A little more protection for tenants...?

deFoix

Oh and if you need security of a home then buy your own or buy a longer term contract.

[Deleted User]

Too easily manipulated by iffy LL's but I'd love a proper LL's database. Of course, with the third party verification recommended by yourself.

lookstraightahead

deFoix wrote: »

Yes we need MORE PROTECTIONS but for landlords. I propose a national database of tenants which must be legally filled out annually for every tenant including how many missed and late payments were made and how much. This is easily verifiable by a 3rd party if needed.

This would work in the good tenants’ favour by showing prospective landlords they they are low medium or high risk and price the rent appropriately. It solves the information problem.

Of course the very bad tenants will have nowhere to go so the government would never back this as they would have to house them directly. Better to let them just blend into the mix of good tenemts and let private landlords deal with the issue for free.

Who fills out this database? Landlords? No thanks! Again another proposal where the landlord is acting like the 'superior' rather than the supplier. No one asks landlords to be landlords. They do it to make money. They sell a service. They should be accountable for the upkeep of that service. They are not doing the tenant a favour.

justjohn

LL's are selling up as it is. There is far to much red tape now and to many rules for the tenant to take the "P".


Its the landlords house a tenant is just a guest. We need to get back to that before the Gov totally trashes the rental market. Or better still the council could start to improve there housing stock with all these wonderful tenant protection policies.


If a tenant wants stability lease or buy a house. Private LL's are not charities or cash cows.




And the housing associations are just a joke.

lookstraightahead

justjohn wrote: »

LL's are selling up as it is. There is far to much red tape now and to many rules for the tenant to take the "P".


Its the landlords house a tenant is just a guest. We need to get back to that before the Gov totally trashes the rental market. Or better still the council could start to improve there housing stock with all these wonderful tenant protection policies.


If a tenant wants stability lease or buy a house. Private LL's are not charities or cash cows.




And the housing associations are just a joke.

Tenants are tenants not guests. It's assumptions like this that have aided all the red tape.

Cakeguts

Carrie_bie wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I had an idea this afternoon which I'd like to share with you all - I've decided that landlords should also have to pay a security deposit like the existing Tenancy Deposit Scheme.

I've been renting for the last 17 years and had some great and not so great landlords. I'm pretty sure I'm a model tenant - I'm very clean (no mould or limescale in my bathrooms!), considerate, always pay on time for anything I am responsible for and never ever leave a mess at check out. I try to do everything by the book (aka contract) and I expect the same from my landlord - if I'm paying a tonne of cash for a service I expect to receive it!

However as a tenant you're still very much at the mercy of your landlord, ultimately you need secure home with power and water. Sometimes you never really know if your landlord is an a***wipe until you finish your tenancy and wait for your deposit to come back.

I have once in the past used the deposit dispute resolution service to stop unfair deductions and they were very good... but it got me wondering, is there anything aside from a small claims court that a tenant can do to claim losses from their landlord??!?

Why isn't there an equivalent bond paid by the landlord to reassure the tenant?? Surely this would be easy to rectify... much easier than setting up a landlord licence scheme?

Your problem is that you are expecting private landlords often with only one property to provide "a service" rather than just a property. If you want "the service" type agreement you need to find a build to rent company that has a lot of properties. I will warn you though that their rents are higher because of "the service" aspect. You may think you are paying a lot of money but actually you are trying to do this on the cheap because you aren't paying for what you want to get.



You need to do a lot more research into the kinds of landlords before you decide to rent something,



Have a look at Getliving in London and see if that is more what you are after. It isn't cheap though.

chucknorris

Carrie_bie wrote: »

Why isn't there an equivalent bond paid by the landlord to reassure the tenant?? Surely this would be easy to rectify... much easier than setting up a landlord licence scheme?

Many landlords do have money tied up in property, we now (it was more before we sold a couple of properties) have between £290k to £750k tied up in each property. What would be the point in tying up even more money? Believe me when I say, with that much tied up, we have no interest in allowing the property to become run down.

Quite a lot of our maintenance is carried out by British Gas Homecare, with whom we have a maintenance contract, the tenants usually call them directly.

chucknorris

theartfullodger wrote: »

You'd be better off requiring references from previous tenants showing that the landlord is decent, honourable and complies with legal & contractural requirements.


Never understood why tenants don't require these.. Cheap/free, what landlord (that demands references the other way round) could possibly complain?

Usually our outgoing tenants show the property to our prospective tenants, this gives the prospective tenants ample opportunity to ask them about us, the property and the location.

lookstraightahead

Cakeguts wrote: »

Your problem is that you are expecting private landlords often with only one property to provide "a service" rather than just a property. If you want "the service" type agreement you need to find a build to rent company that has a lot of properties. I will warn you though that their rents are higher because of "the service" aspect. You may think you are paying a lot of money but actually you are trying to do this on the cheap because you aren't paying for what you want to get.



You need to do a lot more research into the kinds of landlords before you decide to rent something,



Have a look at Getliving in London and see if that is more what you are after. It isn't cheap though.

Does a landlord with a string of properties have a different tenancy agreement to someone with just one? I'm not sure that's the case - every landlord has responsibilities and actually it's of no interest to the tenant.

onwards&upwards

Slithery wrote: »

What sort of losses are you thinking of? I can't think of any situation where my LL would owe me money without small claims being sufficient.

Same could be said for tenants, SCC should be sufficient in lieu of deposits.

Maybe a deposit could be held by the tenant to cover any necessary repairs the LL refuses to arrange. A third party deposit holding scheme would have to approve the application to use the funds.