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

Options
11011131516

Comments

  • Smodlet
    Smodlet Posts: 6,976 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Querty wrote: »
    Things can sort themselves out but most likely the other tenants will just leave rather than become involved, especially if there are children involved, which is what happened in this case. I felt that things could potentially take a downward spiral at this point so decided to leave vacated flat empty until I could get the problematic tenant out, and take a hit on the income for a few months.

    As for passing the problem onto someone else, what is the alternative? At least if they keep getting s.21s eventually no one will rent to them and social housing will have to step in anyway.

    Actually even with the best will in the world I don't believe this type of problem is fixable and just has to be left to the landlord, imperfect though that is.

    If only all LLs were like you, Querty, if only.
  • Querty
    Querty Posts: 21 Forumite
    Options
    Smodlet wrote: »
    If only all LLs were like you, Querty, if only.


    The trouble is that if you can't trust landlords to do anything at all it becomes unworkable..
  • rachpid
    rachpid Posts: 34 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Cakeguts wrote: »
    So who ended this tenancy. Nationwide or you?

    We did as we wanted to relocate. Does that make a difference to anything?
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    rachpid wrote: »
    We did as we wanted to relocate. Does that make a difference to anything?


    I only asked because most tenancies are ended by the tenant not the landlord.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Querty wrote: »
    Things can sort themselves out but most likely the other tenants will just leave rather than become involved, especially if there are children involved, which is what happened in this case. I felt that things could potentially take a downward spiral at this point so decided to leave vacated flat empty until I could get the problematic tenant out, and take a hit on the income for a few months.

    As for passing the problem onto someone else, what is the alternative? At least if they keep getting s.21s eventually no one will rent to them and social housing will have to step in anyway.

    Actually even with the best will in the world I don't believe this type of problem is fixable and just has to be left to the landlord, imperfect though that is.


    The properties we have now are all agent managed. If the neighbours want the number of the agent we give it to them. One set of neighbours complained once about a late night party held by our tenants. The agent went out the next day and told our tenant that we as landlords would not put up with tenants who upset the neighbours (which is why the neighbours had the agents number in the first place) so if the tenants wanted to continue to live in the property they needed to modify their behaviour. It never happened again.



    One our properties has a neighbour who works nights. We specified no young children for tenants next door so that he didn't get woken up. Some landlords do care about their tenants not causing problems in the local community or to neighbours. This is one of the reasons why I don't want 3 year tenancies.
  • Querty
    Querty Posts: 21 Forumite
    Options
    Cakeguts wrote: »
    The properties we have now are all agent managed. If the neighbours want the number of the agent we give it to them. One set of neighbours complained once about a late night party held by our tenants. The agent went out the next day and told our tenant that we as landlords would not put up with tenants who upset the neighbours (which is why the neighbours had the agents number in the first place) so if the tenants wanted to continue to live in the property they needed to modify their behaviour. It never happened again.



    One our properties has a neighbour who works nights. We specified no young children for tenants next door so that he didn't get woken up. Some landlords do care about their tenants not causing problems in the local community or to neighbours. This is one of the reasons why I don't want 3 year tenancies.

    The children were only around at weekends otherwise it was just a single guy but it was enough to cause them distress and drive him out eventually. He had been there 2 years and I did not want him to go. This type of situation will get a whole lot worse with 3 year contracts and God forbid removal of s.21.
  • westernpromise
    westernpromise Posts: 4,833 Forumite
    Options
    Smodlet wrote: »
    Or spare a thought for the homeowners the other side of a party wall from the Chav from Hell, who holds loud, weed-smoking, weed-selling parties every week end, whose all-male guest list urinates in her front garden and who is almost certainly a prostitute.

    Yes, the council know, they have known for almost 2 years, as have the police and the utterly useless LL. None of them have to live next door to her. She might as well have a 3 year tenancy, she has already been there more than 2 and, apparently, has paid no rent for over 1... And guess who the LL expects us to feel sorry for!

    If she's a prostitute it's a criminal offence to let property knowingly to her, IIRC.
  • westernpromise
    westernpromise Posts: 4,833 Forumite
    Options
    I filled in the survey too and pointed out that if tenants wanted 3 year contracts they'd ask for them but they don't, and I also pointed out that if they wanted them they'd bid more for them but they don't. So if a 3 year tenancy is worth the same to the tenant as a 1-year, what's the problem?

    My suggestion was that by mutual consent landlords and renties could continue to agree to 1-year tenancies. If 3 years really are worth more to tenants and are worse for landlords, landlords will discount the price of 1-year tenancies, right?

    I also suggested that Section 24 be revoked for landlords offering 3-year tenancies. As that is something the government could tangibly do to make this happen, but would cost money, we can be sure they won't do it.
  • Smodlet
    Smodlet Posts: 6,976 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    If she's a prostitute it's a criminal offence to let property knowingly to her, IIRC.

    Her new career path came about only after the abusive BF was excluded from the property by the Closure Order. The LL never met any of his tenants until the non payment of rent went on long enough for him to fire the utterly useless LA. I doubt he even knew their names. Not that the new one has done anything, either. Besides, no amount of proof is ever enough for either the police or the council. They will do absolutely anything to ensure they have to do nothing.

    They were given video evidence of a breach of the injunction and her barrister shot it down because there was no time stamp on it. I could not make this up.

    He/they are exactly the type of people who should be banned from letting to anyone, ever. If the government actually wanted to make a difference, that is what they should be legislating about, not making things even easier for such scum.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Smodlet wrote: »
    Her new career path came about only after the abusive BF was excluded from the property by the Closure Order. The LL never met any of his tenants until the non payment of rent went on long enough for him to fire the utterly useless LA. I doubt he even knew their names. Not that the new one has done anything, either. Besides, no amount of proof is ever enough for either the police or the council. They will do absolutely anything to ensure they have to do nothing.

    They were given video evidence of a breach of the injunction and her barrister shot it down because there was no time stamp on it. I could not make this up.

    He/they are exactly the type of people who should be banned from letting to anyone, ever. If the government actually wanted to make a difference, that is what they should be legislating about, not making things even easier for such scum.


    Local paper? Nice juicy story about neighbour from hell with interviews from all her neigbours. Also with comments about useless landlord etc.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards