants.

So can I vote for the "I'm neither a tenant nor a landlord but I think both should have more rights" button?

It is ridiculous to imply that some good tenants have to suffer from bad landlords because some good landlords have to suffer from bad tenants.

pickles110564

macaque wrote: »

It should be a criminal offence for a landlord to enter the property without the tenants permission.

It should be a criminal offence for a tenant not letting a LL to enter the property to do gas checks etc.

Punitive damages should be applied where landlords vexatiously dispute deposits. (although the new arrangements may solve this).

Puntive damages should be applied when the tenant uses the deposit as the last month's rent, then leaving the place uninhabitable.

The frequency of inspections by the agent should be limited by law.

The frequency of inspections by the agent should be every week.

There should be mandatory standards for the quality of the property and amenities. Tenants should not be fobbed off with old and damaged washing machines etc.

There should be mandatory standards of tenant's that should have to look after white goods not never cleaning them in their tenancy period.

The landlord should only be permitted to show prospective buyers under strictly controlled circumstances.

The Landlord should be permitted to show prospective buyers at any time he should wish.After he does own the property.

For every bad LL there are three times as many disgusting tenant's.

Notlob

Round-a-bout

I doubt people remember the reason why the housing act 1988 came into force.

Due to security of tenure afforded to tenancy prior to 1988, there became a shortage of property resulting in difficulty in find a decent property. To prevent high rents, tenants could challenge the rent, resulting in even fewer LL as rents were too low. Hence the 1988 act, to encourage LL to enter the market.

So, has anyone considered the impact on going back to those days?

Notlob

macaque_2

pickles110564 wrote: »

For every bad LL there are three times as many disgusting tenant's.

Don't get me wrong Pickles. You won't find any support for bad tenants from me. I also have considerable respect for decent landlords.

The existance of bad tenants however no reason for tolerating bad landlords. Whether rented or owned, a property is a person's home. Being messed around in it or kicked out at short notice is pretty devastating.

The problem is that we have a sizeable but growing group of landlords who are not fit for the role. I have seen some of them posting on this website. For them, tenants are no different to farm animals. They send families with children at school packing on a whim. The law has to be changed.