Landlord is selling his property and wants an estate agents to take photos

brianposter

AdrianC said:

brianposter said:

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

No, integrity is ON TOP OF legal rights.

You seem to be suggesting that it replaces them.

I can perfectly well agree that integrity is on top of legal rights and I have no idea where you get the idea that i am suggesting that one is a substitute for the other.

However a society which operates on the basis of integrity is far more efficient that one which operates on the basis of written law so it is surprising how many posters seem to recommend actions based on legal rights rather than appropriate behaviour.

GDB2222

getmore4less said:

GDB2222 said:

silverwhistle said:

GDB2222 said:

You can argue that that is long overdue, but I can remember the days when it was extremely difficult for landlords to get their property back, before ASTs. That resulted in very expensive rents, because of the risk...

Eh? Are you saying rents have become cheaper because landlords can get their properties back more easily than in the past?!

Yes. Very, very much cheaper, allowing for inflation. 

Also more competition from people getting into the business using cheaper lending and using HPI as their(potential) profitability running the letting side at best break even with gross yields under 5%.

Agreed, although it’s worth noting that rental property would not have been regarded as good collateral for loans before ASTs. 

AdrianC

brianposter said:

AdrianC said:

brianposter said:

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

No, integrity is ON TOP OF legal rights.

You seem to be suggesting that it replaces them.

I can perfectly well agree that integrity is on top of legal rights and I have no idea where you get the idea that i am suggesting that one is a substitute for the other.

However a society which operates on the basis of integrity is far more efficient that one which operates on the basis of written law so it is surprising how many posters seem to recommend actions based on legal rights rather than appropriate behaviour.

Great, so we're all agreed that the legal rights are the absolute baseline on which both sides can expect to operate.

That, currently, means the tenant can expect six months correctly-served s21 notice as a bare minimum... right?

Falafels

Yes, you are within your rights not to agree to this. You could still be there for a considerable time yet, given the laws governing S21.

You also mention that the landlord is selling in order to save his company, so it might be useful to check out what will happen to your tenancy if the landlord goes bankrupt. Do you know if the property is mortgaged, or whether he owns it outright?

Either way, although you can rest assured that there's no urgency (at least for you) right now, it seems unlikely that your long-term stability as a tenant in that property is assured. You may be better off co-operating with your landlord right now, whilst looking for alternative accommodation.

brianposter

AdrianC said:

Great, so we're all agreed that the legal rights are the absolute baseline on which both sides can expect to operate.

That, currently, means the tenant can expect six months correctly-served s21 notice as a bare minimum... right?

Not at all. Legal rights should be little more than the fence round the playing field, and s21 simply what happens if landlord and tenant cannot agree a better arrangement.

AdrianC

Ah, so there we go...

"Natural integrity" and "morality" place an onus on the tenant to agree to waive short-term legal changes placed by the government for the protection of tenants during these pandemic times.

brianposter

AdrianC said:

Ah, so there we go...

"Natural integrity" and "morality" place an onus on the tenant to agree to waive short-term legal changes placed by the government for the protection of tenants during these pandemic times.

Which is perfectly sensible. The legal changes are there to protect tenants who are in difficulty.

In case you have not noticed there are many other people who have been little affected by COVID.

rik111

When I had a flat rented out and had to move back into it, I went round and saw the tenant and told them I’d pay the deposit on their next place. They also got their deposit back from me the day they left.  I didn’t need anyone to tell me to do this, I just felt obliged. Trouble with this new breed of amateur landlord is their sense of entitlement. They think they can just chuck people out with 2 months notice and then keep their deposit for “professional cleaning”. To the OP just stay put until Landlord realises he needs to “buy” you out, In the mean time don’t let anyone troop around your house in the middle of a pandemic... 

macman

brianposter said:

AdrianC said:

brianposter said:

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

No, integrity is ON TOP OF legal rights.

You seem to be suggesting that it replaces them.

I can perfectly well agree that integrity is on top of legal rights and I have no idea where you get the idea that i am suggesting that one is a substitute for the other.

However a society which operates on the basis of integrity is far more efficient that one which operates on the basis of written law so it is surprising how many posters seem to recommend actions based on legal rights rather than appropriate behaviour.

The difference is that the law determines what legal rights people have, whereas morality/appropriate behaviour is a decision that people have to make for themselves.
Advising people of their legal rights is morally neutral: it's not telling them how to behave.

AdrianC

brianposter said:

AdrianC said:

Ah, so there we go...

"Natural integrity" and "morality" place an onus on the tenant to agree to waive short-term legal changes placed by the government for the protection of tenants during these pandemic times.

Which is perfectly sensible. The legal changes are there to protect tenants who are in difficulty.

In case you have not noticed there are many other people who have been little affected by COVID.

"You aren't using those legal rights, so you won't mind if we remove them."

I think Martin Niemöller said something about that.