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 7
    • Querty
    • By Querty 10th Jul 18, 9:53 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    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
    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.
    Last edited by Querty; 10-07-2018 at 9:56 AM.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 10th Jul 18, 10:12 AM
    • 3,889 Posts
    • 7,135 Thanks
    Smodlet
    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.
    Originally posted by Querty
    If only all LLs were like you, Querty, if only.
    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 10th Jul 18, 10:53 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    If only all LLs were like you, Querty, if only.
    Originally posted by Smodlet

    The trouble is that if you can't trust landlords to do anything at all it becomes unworkable..
    • rachpid
    • By rachpid 10th Jul 18, 1:03 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    rachpid
    So who ended this tenancy. Nationwide or you?
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    We did as we wanted to relocate. Does that make a difference to anything?
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 10th Jul 18, 1:31 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    We did as we wanted to relocate. Does that make a difference to anything?
    Originally posted by rachpid

    I only asked because most tenancies are ended by the tenant not the landlord.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 10th Jul 18, 1:37 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by Querty

    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
    • By Querty 10th Jul 18, 2:44 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    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
    • By westernpromise 10th Jul 18, 5:15 PM
    • 4,263 Posts
    • 5,543 Thanks
    westernpromise
    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
    If she's a prostitute it's a criminal offence to let property knowingly to her, IIRC.
    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
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 10th Jul 18, 5:20 PM
    • 4,263 Posts
    • 5,543 Thanks
    westernpromise
    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.
    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
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 10th Jul 18, 8:13 PM
    • 3,889 Posts
    • 7,135 Thanks
    Smodlet
    If she's a prostitute it's a criminal offence to let property knowingly to her, IIRC.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    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.
    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 10th Jul 18, 8:18 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by Smodlet

    Local paper? Nice juicy story about neighbour from hell with interviews from all her neigbours. Also with comments about useless landlord etc.
    • Querty
    • By Querty 11th Jul 18, 8:24 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    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.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    I agree it should be about flexibility and mutual agreement. Even the 3 year contract would not be so bad if there was a break clause at 6 months for the landlord as well because the sort of problems not effectively covered by s.8 would be seen very quickly after tenant moves in. Then if tenant wants a 3 year contract they should be held to it and lose the freedom to move out should a neighbour from hell move in next door to them unless they want to take it through the courts themselves.
    Last edited by Querty; 11-07-2018 at 9:20 AM.
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 11th Jul 18, 9:32 AM
    • 4,263 Posts
    • 5,543 Thanks
    westernpromise
    The irritating thing about all this to me is that we have a government that purports to believe in markets, but has not absorbed the fact that the price is sending a complete signal.

    Typical tenant bid for a 3-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.
    Typical tenant bid for a 1-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.

    If the bid is the same whether the offer is 3 years or 1, that means 3 years are not worth more than one, so why does the big stupid state think it might be?
    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
    • Querty
    • By Querty 11th Jul 18, 10:49 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    The irritating thing about all this to me is that we have a government that purports to believe in markets, but has not absorbed the fact that the price is sending a complete signal.

    Typical tenant bid for a 3-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.
    Typical tenant bid for a 1-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.

    If the bid is the same whether the offer is 3 years or 1, that means 3 years are not worth more than one, so why does the big stupid state think it might be?
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    Yes it all seems a bit like a Labour policy...how long is it now to the general election?

    I was looking to rent in London in the mid 90's and the rental market seemed to consist mainly of people renting out their houses to sharers, as they couldn't sell because they were in negative equity due to the house price crash. There were few professional landlords around. The situation is different now because house prices are out of reach in London but I don't understand why suddenly rental laws are the problem.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 11th Jul 18, 4:48 PM
    • 3,889 Posts
    • 7,135 Thanks
    Smodlet
    Local paper? Nice juicy story about neighbour from hell with interviews from all her neigbours. Also with comments about useless landlord etc.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    To what end, Cakeguts? No, just no. We have suffered more than enough already. The lowlifes she inevitably attracts need no more encouragement. She has already broken a very expensive pane of frosted glass only months after it was installed. We are not prepared to elicit any further violation or violence from her or her clients/guests/pimp/whoever!
    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 11th Jul 18, 9:48 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    To what end, Cakeguts? No, just no. We have suffered more than enough already. The lowlifes she inevitably attracts need no more encouragement. She has already broken a very expensive pane of frosted glass only months after it was installed. We are not prepared to elicit any further violation or violence from her or her clients/guests/pimp/whoever!
    Originally posted by Smodlet

    No I meant from your point of view and your neighbours as living in street with a neighbour from hell and the council and police and anyone else who should be helping you is doing nothing to help you. You could also mention that the landlord is useless. Sometimes local newspapers do stories that make the council or other interested parties who are being called useless get their fingers out and do something especially if it is written in such a way that makes you and your neighbours look like victims of this evil woman. You have to get the rest of the community on your side.
    • Smodlet
    • By Smodlet 12th Jul 18, 9:36 AM
    • 3,889 Posts
    • 7,135 Thanks
    Smodlet
    No I meant from your point of view and your neighbours as living in street with a neighbour from hell and the council and police and anyone else who should be helping you is doing nothing to help you. You could also mention that the landlord is useless. Sometimes local newspapers do stories that make the council or other interested parties who are being called useless get their fingers out and do something especially if it is written in such a way that makes you and your neighbours look like victims of this evil woman. You have to get the rest of the community on your side.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    "The rest of the community", with one notable exception, have no intention of getting involved. They have had 2 years in which to do so. We are on our own. I am sure it would be a different story if they had to live the other side of a wall from her. We have done all we can. It is up to the LL now. Thank you for your support but we will leave it there.
    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 12th Jul 18, 11:20 AM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Yes it all seems a bit like a Labour policy...how long is it now to the general election?

    I was looking to rent in London in the mid 90's and the rental market seemed to consist mainly of people renting out their houses to sharers, as they couldn't sell because they were in negative equity due to the house price crash. There were few professional landlords around. The situation is different now because house prices are out of reach in London but I don't understand why suddenly rental laws are the problem.
    Originally posted by Querty

    If you had been looking to rent in the 1970s you would have had a problem. What is known as the rent acts decimated the privately rented property market. Tenants had security of tenure at controlled rents so there were people living in very nice area of London and paying peanuts in rent. Of course they were not going to move. If a tenant died and a property became vacant the landlords sold them. There were properties that needed repairs that would cost more than the entire year's rent so landlords of unregistered properties just disappeared. Properties with these rent act tenants sold for much much less than ones with vacant possession so no one was going to buy a property to let. The amount of rented property was reducing and reducing People who couldn't afford to buy had to live with their parents or other relatives or get a council house. If you got a council house you couldn't move to change jobs unless you could find someone to exchange with.



    So slowly the amount of rental property available reduced and reduced and of course what was left was all the dumps.



    If you have rented recently in England and would like to continue to have that option you need to oppose the 3 year tenancies and the end of no fault S21 because any landlord who remembers the rent acts will get out of property rental. In anyone area the number of rental houses coming to the market will not be as many as a new housing development so anyone hoping that it will reduce prices may get a bit of a shock. So not only will people still not be able to afford to buy but they also won't be able to rent anywhere either. Be careful what you wish for.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 12th Jul 18, 1:58 PM
    • 6,517 Posts
    • 2,439 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    If you had been looking to rent in the 1970s you would have had a problem. What is known as the rent acts decimated the privately rented property market. Tenants had security of tenure at controlled rents so there were people living in very nice area of London and paying peanuts in rent. Of course they were not going to move. If a tenant died and a property became vacant the landlords sold them. There were properties that needed repairs that would cost more than the entire year's rent so landlords of unregistered properties just disappeared. Properties with these rent act tenants sold for much much less than ones with vacant possession so no one was going to buy a property to let. The amount of rented property was reducing and reducing People who couldn't afford to buy had to live with their parents or other relatives or get a council house. If you got a council house you couldn't move to change jobs unless you could find someone to exchange with.



    So slowly the amount of rental property available reduced and reduced and of course what was left was all the dumps.



    If you have rented recently in England and would like to continue to have that option you need to oppose the 3 year tenancies and the end of no fault S21 because any landlord who remembers the rent acts will get out of property rental. In anyone area the number of rental houses coming to the market will not be as many as a new housing development so anyone hoping that it will reduce prices may get a bit of a shock. So not only will people still not be able to afford to buy but they also won't be able to rent anywhere either. Be careful what you wish for.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    Not going to happen, rents and house prices are going to fall, and property is going to be an even bigger tax target in future
    • Querty
    • By Querty 13th Jul 18, 6:45 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    "The rest of the community", with one notable exception, have no intention of getting involved. They have had 2 years in which to do so. We are on our own. I am sure it would be a different story if they had to live the other side of a wall from her. We have done all we can. It is up to the LL now. Thank you for your support but we will leave it there.
    Originally posted by Smodlet
    You could get Environmental Health involved and there is legal action you can take by this route but if you are the homeowner it can be more sensible to sell than get into an actual neighbour dispute.
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

77Posts Today

2,383Users 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