Tenant's rights

Gorgeous_George

macaque wrote: »

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.

You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder, macaque.

I accept that tenants should have 'more' security of tenure PROVIDING THEY PAY THE AGREED RENT ON TIME. AST agreements should be written in plain English that BOTH PARTIES understand. maybe a document detailing WHAT IFS and FAQs should accompany the agreement.

As I posted elsewhere, maybe a 6 month rolling contract would help. But, in return, the LL must be offered something. Maybe a guaranteed 3 months' notice from the tenant or a larger deposit would be appropriate. I know when I need to increase rent months beforehand. I'm happy to give a year's notice of any rent increase.

I won't be voting because you only want, want, want. Life is not like that. You need to compromise.

GG

dolce_vita

I have been letting properties for over 20 years and not once in that time have I had to resort to the law to resolve issues or disputes over tenancies.

I consider myself to be a decent landlord in that I provide a well maintained and comfortable home for a fair price. Any problems are dealt with swiftly provided the rent is up to date. And in return, my tenants are expected to keep the place tidy and pay the rent.

But if you don't pay the rent for months and you ask me to fix your boiler I will tell you to either pay up what you owe me (and then I'll fix the boiler) or pack your bags and f*ck off.

I have found that one of those two things happen.

Is that legal?

I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care - but it has worked for me.

pickles110564

We let our tenant's stay for as long as they like and if problems crop up which they do, we try to get them sorted asap.

What i don't like is some do not bother to contact you when they are in trouble and when you ask they lie about anything.

pinkshoes

macaque wrote: »

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.

HUH?!?! What planet are you on?!? Did they not teach you grammar in school??

I said:

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.

Please look up the definition of a comma, and the usage of them!

com·ma B]kom[/B]-[I]uh[/I
–noun 1.the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence



So, not all landlords are bad, but those who are give all landlords a bad name.

Not all tenants are bad, but those who are make landlords warey of all other tenants.

guppy

Notlob wrote: »

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

But has the balance swung too far the other way? Unlike many other countries where renting is more commonplace, the lack of security of tenure in this country makes renting very difficult and undesirable for older people and those with children etc.

Personally if house prices force more and more relatively wealthy and well educated people in to rented accomodation then I think the pressure for a change in legislation will grow.

For professional LL's this may be desirable since it would make renting more attractive, and keep out a percentage of the BTL amateurs, therefore increasing yields.

Guy_Montag

pinkshoes wrote: »

Not all tenants are bad, but those who are make landlords warey of all other tenants.

TBH if, as a landlord, you can't cope with !!!!py tenants I recommend a career change. However, (most) tenants don't have that option.

It is always the case that service providers should have to maintain higher standards than those who use their services.

macaque_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder, macaque.

I accept that tenants should have 'more' security of tenure PROVIDING THEY PAY THE AGREED RENT ON TIME. AST agreements should be written in plain English that BOTH PARTIES understand. maybe a document detailing WHAT IFS and FAQs should accompany the agreement.

As I posted elsewhere, maybe a 6 month rolling contract would help. But, in return, the LL must be offered something. Maybe a guaranteed 3 months' notice from the tenant or a larger deposit would be appropriate. I know when I need to increase rent months beforehand. I'm happy to give a year's notice of any rent increase.

I won't be voting because you only want, want, want. Life is not like that. You need to compromise.

GG

Hmmmmm, interesting. You seem very defensive but I was only criticising scum landlords (I even went out of my way to express my respect for good landlords). Hang on let me have a think................. Ah wait a minute, I think I know whats happened.

pinkshoes

Guy_Montag wrote: »

TBH if, as a landlord, you can't cope with !!!!py tenants I recommend a career change. However, (most) tenants don't have that option.

It is always the case that service providers should have to maintain higher standards than those who use their services.

I disagree.

If tenants and landlords BOTH had more rights, then maybe if a tenant couldn't pay their rent for genuine reasons (relationship breakdown, loss of job etc...), and they were honest with their landlord, then they could come to a law obiding agreement to say WHEN they'll pay it, so there's no need for serving eviction notices, and the tenant could get through their sh*te time in life, and get back on top of things.

But if a tenant doesn't pay their rent because they're irresponsible with money and spend it on other (non essential) things, then they don't deserve to be able to live in someone's property rent free, and a landlord should be able to easily evict them.

With honesty and civility, landlords and tenants can have a good relationship, but it requires BOTH of them to be civil and honest.

ps - I'm not a landlord

sooz

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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

Any licenced HMO agent/manager/LL already needs this in the UK, and in some boroughs, incl mine, this includes any property where more than 2 unrelated sharers reside, no matter how many floors.

I am therefore, a recognised fit and proper person! :T

I am also an accredited landlord, and a member of the NLA

I am moving new tenants into a flat this weekend and have over 6 inches of paperwork to go through with them.

And do you know what....having signed the contract, the tenants are so protected by law, that for 6 months, even if they paid no rent, it's unlikely that I'd be able to get them out of my flat. Yes, a section 8 is a possibility, but there are ways round it. Section 21 then court then bailiff is really the only option.

And if they decided that the rent is too high for them, they have the first 6 months to go to the Rent Assessment Committee to decide if they should be paying less. It may, of course, backfire, and the RAC may ask them to pay more. :rotfl:

How is this fair? We signed a contract?

[have to say, no-one has ever tried this with me, my rents are just below market value...but I am astounded by the fact that the CAN!]

Guy_Montag

pinkshoes wrote: »

I disagree.

If tenants and landlords BOTH had more rights, then maybe if a tenant couldn't pay their rent for genuine reasons (relationship breakdown, loss of job etc...), and they were honest with their landlord, then they could come to a law obiding agreement to say WHEN they'll pay it, so there's no need for serving eviction notices, and the tenant could get through their sh*te time in life, and get back on top of things.

But if a tenant doesn't pay their rent because they're irresponsible with money and spend it on other (non essential) things, then they don't deserve to be able to live in someone's property rent free, and a landlord should be able to easily evict them.

With honesty and civility, landlords and tenants can have a good relationship, but it requires BOTH of them to be civil and honest.

ps - I'm not a landlord

We all think the world should be sympathetic to hard cases & come down hard on those that fritter their money away, but the law finds it hard to distinguish between the two.

I think we all agree that landlords need to be able to get rid of non-paying tenants - but do you want them to have the right to evict the tenant in your first example in two weeks so they can get rid of the one in your second example? Or do you want the one in your second example to be protected to protect the one in the first example?

The choice is yours!! :money: