If I ruled the world both the renter and property owner would AGREE a notice period either way and s

PasturesNew

One of the problems is that if you're given two months' notice, you then have to pay for that full two months. Let's pick an arbitrary figure of £1500/month, two 30 day months, that's £50/day.

If you got notice and found somewhere in a week to move to, you've still got to pay that £3000, minus 7x£50.

I think that, once notice has been issued, for no fault, the tenants should only have to pay for the days they continue to live there - else they can't afford to leave as there's always a £350/week overlap of wasted rent on an empty property.

The overlap is crippling .... then there's the new agent fees, the new deposit to be paid up front ... and the new first month's rent, even though you've already paid every penny you have for your current rent (that overlap again).

always_sunny

PasturesNew wrote: »

One of the problems is that if you're given two months' notice, you then have to pay for that full two months. Let's pick an arbitrary figure of £1500/month, two 30 day months, that's £50/day.

If you got notice and found somewhere in a week to move to, you've still got to pay that £3000, minus 7x£50.

I think that, once notice has been issued, for no fault, the tenants should only have to pay for the days they continue to live there - else they can't afford to leave as there's always a £350/week overlap of wasted rent on an empty property.

The overlap is crippling .... then there's the new agent fees, the new deposit to be paid up front ... and the new first month's rent, even though you've already paid every penny you have for your current rent (that overlap again).

It's not really a problem, it is what the LL and Tenant have agreed, I find the notice a bit long, I think 30 days should be enough but it is the default in the UK.

Agent fees really should be abolished, any day now, but the rest is normal, it is a problem if people live paycheck to paycheck and for those people many other things will be a problem.

martinthebandit

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It is the tenant's home, yes, but it's the landlord's asset. The landlord owns it.

Exactly, and if you increase the costs of owning and renting out a house, as this legislation does who do we think is going to have to stand those increased costs, either in increased rent or having less spent on the property?

parkrunner

parkrunner wrote: »

Speaking as a tenant and both daughters are tenants in different homes, not one of us has ever had a bad landlord, so my opinion and experience is very different to yours.

Iwanttobefree wrote: »

Trouble is, both exist and while you and your friends have been lucky, many others haven't.

New rules are needed for the other type of landlord which while you have been lucky enough never to have experienced, sadly far too many people have experienced it.

I'm fully aware that both exist, just like tenants, I was just balancing out the post by tommix.

Guerillatoker

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why not? There may be all sorts of reasons why they no longer wish to rent their property. Sickness, age, relationship break-up, emigrating, money needed for education, etc, etc. Surely as long as they evict through the proper channels, it doesn't make them a bad landlord!

If that is the case, they shouldn't be concerned when the proper channels are changed to create a fairer situation.

Tenants are not soulless investment products that should be cast aside at the landlords whim; the landlord should ensure they have factored in their own situation and risks ahead of letting the property to prevent abruptly removing someones rental property.

There aren't many other leasing situations where the property can be unilaterally re-appropriated without fault on the leasee's part, are there? Especially without providing a like-for-like substitution. At least I can't think of any, maybe you can correct me?

seven-day-weekend

Guerillatoker wrote: »

If that is the case, they shouldn't be concerned when the proper channels are changed to create a fairer situation.

Tenants are not soulless investment products that should be cast aside at the landlords whim; the landlord should ensure they have factored in their own situation and risks ahead of letting the property to prevent abruptly removing someones rental property.

There aren't many other leasing situations where the property can be unilaterally re-appropriated without fault on the leasee's part, are there? Especially without providing a like-for-like substitution. At least I can't think of any, maybe you can correct me?

I would think, like someone has said, above, that if you have signed up for (say) a year, and both landlord and tenant have agreed that, then there is nothing wrong with the landlord giving the tenant the legal notice to leave at the end of that time. That's what they signed up for.

I was going to give my tenant a rolling tenancy once her initial six months finishes at the end of May, because she is a good tenant, but I won't now, I will offer her a fixed term, so that , if due to unforseen circumstances I need to get my flat back, I will be able to do it at the end of that time.

snowcat75

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would think, like someone has said, above, that if you have signed up for (say) a year, and both landlord and tenant have agreed that, then there is nothing wrong with the landlord giving the tenant the legal notice to leave at the end of that time. That's what they signed up for.

I was going to give my tenant a rolling tenancy once her initial six months finishes at the end of May, because she is a good tenant, but I won't now, I will offer her a fixed term, so that , if due to unforseen circumstances I need to get my flat back, I will be able to do it at the end of that time.

Exactly the T&C s are signed by both party's if you don't agree don't sign.

Iv actually done longer agreements 2 years, but have always put break clauses in at 6 months encase there a PITA and an option to evict for the reasons of a sale.... No one signs such agreements expecting to break them BUT no one can predict what happens years into the future so things need to be covered.


There are many people who think that just because they pay the rent there model tenants, Id rather have someone who pays less and looks after the place.

Guerillatoker

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would think, like someone has said, above, that if you have signed up for (say) a year, and both landlord and tenant have agreed that, then there is nothing wrong with the landlord giving the tenant the legal notice to leave at the end of that time. That's what they signed up for.

I was going to give my tenant a rolling tenancy once her initial six months finishes at the end of May, because she is a good tenant, but I won't now, I will offer her a fixed term, so that , if due to unforseen circumstances I need to get my flat back, I will be able to do it at the end of that time.

Good to offer her further security, looks like the new changes are working out even before implementation.

MissPickle

And what's all this paying for deposits on a room?
Me - Of course! Is it protected?
Them - Errm... what do you mean?
Me - I mean is it protected? By an independent body?
Them - Oh right, well... no, not legally, not... Errm.
Me- But you want £500 deposit? Goodbye

dividendhero

NBLondon wrote: »

. But if say, ill-health decides his retirement date - he will need to give notice and sell that house.

As I understand it, even with new proposed rules - if a LL wants to sell a house or move into it themselves, they can still issue a s21 notice.