A little more protection for tenants...?

Comms69

TripleH wrote: »

Anyone looking to rent a property and not thinking of it as a business should not be renting out property.

Some landlords (more so those with only 1 property rented) can get too emotionally involved, but then others can be of the other extreme.

I do think that if the government are introducing red tape to provide security for tenants, then there has to be a carrot the other way, be it housing benefit is paid direct to the landlord not via the tenant (where is some cases it goes on other things) or a more efficient eviction process where there is non-payment of rent or blatant damage (I believe it is an independent 3rd party that should decide)

But at the end of the day, the government needs to stop passing the buck to its citizens to do the job we elect them for (for free). Said as neither a landlord nor tenant.

But a court is an independent 3rd party?

Carrie_bie

Interesting to read all your comments! So to address some of the questions...

Firstly, the kind of losses I'm thinking are where a tenant ends up paying for something that is the landlord's responsiblity on the agreement. For example, if a landlord is slow or unwilling to fix hot water/heating/included white goods. If a tenant buys portable heaters because the heating is broken and the landlord/agent doesn't fix it promptly. Also if a tenant moves into a house and it's filthy, then they should be able to have it professionally cleaned for free.

Secondly, there are also the little p*ss taking charges that I feel should be enforced in both directions in order to make them fair. Many agencies charge £25 for any piece of furniture left behind that is not on the inventory (or in the wrong room). I have moved into two places where there was furniture that was not listed on the inventory (nice one inventory clerk). No idea if the previous tenants were charged that £25, but that bit of furniture became my problem/responsiblity to remove before check out. I've also moved into a house where the oven was so filthy it caught fire when I turned it on. Who paid to have the oven cleaned? Me. Who was expected to provide a clean oven on check out 2 years later? Me. Who paid for it to be cleaned then? Me.

References from previous tenants could be a good idea, but as we all know, some tenants are irresponsible (hence why the security deposit is necessary in the first place!), so perhaps this is unfair and open to abuse.

Small landlords are no different to big landlords in my opinion - the number of properties they own is irrelevant to me. I'm still paying for something and they should provide it AS PER OUR AGREEMENT.

Comments about buying your own home don't help as that isn't a choice for everyone.
Not everyone has an income that allows this, and besides, some jobs require you to move around a lot. For these people, putting down permanent routes isn't a viable option, no matter what their income is! i.e. any hospital doctor that isn't a consultant, IT contractors etc

Lastly, the SCC is an option, but if it's so great, convenient and straightforward, why do tenants have to pay a security deposit? Why can't landlords also use the SCC to recover their losses?

FBaby

If a tenant buys portable heaters because the heating is broken and the landlord/agent doesn't fix it promptly

How do you judge whether promptly means a week or a month? Trying to find a tradesman to do small jobs is extremely difficult. Getting a heating engeneering around the Xmas period when the cold front is hitting the region ican also be a challenge. Who is mastercin deciding what is reasonable or not?

There is always the option of 4he court to resolve any financial losses.

Cakeguts

Carrie_bie wrote: »

Interesting to read all your comments! So to address some of the questions...

Firstly, the kind of losses I'm thinking are where a tenant ends up paying for something that is the landlord's responsiblity on the agreement. For example, if a landlord is slow or unwilling to fix hot water/heating/included white goods. If a tenant buys portable heaters because the heating is broken and the landlord/agent doesn't fix it promptly. Also if a tenant moves into a house and it's filthy, then they should be able to have it professionally cleaned for free.

Secondly, there are also the little p*ss taking charges that I feel should be enforced in both directions in order to make them fair. Many agencies charge £25 for any piece of furniture left behind that is not on the inventory (or in the wrong room). I have moved into two places where there was furniture that was not listed on the inventory (nice one inventory clerk). No idea if the previous tenants were charged that £25, but that bit of furniture became my problem/responsiblity to remove before check out. I've also moved into a house where the oven was so filthy it caught fire when I turned it on. Who paid to have the oven cleaned? Me. Who was expected to provide a clean oven on check out 2 years later? Me. Who paid for it to be cleaned then? Me.

References from previous tenants could be a good idea, but as we all know, some tenants are irresponsible (hence why the security deposit is necessary in the first place!), so perhaps this is unfair and open to abuse.

