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 havenít 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 6
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 11:31 AM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 11:40 AM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    Yep, it is always about massaging figures to make the government look good, never about helping actual people least of all those at the lower end of the food chain who probably don't vote Tory. Just look at the pig's ear they have made of the energy prices issue.

    I don't know why they don't have the stones just to lie without all this "consultation" BS. It is not as if we don't all know they lie anyway.
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 9th Jul 18, 12:59 PM
    • 6,517 Posts
    • 2,439 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    https://www.property118.com/government-look-throw-landlords-bus-3-year-tenancies/comment-page-7/
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 9th Jul 18, 1:16 PM
    • 1,383 Posts
    • 2,173 Thanks
    parkrunner
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    But surely tenants on a six month tenancy aren't considered to be temporary? Also only anecdotal obviously but so far and including myself only one person I know is against the idea of a three year tenancy.



    I think once it's finalised (if ever) it might be that landlords have to offer a three year tenancy along with existing options and the tenant has the right to pick the best option for them.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 1:37 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.



    The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.



    Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 9th Jul 18, 1:45 PM
    • 12,907 Posts
    • 18,556 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    Unlike in Scotland, landlords in England have no responsibility regarding the behaviour of their tenants to others. You are free to let the property to Wayne and Waynetta slob without any comeback. Many times when posters here have issues with anti-social neghbours who are private tenants they are told there's no point contacting the landlord.



    The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    That's an extreme case. Even if the AST was only for 6 months the tenant could still remove the internal wall and scarper out of England or Wales.



    Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    I'm not sure 3 year AST are the way to go. I think a system like the new PRT in Scotland would be better - no end date for the tenant but more grounds for eviction for the landlord.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 1:46 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    But surely tenants on a six month tenancy aren't considered to be temporary? Also only anecdotal obviously but so far and including myself only one person I know is against the idea of a three year tenancy.



    I think once it's finalised (if ever) it might be that landlords have to offer a three year tenancy along with existing options and the tenant has the right to pick the best option for them.
    Originally posted by parkrunner

    There aren't any existing options planned. The whole point is so that "families can put down roots." so obviously 6 months is viewed as not long enough and is viewed a temporary otherwise there would be no need for the 3 years.



    What it will cause is that mobile workers will have two houses. One vacant one where they live some of the time and that they own and one rented one near to their work. So that will reduce the availability of rented housing straight away. There was nothing in the survey to say that they were considering the option of keeping the 6 month tenancies that we have now. So it looks like 3 year tenancies will be the standard.



    If they also abolish no fault Section 21 we are back to the rent acts. Anyone who only has one property would do well to consider selling now. I have got absolutely wonderful tenants but I don't think I can continue to let to them if this goes through because I will have to carry all the risk.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 2:11 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    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!
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 2:24 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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!
    Originally posted by Smodlet


    I expect she is exactly the kind of person that the government and housing charities have in mind. After all all those greedy landlords who are any good at being a landlord are going to be evicting her continuously after 6 months. Lets you know that the housing charities don't care about the people who have to live next door to people like this.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 9th Jul 18, 2:56 PM
    • 6,517 Posts
    • 2,439 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.



    The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.



    Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    They want amateurs to stop being landlords, it is pretty obvious now? Having said that I don`t think we will see 3 year tenancies, 12 months is more than adequate.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 9th Jul 18, 3:25 PM
    • 2,194 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    I expect she is exactly the kind of person that the government and housing charities have in mind. After all all those greedy landlords who are any good at being a landlord are going to be evicting her continuously after 6 months. Lets you know that the housing charities don't care about the people who have to live next door to people like this.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    I'm a little bit confused. Whilst I agree it is not pleasant to live next to someone who is engaging in anti-social behaviour, evicting them probably just passes the problem along? Surely the goal should be to stop the anti social behaviour? I think actually removing the no fault option to eviction would improve this process. Say that anti social behaviour was a grounds for "at fault" eviction. Such an eviction would have greater ongoing consequences and as such the threat of it would be more likely to persaude tenants to improve their behaviour.



    That said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for landlords to be policing anti social behaviour. Owner occupiers can also be anti social; I don't see it as desireable that we treat them differently. Not least because different landlords will have vastly different attitudes towards it and many just won't be bothered as long as the rent is paid and house isn't damaged.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 3:25 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    They want amateurs to stop being landlords, it is pretty obvious now? Having said that I don`t think we will see 3 year tenancies, 12 months is more than adequate.
    Originally posted by Crashy Time

    Not as much as I do, Crashy. Personally, I think 6 months is more than enough time to get the measure of a person in any situation, be it a tenancy, a job or whatever. How many threads are on this board about nuisance neighbours? It is a huge problem and more than high time it was addressed. What is the point of wasting public money on court cases and injunctions if no-one can be bothered to enforce them?

    The council here seems to be just like the politicians in Whitehall in that it is all about being seen to be doing something rather than having the slightest effect on anything or anyone.
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 3:35 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I'm a little bit confused. Whilst I agree it is not pleasant to live next to someone who is engaging in anti-social behaviour, evicting them probably just passes the problem along? Surely the goal should be to stop the anti social behaviour? I think actually removing the no fault option to eviction would improve this process. Say that anti social behaviour was a grounds for "at fault" eviction. Such an eviction would have greater ongoing consequences and as such the threat of it would be more likely to persaude tenants to improve their behaviour.



    That said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for landlords to be policing anti social behaviour. Owner occupiers can also be anti social; I don't see it as desireable that we treat them differently. Not least because different landlords will have vastly different attitudes towards it and many just won't be bothered as long as the rent is paid and house isn't damaged.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391

    Tenants can be evicted from social housing for anti social behaviour because of the impact it has on the local community and the neighbours. So why would private landlords and their neighbours have to put up with it? The only people who can control anti social behaviour are the people doing it. What do you think ASBOS were introduced for?
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 3:36 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    I'm a little bit confused. Whilst I agree it is not pleasant to live next to someone who is engaging in anti-social behaviour, evicting them probably just passes the problem along? Surely the goal should be to stop the anti social behaviour? I think actually removing the no fault option to eviction would improve this process. Say that anti social behaviour was a grounds for "at fault" eviction. Such an eviction would have greater ongoing consequences and as such the threat of it would be more likely to persaude tenants to improve their behaviour.



    That said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for landlords to be policing anti social behaviour. Owner occupiers can also be anti social; I don't see it as desireable that we treat them differently. Not least because different landlords will have vastly different attitudes towards it and many just won't be bothered as long as the rent is paid and house isn't damaged.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391

    You really have no clue, do you? If you had had to live through the sleep deprived hell we have for two years, you might just think differently. It is a wonder we can think at all, some days, after one hour's sleep and constantly waiting for the scum to start again.

    This is not Utopia, it is real life. I could not give a damn if all that happens is the problem is passed on to someone else. I just hope it is to someone who will, shall we say, show her the error of her ways by less legal methods than the ones we are prepared to employ.

    We have done everything we can, as I have already stated. The judge should have issued a warrant for the Chav's arrest for contempt of court over two weeks ago; instead, he sat there shaking his head and saying her behaviour, "must be stopped" when he is the only one with the power to make that happen.

    He should be sentenced to having to live next door to her for 2 years with no redress. That would be justice.

    The LL wants her out but is too much of a poocee to make it happen. I am sick to death of reading on here that it takes "a maximum of 42 weeks" to evict a tenant. He has had half of that again and cannot even get a notice issued because he is too tight to pay for bailiffs. The fact he could have applied to the High Court and been receiving rent for the last year + seems to escape him. He would rather bribe her to leave; he told us that in person.

    We are screwed by him, the police, the council and most of all by the Chav from Hell. What would you do, Rosemary? Make nice? Don't you think we tried that?
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 3:58 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    You really have no clue, do you? If you had had to live through the sleep deprived hell we have for two years, you might just think differently. It is a wonder we can think at all, some days, after one hour's sleep and constantly waiting for the scum to start again.

    This is not Utopia, it is real life. I could not give a damn if all that happens is the problem is passed on to someone else. I just hope it is to someone who will, shall we say, show her the error of her ways by less legal methods than the ones we are prepared to employ.

    We have done everything we can, as I have already stated. The judge should have issued a warrant for the Chav's arrest for contempt of court over two weeks ago; instead, he sat there shaking his head and saying her behaviour, "must be stopped" when he is the only one with the power to make that happen.

    He should be sentenced to having to live next door to her for 2 years with no redress. That would be justice.

    The LL wants her out but is too much of a poocee to make it happen. I am sick to death of reading on here that it takes "a maximum of 42 weeks" to evict a tenant. He has had half of that again and cannot even get a notice issued because he is too tight to pay for bailiffs. The fact he could have applied to the High Court and been receiving rent for the last year + seems to escape him. He would rather bribe her to leave; he told us that in person.

    We are screwed by him, the police, the council and most of all by the Chav from Hell. What would you do, Rosemary? Make nice? Don't you think we tried that?
    Originally posted by Smodlet

    Is it just bad behaviour or is it a mental health issue? I really feel for you it sounds horrible. The landlord is an idiot.



    In the next borough to where I live (not near me thank goodness but someone has to put up with it) there are feral children who don't go to school and just run round the area all day. Their parents don't care where they are. Young children out of control. Just imagine what sort of neighbours they are going to make.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 4:35 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    The "mental health" card has been played, ad nauseum. Even the council acknowledge that, when injunctions are issued, then re-issued and tightened up (what a laugh, when breaches are ignored by the useless tool that passes for a judge) the Chav modifies her behaviour, a lot, for a time. Then she resumes. We record sound, neighbours opposite record video because of course, the police can't be expected to lift a finger, let alone show up unless all the work has already been done for them, can they?

    They show up. They ask her to keep it down. She is oh, so reasonable. They hang around for a whole ten minutes, then leave. You'll never guess what happens next. Yep, as if nothing had happened, and it might as well not have.

    So the Chav is far from so incapacitated that she cannot understand she is committing anti social behaviour. She apparently has a record as long as your arm yet, for some reason, is still walking around loose. The problem is, she never has to face any consequences so why should she stop? Where else is she going to live rent-free? OH and I see no end to the hell, now. Even I, who have six Phd's in cynicism, foolishly hoped we might finally be rid of her 2 weeks ago. Silly me.

    And to think we bent over backwards to be helpful when she and her abusive BF moved in. She could not wait to tell us how violent he was, the poor, little victim. The council did actually get around (eventually) to issuing a Closure Order against him well over a year ago and told us they would do likewise for her, then chickened out.

    And these morons want 3 year tenancies? The Age of the Chav is upon us and most of them probably don't even bother to vote.
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Querty
    • By Querty 9th Jul 18, 5:18 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    I'm a little bit confused. Whilst I agree it is not pleasant to live next to someone who is engaging in anti-social behaviour, evicting them probably just passes the problem along? Surely the goal should be to stop the anti social behaviour? I think actually removing the no fault option to eviction would improve this process. Say that anti social behaviour was a grounds for "at fault" eviction. Such an eviction would have greater ongoing consequences and as such the threat of it would be more likely to persaude tenants to improve their behaviour.



    That said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for landlords to be policing anti social behaviour. Owner occupiers can also be anti social; I don't see it as desireable that we treat them differently. Not least because different landlords will have vastly different attitudes towards it and many just won't be bothered as long as the rent is paid and house isn't damaged.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    What if you are the landlord of the antisocial behaviour tenant from hell and also your other tenants are in neighbouring flats, such as in an HMO or converted house block of flats? This is the situation I was in and I found out how inadequate s.8 provisions are and was counting the days down to when I could use the s.21 after 12 months.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 5:21 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    What if you are the landlord of the antisocial behaviour tenant from hell and also your other tenants are in neighbouring flats, such as in an HMO or converted house block of flats? This is the situation I was in and I found out how inadequate s.8 provisions are and was counting the days down to when I could use the s.21 after 12 months.
    Originally posted by Querty
    Thank you, Querty, and to Cakeguts (with whom I do not always agree) from the bottom of my heart.
    Last edited by Smodlet; 09-07-2018 at 5:23 PM.
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 9th Jul 18, 10:22 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Thank you, Querty, and to Cakeguts (with whom I do not always agree) from the bottom of my heart.
    Originally posted by Smodlet

    I don't care if people don't agree with me because I love a discussion.



    One of our tenants once kept a potential neighbour from hell under control by having a boyfriend who looked like a bigger thug than anyone the neighbour from hell could produce. The boyfriend didn't actually have to do anything other than be seen by the neighbour.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 9th Jul 18, 10:37 PM
    • 3,892 Posts
    • 7,136 Thanks
    Smodlet
    I don't care if people don't agree with me because I love a discussion.



    One of our tenants once kept a potential neighbour from hell under control by having a boyfriend who looked like a bigger thug than anyone the neighbour from hell could produce. The boyfriend didn't actually have to do anything other than be seen by the neighbour.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    What a pity OH is at the other end of the spectrum. It should not be about that. Why are so many people so ignorant of the most basic values these days? They never spare a thought for anyone who is not them. It is most certainly not the way I was brought up.
    What is this life if, sweet wordsmith, we have no time to take the pith?
    Every stew starts with the first onion.
    I took it upon myself to investigate a trifle; it had custard, jelly, soggy sponge things...
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

436Posts Today

4,889Users online

Martin's Twitter