Tenant

lookstraightahead

Old_Git said:

Hannimal said:

 Your tenants don't know you, 

My tenant has been renting from me for 6 years. They rarely see me , I have never used my keys to enter the house. 
Her father lives in the house directly behind and I have known him over 24 years . 

So in that case, does your tenant have a key to your home?

im just still wondering why you think they shouldn't change the locks?

If you bought a house, the first thing people advise you to do is change the locks. This is no different. 

HampshireH

Old_Git said:

Hannimal said:

 Your tenants don't know you, 

My tenant has been renting from me for 6 years. They rarely see me , I have never used my keys to enter the house. 
Her father lives in the house directly behind and I have known him over 24 years . 

Irrelevant, except the bold bit. This shows you don't need a key 

The tenant hasnt done anything wrong, and you don't use the key you had anyway.

Perhaps the tenant has been on here and read the advice frequently given to change the locks.

There isn't really any emergency where you would need a key anyway.

In the event of a major leak you wouldn't even know without the tenant telling you but if somehow you did then you would turn the water off outside.

In the event of a fire you definitely won't need a key

In the event of a break-in someone will already have don't the gain access bit for you and you'd be getting a locksmith anyway.

What's your reasoning for having one?

Don't get me wrong, when I rented my landlord (also my work colleaue and who had changed the locks) had a key. It was handy for me to have someone local with one. They were happy to see the boiler man in when I couldn't. It was mutually beneficial.

So as a tenant I've been in a position where my LL has had a key. But in your situation the above doesn't apply as your tenant seems able to meet all obligations for the last 6 years without your help

seven-day-weekend

....and yet the landlord will be in trouble with the law if they can't gain access (after having informed the tenant with the proper notice   of course) to do things  like the mandatory gas certificate, or electrical check.  These are both legal requirements.

I had to get, by law,   an electrical certificate for my flat earlier this year.  My tenants are reasonable people and allowed the electrician in to do it.  What if they hadn't been?  How would I have been able to comply with the law?

I have got a key, I have never used it.  In fact I have never been in the flat in the nearly two years they have been renting it, not even to do an inspection, because of lockdown.  The only time I ever would use my key is to ensure I was complying with the law, and then only after giving the required notice.

Bear in mind that if the LL has not provided these legal documents and the tenant then trashes the flat and leaves, the LL cannot take anything from their deposit because they have not complied with the law.

AdrianC

seven-day-weekend said:

....and yet the landlord will be in trouble with the law if they can't gain access (after having informed the tenant with the proper notice   of course) to do things  like the mandatory gas certificate, or electrical check.  These are both legal requirements.

I had to get, by law,   an electrical certificate for my flat earlier this year.  My tenants are reasonable people and allowed the electrician in to do it.  What if they hadn't been?  How would I have been able to comply with the law?

The key makes no difference. You cannot just let the electrician in without the tenant's permission, just because they didn't reply.

If the tenant does not allow access for the EICR or GSC, then the law allows for that. BUT you MUST be able to prove that you made reasonable, sustained attempts to arrange access.

Bear in mind that if the LL has not provided these legal documents and the tenant then trashes the flat and leaves, the LL cannot take anything from their deposit because they have not complied with the law.

I think you're getting confused with the validity of s21 come a possession hearing.

seven-day-weekend

Landlords may as well give the tenant all their  money instead of putting it in the bank.  That's a valuable asset too.  If they can have control of one type of asset, why not the other?

Don't get me wrong, I am a good landlord and do all the required legalities, plus leave my tenants in peace, because I appreciate it is their home while they are renting it.  But it is not their property. However the law is now all on the side of the tenant, landlords have very few rights.  That's why many are selling up.  We will be selling if/when our (very good) tenants leave.


Soon there will be no properties available for private rental, and not much in the way of social housing, so that will be renters stuffed.

AdrianC

seven-day-weekend said:

Landlords may as well give the tenant all their  money instead of putting it in the bank.  That's a valuable asset too.  If they can have control of one type of asset, why not the other?

The very nature of the business you are in is providing accommodation in return for money...

So, yes, they get accommodation.

However the law is now all on the side of the tenant, landlords have very few rights.

That's simply not true. Good landlords who follow the law and process have protection.

Soon there will be no properties available for private rental, and not much in the way of social housing, so that will be renters stuffed.

Again, simply not true. There has been too much private rental - that's why yields are low - because too many people have gone down the "Oooh, property must be a good investment" BtL route, distorting the lower end of the housing market.

seven-day-weekend

AdrianC said:

seven-day-weekend said:

Landlords may as well give the tenant all their  money instead of putting it in the bank.  That's a valuable asset too.  If they can have control of one type of asset, why not the other?

The very nature of the business you are in is providing accommodation in return for money...

So, yes, they get accommodation.  Yes, fair point

However the law is now all on the side of the tenant, landlords have very few rights.

That's simply not true. Good landlords who follow the law and process have protection.  Like what?  It can take months or sometimes years, to get rid of a tenant who has trashed the place or not paid rent for months.  And the LL doesn't get their money back.

Soon there will be no properties available for private rental, and not much in the way of social housing, so that will be renters stuffed.

Again, simply not true. There has been too much private rental - that's why yields are low - because too many people have gone down the "Oooh, property must be a good investment" BtL route, distorting the lower end of the housing market.

See my highlighted text

lookstraightahead

seven-day-weekend said:

....and yet the landlord will be in trouble with the law if they can't gain access (after having informed the tenant with the proper notice   of course) to do things  like the mandatory gas certificate, or electrical check.  These are both legal requirements.

I had to get, by law,   an electrical certificate for my flat earlier this year.  My tenants are reasonable people and allowed the electrician in to do it.  What if they hadn't been?  How would I have been able to comply with the law?

I have got a key, I have never used it.  In fact I have never been in the flat in the nearly two years they have been renting it, not even to do an inspection, because of lockdown.  The only time I ever would use my key is to ensure I was complying with the law, and then only after giving the required notice.

Bear in mind that if the LL has not provided these legal documents and the tenant then trashes the flat and leaves, the LL cannot take anything from their deposit because they have not complied with the law.

Having a key, and having permission to gain access, are two completely separate issues.

there are times when as a homeowner things needs legally checking as well, but would you give them a key? Like a gas leak for example? 

lookstraightahead

seven-day-weekend said:

Landlords may as well give the tenant all their  money instead of putting it in the bank.  That's a valuable asset too.  If they can have control of one type of asset, why not the other?

Don't get me wrong, I am a good landlord and do all the required legalities, plus leave my tenants in peace, because I appreciate it is their home while they are renting it.  But it is not their property. However the law is now all on the side of the tenant, landlords have very few rights.  That's why many are selling up.  We will be selling if/when our (very good) tenants leave.


Soon there will be no properties available for private rental, and not much in the way of social housing, so that will be renters stuffed.

Why are you a landlord? I would hate the job so I don't do it. Give your tenants notice. (Awaits response that's you're doing it for the tenant).

you are absolutely right that it's their home, they are paying you for the privilege. 

prowla

AdrianC said:

prowla said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m always curious as to in which emergency situations the landlord having a key will help. If the place is burning down the fire brigade aren’t going to wait for you to come round with your key.

Some years ago a neighbour was away on holiday and I happened to see that their kitchen ceiling had collapsed and water was running out over the windows.

I called the police who came around and forced entry, sorted out getting a plumber to come and turn off the water main, and generally handled things; there had apparently been a water leak some time over the past fortnight which had built up to quite a lot of damage.

(Coincidentally, they came back from their holiday whilst everyone was still there.)

I guess that is a situation where a key-holder would have been useful.

If your neighbour had been a tenant, would you have had contact details for their landlord?

And would a key have made a lot of difference in the grand scheme of the damage to the property, relative to forcing the door/loock? It's going to be a large insurance claim anyway...

Actually it was a rented property, but I didn't have the details, no; I don't know if the police did.

And yes, there was quite a lot of time spent sorting it out.

But anyway, I was just illustrating an actual situation which occurred where a keyholder would have been useful.

Norman_Castle said:

prowla said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m always curious as to in which emergency situations the landlord having a key will help. If the place is burning down the fire brigade aren’t going to wait for you to come round with your key.

Some years ago a neighbour was away on holiday and I happened to see that their kitchen ceiling had collapsed and water was running out over the windows.

I guess that is a situation where a key-holder would have been useful.

There's a difference between choosing someone to be a key holder and allowing a landlord to have access.

Did I say otherwise?