Small landlords are no different to big landlords in my opinion - the number of properties they own is irrelevant to me. I'm still paying for something and they should provide it AS PER OUR AGREEMENT.

Comments about buying your own home don't help as that isn't a choice for everyone.
Not everyone has an income that allows this, and besides, some jobs require you to move around a lot. For these people, putting down permanent routes isn't a viable option, no matter what their income is! i.e. any hospital doctor that isn't a consultant, IT contractors etc

Lastly, the SCC is an option, but if it's so great, convenient and straightforward, why do tenants have to pay a security deposit? Why can't landlords also use the SCC to recover their losses?

The problem is that as you say in your OP you are expecting a service but small landlords do not offer a service they only offer a property. If you want a property and a service you have to rent from a big rental company that offers both of these. They are more expensive.



For example a big rental company will have its own contractors and so if something breaks the contractors fix it. A small landlord has to contact a local trademan who then has to schedule it into their timetable after work that they have already booked in so you will only get the same time scale as a property owner which can be slow.



You are not going to get a service from a small landlord you are only going to get a tenancy of a property. It seems that you are not happy with just a tenancy of a property so I would suggest that next time you move you rent from one of these big companies. It will cost you more but you will get a service.



When you buy a property you often have to clean it before you move in.

Comms69

Carrie_bie wrote: »

Interesting to read all your comments! So to address some of the questions...

Firstly, the kind of losses I'm thinking are where a tenant ends up paying for something that is the landlord's responsiblity on the agreement. For example, if a landlord is slow or unwilling to fix hot water/heating/included white goods. If a tenant buys portable heaters because the heating is broken and the landlord/agent doesn't fix it promptly. - The tenant can take this smatter to small claims court Also if a tenant moves into a house and it's filthy, then they should be able to have it professionally cleaned for free. - No.

Secondly, there are also the little p*ss taking charges that I feel should be enforced in both directions in order to make them fair. Many agencies charge £25 for any piece of furniture left behind that is not on the inventory - Take your stuff with you... (or in the wrong room) - depends on the item. if you've move the bed to the lounge, then you should pay a charge. someone has to actually go and do a job there . I have moved into two places where there was furniture that was not listed on the inventory (nice one inventory clerk). - so add it. Or dispose of it No idea if the previous tenants were charged that £25, but that bit of furniture became my problem/responsiblity to remove before check out. - no you simply add it to the inventory..... I've also moved into a house where the oven was so filthy it caught fire when I turned it on. Who paid to have the oven cleaned? Me. Who was expected to provide a clean oven on check out 2 years later? Me. Who paid for it to be cleaned then? Me. - no you weren't. you could have left it filthy.

References from previous tenants could be a good idea, but as we all know, some tenants are irresponsible (hence why the security deposit is necessary in the first place!), so perhaps this is unfair and open to abuse.

Small landlords are no different to big landlords in my opinion - the number of properties they own is irrelevant to me. I'm still paying for something and they should provide it AS PER OUR AGREEMENT. - Which bit of the agreement do you think has been breached in any of your examples above?

Comments about buying your own home don't help as that isn't a choice for everyone. - Yes it is a choice. One that is dictated by the actions you've taken since you turned 18.
Not everyone has an income that allows this - everyone has the potential to earn sufficiently. If you live on NMW in London, that's a choice. It's perfectly possible to find a job elsewhere and move. , and besides, some jobs require you to move around a lot - that's a choice... . For these people, putting down permanent routes isn't a viable option, no matter what their income is! i.e. any hospital doctor that isn't a consultant, IT contractors etc - hospital doctors are more often then not on a permanent contract...

Lastly, the SCC is an option, but if it's so great, convenient and straightforward, why do tenants have to pay a security deposit? Why can't landlords also use the SCC to recover their losses?

They can.


You want something someone else has. They set the terms. You are not entitled to rent a property. That is not a right. It's a privilege.

wesleyad

I think the main problem here is not that you dont have protection, it's that you didn't enforce it. In pretty much all your examples you could have just said "no, I'm not paying, let the deposit scheme decide" (except the furniture movement).

I'd agree, a lot of tenants dont realise they have these rights, so maybe that needs top be clearer, but the laws are fine as is.

The one change I'd make in favour of tenants (as a LL myself) is add penalties for frivolous deposit deductions as a lot of LL's still attempt to abuse the situation for a quick buck.