Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Megan F
    • By MSE Megan F 2nd Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    • 356Posts
    • 173Thanks
    MSE Megan F
    MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters
    • #1
    • 2nd Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters 2nd Jul 18 at 3:59 PM
    Three-year tenancies could be introduced in a bid to give renters more long-term security, the Government has announced...
    Read the full story:
    'Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you havent already, join the forum to reply.
    Read the latest MSE News
    Flag up a news story: news@moneysavingexpert.com
    Get the Free Martin's Money Tips E-mail
Page 4
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 4th Jul 18, 11:20 AM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,538 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    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?
    Originally posted by ProDave
    What does the market value of the property you are trying to sell have to do with cost of buying your building materials. It's no different to those people who won't accept that their house isn't selling because they need to achieve a price of X in order to be able to afford the next house. The house being sold is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 4th Jul 18, 11:23 AM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,538 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    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.
    Originally posted by tom9980
    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.
    • rachpid
    • By rachpid 4th Jul 18, 12:49 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    rachpid
    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.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 4th Jul 18, 1:10 PM
    • 6,514 Posts
    • 2,437 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    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?
    Originally posted by ProDave

    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.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 4th Jul 18, 1:16 PM
    • 6,514 Posts
    • 2,437 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    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
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    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.
    • need an answer
    • By need an answer 4th Jul 18, 1:21 PM
    • 943 Posts
    • 1,153 Thanks
    need an answer
    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.
    Originally posted by rachpid
    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 36 T 57 F 57
    out S 51 T 60 F 65
    2017 -32
    • rachpid
    • By rachpid 4th Jul 18, 2:11 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    rachpid
    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.
    Originally posted by need an answer
    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.
    • tom9980
    • By tom9980 4th Jul 18, 2:12 PM
    • 1,312 Posts
    • 3,889 Thanks
    tom9980
    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.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    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.
    In order to change, we must be sick and tired of being sick and tired.
    • Soundgirlrocks
    • By Soundgirlrocks 4th Jul 18, 2:49 PM
    • 528 Posts
    • 796 Thanks
    Soundgirlrocks
    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.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 4th Jul 18, 3:04 PM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,538 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    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.
    Originally posted by tom9980
    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.
    Last edited by Pixie5740; 04-07-2018 at 3:11 PM.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 4th Jul 18, 4:30 PM
    • 6,514 Posts
    • 2,437 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    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.
    Originally posted by rachpid

    Did they only have one branch?
    • Morbier
    • By Morbier 5th Jul 18, 1:10 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Morbier
    Speaking as a tenant, I would welcome the chance of a three-year tenancy. It's the lack of security that makes renting a precarious solution. We can't all afford to buy, and those of us who are looking for long-term rentals want somewhere to call 'Home'. Not a property, but a HOME! Somewhere that you can settle for a while, make friends, participate in local events and so on. Just like the rest of you. We're no different, we just don't have the money/circumstances to buy.

    I've rented three homes, the first for fifteen years (given notice to quit as landlord was retiring and wanted to sell the house); the second for five years (our dream cottage in the country, again an out-of-the-blue notice to quit as it was a farm cottage and was needed for a new farm worker). We've been in this one almost a year and have a fantastic landlord, who says he will probably need it in three or four years' time as he intends to retire to it. But who knows? He may change his mind. His prerogative, but my problem.

    We're good tenants, just the two of us, never paid rent late, looked after everywhere we've lived as if it were our own, spent a fortune on paint, curtains, garden stuff, moving costs etc. That's all part of renting. It's very much a gamble, so anything that gives you a bit of peace of mind is very, very welcome.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 5th Jul 18, 7:18 AM
    • 31,132 Posts
    • 59,513 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Speaking as a tenant, I would welcome the chance of a three-year tenancy. It's the lack of security that makes renting a precarious solution. We can't all afford to buy, and those of us who are looking for long-term rentals want somewhere to call 'Home'. Not a property, but a HOME! Somewhere that you can settle for a while, make friends, participate in local events and so on. Just like the rest of you. We're no different, we just don't have the money/circumstances to buy.

    I've rented three homes, the first for fifteen years (given notice to quit as landlord was retiring and wanted to sell the house); the second for five years (our dream cottage in the country, again an out-of-the-blue notice to quit as it was a farm cottage and was needed for a new farm worker). We've been in this one almost a year and have a fantastic landlord, who says he will probably need it in three or four years' time as he intends to retire to it. But who knows? He may change his mind. His prerogative, but my problem.

    We're good tenants, just the two of us, never paid rent late, looked after everywhere we've lived as if it were our own, spent a fortune on paint, curtains, garden stuff, moving costs etc. That's all part of renting. It's very much a gamble, so anything that gives you a bit of peace of mind is very, very welcome.
    Originally posted by Morbier
    But you are the dream tenants. Others are not. And a LL might not know the difference. So they give an initial six months so that landlord and tenant can decide whether they want to continue their relationship. After that, if both are happy, there is no reason for the relationship not to continue.
    Member #10 of 2 savers club
    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
    • Morglin
    • By Morglin 5th Jul 18, 7:44 AM
    • 14,658 Posts
    • 26,972 Thanks
    Morglin
    We just need much more social housing to be built. Demand outstrips supply leading to too many unscrupulous landlords, charging exorbitant rent.

    When I first privately rented in the 70's, it was simple. Rent book, months rent in advance, fair rents officers around and plenty of choice of flats.



    Lin
    You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands..........for instance, if they are placed around your throat, she's probably slightly upset.
    • buggy_boy
    • By buggy_boy 5th Jul 18, 9:37 AM
    • 535 Posts
    • 393 Thanks
    buggy_boy
    We just need much more social housing to be built. Demand outstrips supply leading to too many unscrupulous landlords, charging exorbitant rent.

    When I first privately rented in the 70's, it was simple. Rent book, months rent in advance, fair rents officers around and plenty of choice of flats.



    Lin
    Originally posted by Morglin
    Who will pay for this housing? The reason social housing rent is cheaper is because it is not at market rate and so is being effectively subsidised by the tax payer.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 5th Jul 18, 9:58 AM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,538 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    Who will pay for this housing? The reason social housing rent is cheaper is because it is not at market rate and so is being effectively subsidised by the tax payer.
    Originally posted by buggy_boy
    That's not really true is it? Social landlords are not trying to make a profit whereas private landlords are in it for the money (nothing wrong with that BTW). Private landlords tend to have higher costs than social landlords such as letting agency fees and mortgage interest. I imagine that tradespeople are also more expensive for private landlords because social landlords have more properties and can therefore put more business their way. Surely the unit price of having one boiler serviced is more than having hundreds of boilers serviced.
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 5th Jul 18, 10:27 AM
    • 4,263 Posts
    • 5,542 Thanks
    westernpromise
    That's not really true is it? Social landlords are not trying to make a profit whereas private landlords are in it for the money (nothing wrong with that BTW). Private landlords tend to have higher costs than social landlords such as letting agency fees and mortgage interest. I imagine that tradespeople are also more expensive for private landlords because social landlords have more properties and can therefore put more business their way. Surely the unit price of having one boiler serviced is more than having hundreds of boilers serviced.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    I've actually found the opposite. At one point I had one managed and one unmanaged (i.e. self managed) property and the tradesmen charged far less at the former than the latter. The reason was that the managing agent put huge amounts of business their way, knew what jobs ought to cost, and didn't fall for the repeated visits scam where the tradesman repairs several inessential expensive things before fixing the actual cheap-to-fix problem.

    The most outrageous instance of this was when, as an owner, I had a faulty boiler that wouldn't light and a dishonest plumber replaced the control panel for 300. It still didn't work and an honest plumber replaced a c-shaped strip of metal that was part of the ignition and which cost 1.

    Between that and the fact that tenants get a better service, I reckon management pays for itself. The reason landlords don't use it is that they're so over-borrowed, paying for management would wipe out their cashflow. For landlords like that, avoiding or stinting on doing proper repairs is the difference between making a profit and making a loss.
    Last edited by westernpromise; 05-07-2018 at 10:32 AM.
    Buying a house, if you believe the market has a way to fall, or if you are paying sill asking prices ( like some sheeple ) or if you are buying in London, is now a massive financial gamble!!!!! - June 8, 2012 by TheCountOfNowhere
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 5th Jul 18, 10:33 AM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,538 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    I've actually found the opposite. At one point I had one managed and one unmanaged (i.e. self managed) property and the tradesman charged far less at the former than the latter. The reason was that the managing agent put huge amounts of business their way, knew what jobs ought to cost, and didn't fall for the repeated visits scam where the tradesman repairs the most expensive thing.

    Between that and the fact that tenants get a better service, I reckon management pays for itself.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    Is that the opposite of what I said? Bulk purchasing gives the purchaser more power to negotiate costs down is what I was saying and now you are agreeing. I'm guessing you took a little care when choosing the letting agent and didn't use Foxtons...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11658257/Foxtons-facing-huge-legal-bill-after-landlord-is-charged-616-to-change-light-fitting.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/19/foxtons-letting-bill-charge-landlord-tenants-check
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 5th Jul 18, 10:54 AM
    • 4,263 Posts
    • 5,542 Thanks
    westernpromise
    Is that the opposite of what I said? Bulk purchasing gives the purchaser more power to negotiate costs down is what I was saying and now you are agreeing. I'm guessing you took a little care when choosing the letting agent and didn't use Foxtons...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11658257/Foxtons-facing-huge-legal-bill-after-landlord-is-charged-616-to-change-light-fitting.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/19/foxtons-letting-bill-charge-landlord-tenants-check
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    My point was that private landlords who go through a letting agent enjoy the same advantages of scale as a social landlord would, whereas individual BTLers do not.
    Buying a house, if you believe the market has a way to fall, or if you are paying sill asking prices ( like some sheeple ) or if you are buying in London, is now a massive financial gamble!!!!! - June 8, 2012 by TheCountOfNowhere
    • rachpid
    • By rachpid 5th Jul 18, 11:04 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    rachpid
    Did they only have one branch?
    Originally posted by Crashy Time
    The branch we lived above!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

21Posts Today

4,018Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin