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
Comments
-
The problem is if i had evicted my last tenant with s8 rather than s21 they wouldn't have been given a property by the local Housing Association, they would have been deemed intentionally homeless. I would then have been stuck with them for months not being paid any rent at all.
They ultimately would have been left homeless with a young baby, naturally I as their evil Landlord would have been blamed for this and not them for failing to bring their arrears down or listen to me in my attempts to get them to talk to debt charities on at least 3 occasions.
IF the s8 eviction route was quicker (14 days) then i really have no issue with longer 3 year contracts because i can actually get rid of the bad tenants when i need to. This is why this proposal is bad it offers good Landlords nothing but more risk, in turn it will hurt all the good Tenants with less supply and maybe higher rents. This proposal is designed to BUY votes just as Labours ideas on housing are, they do not in my opinion fix or alleviate our housing problems long term at all.
I thought the Section 8 route was quicker.
Why would you have been stuck with the non-paying tenants for longer if you went down the Section 8 route? You would have your possession order then you could appoint bailiffs and out they go. The fact they would have nowhere to go is their own hard cheese.0 -
As a tenant, all I want to know is that my tenancy is secure and I will be able to make my rental property my home for as long as I want it to be.
In our last property, we were told that the landlord would be happy to extend once the 6-month contract was up, as it was we found out a month in that he wanted to sell and would be happy for us to leave early (which we did but only because we were found a new, better property by the letting agent and had some fees deducted for the inconvenience).
We're now on a 12-month contract at our new place, but due to our recent experience can't help but have a nagging doubt that for whatever reason not in our hands maybe we won't be able to stay for as long as we'd like. That's no way to live! We can't afford to buy, and won't be able to for a good while yet. A longer contract would at least give us the security, even if it was 18 or 24 months rather than 36.0 -
I still await an explanation of what you expect me to do.
If I dropped the price of the old house to make it sell, then just who is going to reduce the cost of building materials and labour to reduce the construction cost of the new house I am building proportionately to the drop in the sale price?
It is not building costs that make houses expensive, it is years of cheap credit, brainwashing by the media and too low interest rates. In your position as it seems it looks like you just stay put? I was talking about someone with a second property to sell that they don`t live in.0 -
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-74095826.html
This is where your idea falls down. This property is advertised as suitable for a 1st time buyer or investor. 1st time buyers will not buy in this terrible area if they can get a house somewhere else. It won't matter how cheap it is. This is the kind of area where you try to escape from. If you can afford a house you don't want to buy one here. There are council house estates like this all over the country. The only people who want to live on them are council tenants and that is because they have no choice. So this house is either going to be a private rental or a social rental it isn't going to be privately owned. If an investor doesn't want to buy this house it won't sell. Houses like this only sell if they have the council discount to the tenant no one else wants them. There is no shortage of houses for sale in this general area at this price.
So what happens to houses on these estates if investors leave the market? First time buyers don't want them they can get a shared ownership house for the same price on a new estate in a much better area or they can buy a slightly smaller terraced house for the same price in a much better area. Remember there isn't a shortage of houses for sale in this area.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54073656.html Now here is another one on another council estate in the same town which has been on the market since last year.
Here is one not on a council estate and it is sold https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-63963568.html
No, if the new tenancy rules are applied across the board to all rental contracts then a "Lets just rent it out" middle class couple who hope to sell in 6 months will be just as impacted as a BTL landlord with ten dumps on a dodgy estate, they have a choice of take a long term tenant, and pay the appropriate tax and put up with the potential hassle, or price the property to get rid of it.0 -
As a tenant, all I want to know is that my tenancy is secure and I will be able to make my rental property my home for as long as I want it to be.
That's the whole crux of the issue isn't it...not necessarily a 3 year term.
As a LL potentially letting to an unknown tenant I am no more likely to want to sign a 3 year contract with you than you are with me.
But after a 6 month probationary we may all be getting along fine and both then happy to sign for as long as you want.
I said earlier one size doesn't fit all and my view still stands.
I genuinely understand the desire for the government to create stability and roots but there are just too many variables in this.in S 38 T 2 F 50
out S 36 T 9 F 24 FF 4
2017-32 2018 -33 2019 -21 2020 -5 2021 -4 20220 -
need_an_answer wrote: »That's the whole crux of the issue isn't it...not necessarily a 3 year term.
