PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters

17810121316

Comments

  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    parkrunner wrote: »
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.


    The increased risk is getting a tenant that alters the property or damages it more than can be reclaimed through the deposit and they have 3 years to do it in.
  • Querty
    Querty Posts: 21 Forumite
    parkrunner wrote: »
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.

    You could have a tenant causing antisocial behaviour which is very difficult as grounds for eviction. This could cause serious problems with neighbouring flats which you may or may not own.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    parkrunner wrote: »
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.


    We had a tenant who wired in some extra lights in such a way that when the tenant ended the tenancy and moved out and the inventory was done we had to get an electrician out to take it out because the DIY wiring was dangerous. There was a clause in the tenancy agreement to not make any alterations to the house without the permission of the landlord. That clause is there for just those sorts of occasions. The house is a semi so if the tenant had caused a fire it would have impacted on the next door neighbour.



    Who decides if rewiring a house without the landlord's permission is a fault or not and liable to eviction? The tenant has nothing to lose by doing this. They don't care about damage to the house because they don't own it. They also don't care about the person who owns the house next door.



    What worries me about this whole situation is who decides what faults lead to eviction?
  • parkrunner
    parkrunner Posts: 2,610
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    parkrunner wrote: »
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    Cakeguts wrote: »
    We had a tenant who wired in some extra lights in such a way that when the tenant ended the tenancy and moved out and the inventory was done we had to get an electrician out to take it out because the DIY wiring was dangerous. There was a clause in the tenancy agreement to not make any alterations to the house without the permission of the landlord. That clause is there for just those sorts of occasions. The house is a semi so if the tenant had caused a fire it would have impacted on the next door neighbour.



    Who decides if rewiring a house without the landlord's permission is a fault or not and liable to eviction? The tenant has nothing to lose by doing this. They don't care about damage to the house because they don't own it. They also don't care about the person who owns the house next door.



    What worries me about this whole situation is who decides what faults lead to eviction?


    Wouldn't that be found out during inspections? Maybe any changes to legislation should also include more reasons for eviction such as in your case and I speak as a tenant.
    It's nothing , not nothink.
  • tlc678910
    tlc678910 Posts: 982
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Rather than a 3 year tenancy I would support a longer notice period from landlord to tenant say somewhere between 3 and six months with tenants still able to give one months notice including after the landlord has served notice - perhaps even dropping to a couple of weeks if they had been served notice by the landlord to reduce overlap.

    However I think a second stream of fast track evictions would be needed alongside this longer notice period - rather like the fast track dismissal route for gross misconduct in a job, for gross misconduct in the tenancy. Grounds for fast track eviction including wilful and substantial damage to property, wilful non payment of rent (e.g. receiving the housing benefit or still in work but not paying), subletting/air b&b while not resident. This fast track eviction route would need a short court hearing where evidence is submitted and a much reduced notice period (or none e.g. if the person wasn't residing there). Perhaps the judge could decide notice up to a month.
    Tlc
  • Querty
    Querty Posts: 21 Forumite
    edited 8 July 2018 at 1:42PM
    parkrunner wrote: »
    Maybe any changes to legislation should also include more reasons for eviction such as in your case and I speak as a tenant.

    The trouble is that although a tenant may break the Tenancy Agreement, the law provides for Mandatory and Discretionary grounds for eviction. Non-payment of rent is now Mandatory under certain conditions and is relatively clear cut but most things are Discretionary and have to go to court. You can't legislate for everything anyway so that is one reason for decisions to be taken individually perhaps although they involve grey areas which can only be regarded as a matter of opinion. Then some matters are deemed to require human judgement and depend entirely on the whim of a judge on the day (and varies wildly between judges, a solicitor told me), and based on the presentation of evidence, with all parties involved required to turn up in court etc. Landlord insurance probably won't cover it (they would know how potty it is of course) and if you lose you have to pay winners costs on top of everything else.

    The s.21 along with the 6 month AST is so widely used because it's the only thing that reliably works in a legal system that is already hopelessly over complicated and not fit for purpose.

    Landlords can be a pain but they do not evict for no reason even if it is just that the relationship has broken down, it is their property. However, the only rationale I can think of for bringing in 3 year contracts is to drive as many people as possible out of the BTL market so that would certainly change things but perhaps not with the desired results.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    rachpid wrote: »
    This is essentially what we did in the house before last. We signed a 6-month contract, which then moved onto a rolling contract, and we were there just over 7 years in total. BUT the landlords there were Nationwide Bank, so there was very little chance of them kicking us out so they could sell or move in themselves. Our only worry was if they closed the branch.


    So who ended this tenancy. Nationwide or you?
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    I don't think anyone has spotted the obvious benefit to tenants - Letting agents unable to put pressure on them to sign another 12 month contract (with a renewal fee of course) Whilst we all know that tenants can go onto a rolling contract, tenant are often put under pressure especially in big cities like London.


    This it the whole problem. London. The whole country has to have new letting laws in order for a few problems in London to be solved. Why?
  • Crashy_Time
    Crashy_Time Posts: 13,386
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    tlc678910 wrote: »
    Rather than a 3 year tenancy I would support a longer notice period from landlord to tenant say somewhere between 3 and six months with tenants still able to give one months notice including after the landlord has served notice - perhaps even dropping to a couple of weeks if they had been served notice by the landlord to reduce overlap.

    However I think a second stream of fast track evictions would be needed alongside this longer notice period - rather like the fast track dismissal route for gross misconduct in a job, for gross misconduct in the tenancy. Grounds for fast track eviction including wilful and substantial damage to property, wilful non payment of rent (e.g. receiving the housing benefit or still in work but not paying), subletting/air b&b while not resident. This fast track eviction route would need a short court hearing where evidence is submitted and a much reduced notice period (or none e.g. if the person wasn't residing there). Perhaps the judge could decide notice up to a month.
    Tlc


    Tenant should have to give landlord 2-3 months notice IMO, especially if landlord is locked into 2-3 year contracts, but IMO this will be watered down eventually, it is just political noise, they need to get agents fees banned though, these should be priced into what the landlord gets charged for the agents service.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Last night I filled up the government survey on these 3 year tenancies and it was written from the point of view that the tenancies were going to be introduced but they had to have a consultation before they did what they had already planned to do. So there were reams and reams of questions about the benefits for landlords and tenants of offering these tenancies and no questions about any disadvantages except one question. There was one question that did not fit the pattern of all the others. This question was about if any groups of people would be disadvantaged by having 3 year tenancies as standard. As soon as I saw this I realised what these 3 year tenancies are actually about. It is nothing to do with voters. This is simply because there aren't enough people who want a 3 year tenancy to change any voting pattern.



    Once I started to think the disadvantage question through I could see that 3 year tenancies would completely disadvantage anyone on a council house waiting list or any vulnerable person needing social housing. It goes like this. The government wants to reduce homelessness which is a good thing but instead of building more social housing and getting rid of right to buy and right to acquire so that more people can have secure tenancies they are going to try to get them off council house waiting lists altogether by making them take 3 year tenancies with private landlords. Once you get this in place you can go ahead with the right to acquire silly idea in the whole country. So instead of years waiting on the council house waiting list and tenants being offered "temporary housing" they will be offered housing with a private landlord on a 3 year tenancy which will not be classed as temporary housing because the whole point of the 3 year tenancy is to give tenants more security to put down roots. So working from what has been written about the reasons for these 3 year tenancies you can see straight away that a 3 year tenancy with a private landlord will not be classed as temporary housing and will be classed as permanent housing so the tenant can be removed from the council house waiting list. This will leave only tenants who need adapted housing, supported housing or over 60s housing on the waiting list and the number people classed as homeless would be reduced to almost zero more or less overnight.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards