Tenant's rights

Notlob

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

Ah, Utopia, I have heard of this place!

jyonda

There's a big difference between a traditional landlord and a property speculator which I think Macaque seems to be referring to.
A traditional landlord is in it for the long term so is unlikely to sell up and can keep rents competitive because they bought shrewdly for cash and aren't exposed to interest rate rises etc like a BTL'er is. They also know the value of a reliable tenant and will treat them accordingly.
The property speculator is looking for short term gains and sees being a landlord as a secondary irritation because their business model doesn't include maintenance, interest rate rises, agents fees, voids or decorating. It just includes prices going up forever and cashing in when they feel like it.

pinkshoes

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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:

Notlob wrote: »

Ah, Utopia, I have heard of this place!

Indeed this is a hypothetical thread!!


An ideal situation would be that if landlords and tenants were honest with each other (no avoiding phone calls, no snotty letters!), there would never be any need to boot a tenant out! Money worries happen sometimes, but instead of sticking head in sand, if tenants just turned to their landlord, was 100% honest, said "x, y and z have happened, but this is my plan, and i WILL pay my rent on this date...", and the landlord was also honest "ok, well that's fine, could you maybe pay on a weekly basis for now as my mortgage is due on x date blah blah blah...."

ok yeah this is very hypothetical, but the landlord/tenant thing works both ways.

I think there should only be need for eviction process IF a tenant is behaving like an idiot and not being honest about their financial situation and ability to pay a rent.

If the tenant KNOWS they're never going to be able to pay the rent in a million years, then it's their responsibility to get help, seek alternative (cheaper/council) accomodation... maybe the landlord/council can even team up here.

:rotfl: ok this is getting ridiculously hypothetical now.:rotfl:

dolce_vita

If we're talking about legal rights, we can split the tenants into two -

Those that know their rights and those that don't.

In over 20 years as a landlord I would say that the split is 5%/95% respectively.

The tenants that I have come across that know their rights tend to be good tenants.

Of the remaining 95% most of them are decent, reasonable people with whom any problems can be sorted out in a friendly manner. Just like you would deal and interact with any other decent and reasonable person that you meet in everyday life without any recourse to the law.

But every now and again you come across someone who wants to rip you off or mug you.

How do you deal with that?
Do you shrug it off and put it down to experience?

Can you afford to lose the money?

Is it the money or is it the principle?

Do you get someone to kick their heads in?

Do you phone the police?

paintpot

dolce_vita wrote: »

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.

I agree with your sentiments exactly but in answer to your question, no its not legal, even if they are behind on their rent you have an obligation to repair such facilities although i would want to tell them to f**k off aswell!

I operate as you do as a landlord but would be considered by many to be a novice except the difference being, I have actually taken the time to read up on the laws surrounding tenancy agreements, a) to protect myself as a landlord and b) so that I can provide a better than average service and hopefully an excellent service to my tenants.

I agree with other posters, bad lanlords are as bad as bad tenants although,if it reaches a court of law then the tenant tends to come off better than the landlord.

Tenants often think that if you are a landlord then you are "loaded". That's not always the case. Yes, lots of landlords have made millions out of property but many are just your average Joe Bloggs who have decided to invest their money in bricks and mortar as a long term investment - I am of the average Joe variety. If a tenant defaults on the rent it can result in serious financial hardship to the landlord especially if the eviction process goes all the way. Because I am average Joe and a relative novice landlord, it doesn't automatically make me a bad landlord but I recognise they exist. However, knowledge does not make a good landlord, some just can't be bothered or prefer to flout the law and equally many landlords put their properties in the very (un)capable hands of letting agents thinking they are safe in the knowledge that the property and tenants are being looked after. What does the OP think the solution should be to bad letting agents? (And before any agent out there jumps on my back, I am not suggesting all agents are bad, just some of them, in the same way some landlords and tenants are bad!)


I believe tenants should be protected and I believe they are, even more so with the new deposit laws.

chillout_cat

Hi everyone,

I am renting one bedroom flat with my boyfriend. The flat was found by an agency (and we had problems from the very beginning - they had 'forgotten' to put my boyfriend in admission fee form and holding deposit receipt and actually thought there had been only me moving in, so when the landlord found out, she reqested higher rent).
After signing contract (for 6 months) and moving in at 10 am last Saturday, we realised we had cockroaches and bunch of mice in the kitchen, living room and bathroom. As we always saw the flat at daytime, it was impossible to notice all the creatures because they come out at night!! I was absolutely devastated. We called the landlord, she adviced me to call Westminster Council so they could 'take a fast action'. That was rubbish of course, the council said it was a private property so they couldn't help me. I'm sure she knew about the bugs and mice - she didn't seem surprise.
I told her the next day I want to move out asap, it's impossible to live in the flat and also I paid for a proper living room, bathroom, kitchen and bedroom and all I'm using is bloody bed because I'm too scared going into another rooms! She said I should call the agent as they still have my money. The agent obviously claimed it was between me and landlord to sort it out but 'the contract protects me' (in which way and where does it say exactly they couldn't explain).
I talked to her again today and she was yelling at me (!!!) she was bringing a guy to sprinkle the flat (told her I didn't want to live with a poison) - she never said when, shouting that she didn't have any of my money, that I didnt have right to ask her to give me my money back because I signed 6-months contract, finally that I had to give a month notice if I want to move out (and there is not guaranty I will get even my deposit back as my boyfriend isn't in the contract yet so she can always say I didnt have right to live with him here).

Let me add she singed she was willing to clean the carpets in the flat, exchange a broken window pane - she never did of course.

Please could you tell me who is right? Does my contract really protects me? What should I do next? This is nearly 2000 pounds we're talking about!! (rent in advance and deposit). There must be sth one can do when something that unexpected happens just after you moved in!!
Thanks for any advise, I'm completely stressed out and frustrated (we basically sleep with the lights on!).
Kasia & Mike

Generali

I voted no simply because rights in law are available. What's missing are rights that are enforcable.

Try exercising your rights at the moment and you're out on the street. It's happened to me many times. That's the good thing about the Deposit Protection Scheme. Don't protect the deposit, can't enforce a Section 21 eviction notice, as I understand things anyway.

carolt

pinkshoes wrote: »

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

I said:


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.

Tee hee. Thanks for a brilliant laugh, pinkshoes! They obviously didn't teach you spelling in school.

Go look up the spelling of wary.

IveSeenTheLight

Guy_Montag wrote: »

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:

I've read a few posts about tenants rights, tenants securities and landlords rights and landlords securities.

To try and compromise between these areas, for tenants wanting security for a longer period how about this suggestion.

• A standard 1 months rent is used as a deposit.
• The tenant through agreement can build up an excess in their rent to say 3 months paid rent either by paying up front or making an increased rent for a few months (wait for the explanation before you open you mouth in shock)

This gives the tenant and landlord a bit more security in that as the tenant has paid a little more in advance, any of lifes hardship could be used by this extra ayment (lose your job etc).
It will ensure that the BTL mortgage is still paid and gives the tenant that 3 month breathing space should they need it.

Additionally, when either the landlord or tenant notify that the lease is to finish, it gives both parties three months notice with the bonus to the tenant that they do not have to pay the rent for 3 months while they are organising their move.

I'm open to any opinions on this and whther from Lanlords and Tenants if they think this is a good idea or not.

I know this is not standard practice, but surely it could be written into a tenancy agreement

Innys

I think Dolce_vita is spot on.

I go by the principle of treat people fairly and they will, most times, reciprocate.

But, there are those who try it on, try to push the boundaries and see how far they can get. Those are the cretins who give all of their ilk a bad name - be that landlord or tenant - and need to be "squashed upon"

I rent out two propoerties and the tenants, mostly, pay the rent on time. In return, if anything goes wrong, I get on the case right away and fix it. If they were to get behind on the rent, I would not be so prompt. Indeed, if the boiler were to stop working this winter, and they had stopped paying the rent, I would be less inclined to help them out immediately. Sorry, but it's human nature, right or wrong as it may be.

In answer to the vote, I think it's about even at the moment. The thing is, whether you are a landlord or tenant is bound to influence which way you vote, so it's pretty meaningless. If you are neither, you are unlikely to appreciate the issues and so your vote will, again, be meaningless.