As a LL potentially letting to an unknown tenant I am no more likely to want to sign a 3 year contract with you than you are with me.
But after a 6 month probationary we may all be getting along fine and both then happy to sign for as long as you want.
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.0 -
I thought the Section 8 route was quicker.
Why would you have been stuck with the non-paying tenants for longer if you went down the Section 8 route? You would have your possession order then you could appoint bailiffs and out they go. The fact they would have nowhere to go is their own hard cheese.
It has taken my local court 5 weeks to send a simple form back to me where they literally had to tick two boxes and stamp it and send it back. Do you think having a court hearing will be quicker? followed by having to wait for bailiff availability for the actual eviction? given the tenant would be homeless do you think they would not attempt to appeal further delaying the process?
s21 allowed them to immediately go to the local HA, they made it clear they needed a good reference to get the property or they wouldn't be able to move. So i "worked" with the tenant as best as i could to help them and me move on quickly. (Never trust a reference from the previous Landlord)
The problem i had with s8 was they didn't at that point have 2 months arrears, they were persistently late with rent and had broken arrears agreements but ground 11 of s8 is not mandatory grounds and is open to the judge's discretion, the fact the tenant had got pregnant only helped their case with a judge. I knew with certainty that these tenants had turned bad and with maternity leave due to reduce her income further it was obvious this situation would get worse. Once the HA agreed to give them a property they stopped paying completely.
s21 is the best option for Landlords because there is no defence and no appeal if it is served correctly.
Bad tenants can quickly accumulate thousands of pounds of arrears such as the thread that was recently deleted of the young lady the landlord was owed £5000+ because he didn't want to evict her and her child because he was weirdly attached to them. That young lady will be getting tax payer funded accommodation and that debt will get written off, either by the landlord or by bankruptcy. She will suffer few long term consequences while a rogue landlord? you only need look at the £400k fine that is on artful's evict a rogue landlord thread to see there are serious consequences for bad landlords.
We need to help good Tenants and good Landlords not invent policies that buy some votes for the next election but will do nothing much more than fluff around the edges of the problems of housing in the country as a whole.When using the housing forum please use the sticky threads for valuable information.0 -
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.0
-
It has taken my local court 5 weeks to send a simple form back to me where they literally had to tick two boxes and stamp it and send it back. Do you think having a court hearing will be quicker? followed by having to wait for bailiff availability for the actual eviction? given the tenant would be homeless do you think they would not attempt to appeal further delaying the process?
s21 allowed them to immediately go to the local HA, they made it clear they needed a good reference to get the property or they wouldn't be able to move. So i "worked" with the tenant as best as i could to help them and me move on quickly. (Never trust a reference from the previous Landlord)
The problem i had with s8 was they didn't at that point have 2 months arrears, they were persistently late with rent and had broken arrears agreements but ground 11 of s8 is not mandatory grounds and is open to the judge's discretion, the fact the tenant had got pregnant only helped their case with a judge. I knew with certainty that these tenants had turned bad and with maternity leave due to reduce her income further it was obvious this situation would get worse. Once the HA agreed to give them a property they stopped paying completely.
s21 is the best option for Landlords because there is no defence and no appeal if it is served correctly.
Bad tenants can quickly accumulate thousands of pounds of arrears such as the thread that was recently deleted of the young lady the landlord was owed £5000+ because he didn't want to evict her and her child because he was weirdly attached to them. That young lady will be getting tax payer funded accommodation and that debt will get written off, either by the landlord or by bankruptcy. She will suffer few long term consequences while a rogue landlord? you only need look at the £400k fine that is on artful's evict a rogue landlord thread to see there are serious consequences for bad landlords.
We need to help good Tenants and good Landlords not invent policies that buy some votes for the next election but will do nothing much more than fluff around the edges of the problems of housing in the country as a whole.
You were fortunate, although it might not have seemed like it at the time, that the council rehoused the tenants because you issued a Section 21. Many wait until bailiffs are physically removing the tenants from the property before helping.
Edit: The other thread you are referring to was a wind up. In saying that though what landlord would let a tenant build up 7+ months of arrears before considering taking action? Notice should have been served months ago and the council contacted so that the housing benefit went straight to the landlord.0 -
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.
Did they only have one branch?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards