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
Page 6
    • Querty
    • By Querty 15th Apr 19, 9:39 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Querty
    That's a big IF. There will also be landlords who couldn't care less as long as the tenant is paying the rent.

    What is your point? That revenge evictions do not happen? Or that they are too few for anyone to bother?
    Originally posted by SouthLondonUser
    My point is that getting rid of s.21 has a lot of consequences which need to be understood.
    • SouthLondonUser
    • By SouthLondonUser 15th Apr 19, 9:54 PM
    • 701 Posts
    • 281 Thanks
    SouthLondonUser
    Sure. A better starting point might be:
    • to acknowledged that both landlords and tenants may be guilty of dodgy behaviour
    • to acknowledge that one's behaviour is not necessarily representative: you may not indulge in dodgy practices, but this doesn't mean that others don't
    • to acknowledge that legislation should protect against this kind of dodgy behaviour; saying that one never revenge-evicted anyone or that one never trashed a landlord's property is irrelevant
    • to look seriously into what has and hasn't happened in Scotland
    • to avoid unfounded scaremongering
    • kimplus8
    • By kimplus8 15th Apr 19, 9:56 PM
    • 727 Posts
    • 2,178 Thanks
    kimplus8
    I absolutely agree with you...I see many properties in my area that are advertised on RM both for sale and for rent.

    That helps no one.
    Originally posted by need an answer
    same in my area, It baffles me that the letting agents don't understand why nobody wants them. -well Doris if there is a risk that I'm going to get given a section 21 in a few months when I've had to pay almost 400 in costs then no I'm not interested.
    Dave Ramsey and Martin Lewis are my Money Saving Heros.
    • gt94sss2
    • By gt94sss2 15th Apr 19, 10:04 PM
    • 4,236 Posts
    • 2,001 Thanks
    gt94sss2
    I suspect that this proposed change might cause some problems for landlords who target the student market - such tenancies tend to be for 12 months and the landlord needs the student out of the property before the start of the next academic year or they may find their ability to rent the place again seriously affected given thats the peak rental season/market in many university cities.
    • kimplus8
    • By kimplus8 15th Apr 19, 10:06 PM
    • 727 Posts
    • 2,178 Thanks
    kimplus8
    Not sure i see your problem with having a 6 month tenancy and being asked to leave after 6 months.
    .
    Originally posted by markin
    it was the fact they told me the property was a long let and the contract would change to an AST after the 6 months and continue when the landlady must have already known that her daughter was pregnant and wanted the property for her. I was used asa stop-gap. had I known the property would only be a 6 month let I would have not taken it.
    Dave Ramsey and Martin Lewis are my Money Saving Heros.
    • Querty
    • By Querty 16th Apr 19, 6:01 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Querty
    Sure. A better starting point might be:
    • to acknowledged that both landlords and tenants may be guilty of dodgy behaviour
    • to acknowledge that one's behaviour is not necessarily representative: you may not indulge in dodgy practices, but this doesn't mean that others don't
    • to acknowledge that legislation should protect against this kind of dodgy behaviour; saying that one never revenge-evicted anyone or that one never trashed a landlord's property is irrelevant
    • to look seriously into what has and hasn't happened in Scotland
    • to avoid unfounded scaremongering
    Originally posted by SouthLondonUser
    Definitely. Their system appears to be a lot different, so it is not as reliant on s.21 for mandatory evictions. If you want to get rid of s.21 then the whole system needs to be sorted out. Things are bad enough already even with the s.21 in the length of time it can take to remove bad tenants.
    Last edited by Querty; 16-04-2019 at 6:49 AM.
    • lookstraightahead
    • By lookstraightahead 16th Apr 19, 7:06 AM
    • 1,056 Posts
    • 915 Thanks
    lookstraightahead
    I suppose the way that this is going is that only professional landlords, who take this seriously as a business and act as professionals, should be able to rent out properties.

    The people who see tenants as short term cash cows while they sell their properties, or the landlords who think it's ok for tenants to live in conditions that are less than what they pay for (and I certainly do mean going without heating / hot water etc because landlords say "they put up with it in their own home"), need shaking up. I would like to see it set up like a proper business. Tradespeople on hand to deal with 'customer' issues etc.

    However on the flip side, there also needs to be laws in place to protect landlords when tenants act in a less than favourable way and I'm not sure we have that in place either.

    I do think landlords need to see rentals as a career choice.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 16th Apr 19, 7:14 AM
    • 32,212 Posts
    • 63,570 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    I suppose the way that this is going is that only professional landlords, who take this seriously as a business and act as professionals, should be able to rent out properties.

    The people who see tenants as short term cash cows while they sell their properties, or the landlords who think it's ok for tenants to live in conditions that are less than what they pay for (and I certainly do mean going without heating / hot water etc because landlords say "they put up with it in their own home"), need shaking up. I would like to see it set up like a proper business. Tradespeople on hand to deal with 'customer' issues etc.

    However on the flip side, there also needs to be laws in place to protect landlords when tenants act in a less than favourable way and I'm not sure we have that in place either.

    I do think landlords need to see rentals as a career choice.
    Originally posted by lookstraightahead
    Whilst of course I agree that it is the LL's reponsibility to provide heating and hot water, I have read on these very forums where some tenants expect a plumber to come and repair the boiler straight away. Now that on the whole is just not possible, everybody has to wait, even home owners. Maybe this is what is meant when the LL says they have to put up with it in their own homes. They would have to wait too.

    No-one has a team of tradesmen sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for 'the call'!
    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
    • Guerillatoker
    • By Guerillatoker 16th Apr 19, 9:46 AM
    • 455 Posts
    • 474 Thanks
    Guerillatoker
    Yes. If you scroll down this article you will find a comparison of renting versus owning costs by region.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/landlords-could-stop-letting-no-fault-evictions-banned/
    Renting costs more than buying almost everywhere, the exceptions being London and Manchester. Elsewhere it's cheaper to buy than rent. In Burnley renting costs almost twice what buying does.
    Whatever's holding people back from buying, it's not that it's too expensive.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    Sorry, I'm not registered with the Telegraph so cannot read it.

    I presume the calculation is monthly? If not the following will not be relevant: I have just purchased a house with a comparable monthly mortgage cost to my previous rent... but I needed 15,000 deposit. I wouldn't have needed as much if the house was cheaper.
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 16th Apr 19, 10:00 AM
    • 4,275 Posts
    • 5,576 Thanks
    westernpromise
    A moments thought would reveal that any LL would prefer to know about problems as soon as possible, so the line about being evicted due to reporting a faulty boiler is usually BS. As posted previously vast majority of "no fault" evictions are unpaid rent
    Originally posted by dividendhero
    Yes, and the point cannot be made too often that landlords cannot end tenancies. There are only two parties who can:
    1/ the tenant
    2/ a court
    If a tenant claims to have been evicted because they wanted work done, I tend to be sceptical. If the work needs doing the landlord won't be able to let the property unless it is done, so all he achieves by a "revenge eviction" is a void. I suspect there is something else going on, probably non-payment of rent. I would personally be quite reluctant to spend money maintaining a property that was occupied by someone who was not paying the rent.

    Fortunately I've only over been in the bit of the market where you're renting to London professionals, so other than about 25 years ago I've never had a rent defaulter and never had a flat wrecked. Maybe further down the scale it's different.
    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 16th Apr 19, 10:07 AM
    • 4,275 Posts
    • 5,576 Thanks
    westernpromise
    I don't think that there is anything really unfair about this though, what specifically do you think is unfair? Furthermore I would much rather have long standing tenants, than re-letting my properties every year.
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    The fact that a landlord will apparently not be able to recover his property or remove the tenant other than for a narrow range of purposes, and will lose the most expeditious current way of doing so in the event of rent arrears.
    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 16th Apr 19, 10:12 AM
    • 4,275 Posts
    • 5,576 Thanks
    westernpromise
    Sorry, I'm not registered with the Telegraph so cannot read it.

    I presume the calculation is monthly? If not the following will not be relevant: I have just purchased a house with a comparable monthly mortgage cost to my previous rent... but I needed 15,000 deposit. I wouldn't have needed as much if the house was cheaper.
    Originally posted by Guerillatoker
    Landlords don't determine mortgage lenders' deposit criteria.
    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
    • Missu
    • By Missu 16th Apr 19, 11:30 AM
    • 506 Posts
    • 1,169 Thanks
    Missu
    I'm really p*ssed off at news if changes to the legislation. We had just made a big decision to move to another area for a trial period whilst letting our home out for 12 months. We would have made that clear to the tenant and safeguarded our home. It's not happening now due to lack of clarity about what may happen. ����
    Mortgage at 26/9/12 92000 :eek
    Balance at 1/5/18 43200
    Saving for Xmas 80/500 :xmastree
    Pay All my debt by Xmas 2019 #13 900/5800
    • Guerillatoker
    • By Guerillatoker 16th Apr 19, 12:06 PM
    • 455 Posts
    • 474 Thanks
    Guerillatoker
    Landlords don't determine mortgage lenders' deposit criteria.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    But house prices do.*

    *The amount of the deposit, that is. The "criteria" is a red herring brought to the conversation by you alone.
    • quantumlobster
    • By quantumlobster 16th Apr 19, 12:25 PM
    • 427 Posts
    • 936 Thanks
    quantumlobster
    The fact that a landlord will apparently not be able to recover his property or remove the tenant other than for a narrow range of purposes, and will lose the most expeditious current way of doing so in the event of rent arrears.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    That's not a bug, it's a feature.
    • SouthLondonUser
    • By SouthLondonUser 16th Apr 19, 12:41 PM
    • 701 Posts
    • 281 Thanks
    SouthLondonUser
    Definitely. Their system appears to be a lot different, so it is not as reliant on s.21 for mandatory evictions. I
    Originally posted by Querty
    Could any one elaborate? It would be interesting to understand how evictions work in Scotland but I admit I don't know much about it
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 16th Apr 19, 12:50 PM
    • 5,854 Posts
    • 9,143 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I am not sure what will happen to the tenants that have been evicted from social housing for non payment of rent and anti social behaviour. Good private landlords are not going to want to house the problem tenants because they will not be able to get a quick eviction anymore.
    • SouthLondonUser
    • By SouthLondonUser 16th Apr 19, 12:55 PM
    • 701 Posts
    • 281 Thanks
    SouthLondonUser
    Yes, and the point cannot be made too often that landlords cannot end tenancies. There are only two parties who can:
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    Where do you mean? Certainly not in England. Most ASTs, if not all, have a break clause after which either party can terminate the contract without giving any reason.

    What were you trying to say? I couldn't follow.

    If a tenant claims to have been evicted because they wanted work done, I tend to be sceptical.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    So every single case reported in the press was a lie, a total fabrication?
    Including the cases mentioned by posters on this forum?

    If the work needs doing the landlord won't be able to let the property unless it is done, so all he achieves by a "revenge eviction" is a void.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    "needs doing" is subjective. Different tenants will put up with different level of inefficiencies and disservice. If no bathroom is working and all the windows are broken, sure, the landlord can't let out the property.
    But there is a whole range of stuff that needs fixing but that other tenants might be willing to put up with.
    Or the landlord could be less than totally honest and hope the new tenant won't realise till it's too late - that's what happened to me: I understand the landlord I mentioned did NOT fix the radiators but found a new tenant around September. The new tenant would have been unlikely to find out about the radiators before signing, because they are communal and cannot be controlled from within the flat.

    My philosophy as a tenant is that, if the landlord behaves correctly, I will be the best tenant ever, even paying myself for minor fixes the landlord should probably pay for. But if the landlord doesn't do his job I will be his worst nightmare. There are quite a few landlords who do not want a tenant like me (and I don't want landlords like them). In these cases, a revenge eviction can make perfect sense and can continue to provide no incentive whatsoever to fix whatever needs fixing.

    I suspect there is something else going on, probably non-payment of rent.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    In some cases, sure. But in all?
    I find it shocking that landlords here are so reluctant to admit that this can happen. Really, really shocking.

    I would personally be quite reluctant to spend money maintaining a property that was occupied by someone who was not paying the rent.
    Originally posted by westernpromise
    And I would be quite reluctant to pay the rent to a landlord who violates his contractual obligations and doesn't fix whatever needs fixing. If I don't pay, the landlord has ways to get rid of me, both here and in Scotland. If the landlord doesn't do his job, I have little to no recourse. I cannot withhold rent like New York law allows, for example.
    • SouthLondonUser
    • By SouthLondonUser 16th Apr 19, 1:41 PM
    • 701 Posts
    • 281 Thanks
    SouthLondonUser
    Or the landlord could be less than totally honest and hope the new tenant won't realise till it's too late - that's what happened to me: I understand the landlord I mentioned did NOT fix the radiators but found a new tenant around September. The new tenant would have been unlikely to find out about the radiators before signing, because they are communal and cannot be controlled from within the flat.
    Originally posted by SouthLondonUser
    PS
    I don't know exactly how much the repairs would have cost, nor how much the estate agent charged the landlord for finding a new tenant, but it is not hard to think of quite a few repair works that can easily cost more than 1 or 2 months of rent, therefore making it a perfectly rational, however morally questionable, choice to revenge-evict a tenant and find another one who won't complain, or won't find out about the issues straight away.
    • lookstraightahead
    • By lookstraightahead 16th Apr 19, 2:44 PM
    • 1,056 Posts
    • 915 Thanks
    lookstraightahead
    Whilst of course I agree that it is the LL's reponsibility to provide heating and hot water, I have read on these very forums where some tenants expect a plumber to come and repair the boiler straight away. Now that on the whole is just not possible, everybody has to wait, even home owners. Maybe this is what is meant when the LL says they have to put up with it in their own homes. They would have to wait too.

    No-one has a team of tradesmen sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for 'the call'!
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    My point is that it needs running like a business so what a landlord might do "even in their own home" is irrelevant. It's far too subjective and frankly of no concern to the tenant what the owner does in their own home. If there is no heating in the winter at my place of work, an emergency electrician is called out to try and avoid people having (under health and safety legislation) to be sent home. This is how landlords should run their businesses - with business skills. On the other hand, there should also be adequate procedures to protect landlords. People rent out their houses without any knowledge of what they are doing.

    I think landlords should hold a qualification in being a landlord if I'm honest.
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

1,958Posts Today

7,041Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin