Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
porca misèria

Tenants Rights

Recommended Posts

As we know, tenants have very few rights. I'm in favour of improving tenants rights, though not at the expense of going back to the broken pre-shorthold market where only the likes of Rachmann and Hoogstraten would be landlords.

A simple and effective measure could be statutory compensation in the event of a tenant in good standing getting evicted in a repossession. This situation is already breach-of-contract, so the tenant can sue the landlord. But that's a lot of hassle for little reward, and if the landlord is bust it's all for nothing.

So, put the tenant's claim to statutory compensation ahead of the bank's claim on the landlord's assets. And make it something significant: say, three month's rent automatic, in addition to receipted expenses. With a fast-track claims process.

The lender and landlord share responsibility for the mess. The innocent party should have absolute priority in claiming on the assets! The knowledge of not having first claim should help make lenders more cautious.

Note - statutory compensation to be voided if the tenant is in material breach of the contract - e.g. in arrears with the rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were made law, then Landlords would have to put 3 months deposit into a blocked account,

and they might demand bigger deposits from tenants.

If so, the scheme would not prove "free" for tenants

Deposits are already protected. We're talking new money here. And giving lenders a small incentive to behave responsibly, regardless of landlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were made law, then Landlords would have to put 3 months deposit into a blocked account,

and they might demand bigger deposits from tenants.

If so, the scheme would not prove "free" for tenants

It would also increase rates on btl mortgages as there is now a small first lien above the lender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar thread before when I came up with a similar idea. However at the time someone else came up with an even better idea. Landlords should have an insurance to protect the tenant in cases of breach of contract or damage to property. Well-financed landlords would obviously pay less than people with big mortgages. Sounded very sensible.

Edited by HPCbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my landlord wants me to leave he has to give 6 month's notice.

But I live in Finland and by law after 12 month's residence the landlord's notice is 6 months.

I only have to give 1 month's notice. But if I had left within the first 12 month's I would have

paid one month's rent as a penalty for leaving early. This is not due to a special contract but is

defined by law.

So we tenants in Finland have pretty good rights, so long as we behave ourselves.

I'm not so familiar with UK tenancy laws, but I get the impression that tenants' rights are

pretty damn bad in the UK. People should be campaigning for better tenancy rights.

Where the hell is the Labour Party? No longer a real labour party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my landlord wants me to leave he has to give 6 month's notice.

6 months notice would be unfair on landlords with delinquent tenants.

UK rules seem constitutionally unable to distinguish between good tenants and bad ones, so protects nobody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you tax real estate somewhat, the tenants will pay for any improvement in their rights because as the tenants rights are improved , the owners of real restate can simply hold on to property for future price rises and not rent it, thereby reducing supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The taxman and banksters aways come before compensation for the public ! silly you next you will be telling us we have a democracy if only we care to vote for one of the 3 main parties.

things won't get better they are getting worse at an alarming rate so let me know when you arive at the stage were you realise nothing short of an all out revolution we put things back on the right track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a landlord, I think tenants already are very well-protected in this country. They've got a multitude of property to choose from, rent levels remain much cheaper than buying when you factor in the cost of maintenance, normal interest costs and the implied cost of the landlord's embedded capital, and they have plenty of protection against being evicted. Rental properties are also much safer than owner-occupied, what with all the gas inspection certificates and requirements for safe furnishings.

If anything, it's the landlord who's most vulnerable: if the tenant chooses to trash the house or stop paying the rent, it is an absolute nightmare to get them evicted, and the landlord never gets his or her money back - even if a judgement is made against the tenant in the Small Claims Court , all they have to do is move and the landlord will never find them. Or they make one payment and stop, and the whole cycle starts again.

I'm not saying this happens all the time, just that enforcement of debt recovery in the UK is a joke, and I'm just grateful that relatively few tenants do abuse the system. Much more common is the tendency not to keep the house clean and abuse the equipment, because it's not theirs and they can't be bothered. That's why landlords ask for a deposit, just to have a little bit of protection from the abuses that tenants are capable of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a landlord, I think tenants already are very well-protected in this country. They've got a multitude of property to choose from, rent levels remain much cheaper than buying when you factor in the cost of maintenance, normal interest costs and the implied cost of the landlord's embedded capital, and they have plenty of protection against being evicted. Rental properties are also much safer than owner-occupied, what with all the gas inspection certificates and requirements for safe furnishings.

If anything, it's the landlord who's most vulnerable: if the tenant chooses to trash the house or stop paying the rent, it is an absolute nightmare to get them evicted, and the landlord never gets his or her money back - even if a judgement is made against the tenant in the Small Claims Court , all they have to do is move and the landlord will never find them. Or they make one payment and stop, and the whole cycle starts again.

I'm not saying this happens all the time, just that enforcement of debt recovery in the UK is a joke, and I'm just grateful that relatively few tenants do abuse the system. Much more common is the tendency not to keep the house clean and abuse the equipment, because it's not theirs and they can't be bothered. That's why landlords ask for a deposit, just to have a little bit of protection from the abuses that tenants are capable of doing.

You are counting the buying up monopoly rights over the tenant as a production cost the tenant needs to compensate you for in order to be allowed to live somewhere.

If you untangled that abusive idiocy from your position, there would be very little of it left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a better balance of rights for tenants and landlords

I agree that tenants tend to be messy and not respect the properties as there own, However I believe this attidute is born out of 'well i've got 6 months 'til I move on. and if the agreement make them treat it more as a home this would change their behaviour.

It is true to say there are poor tenants but there are also an equal number of poor landlords.

If landlords don't like you because your aquard and ask for broken things to be fixed or boiler to be serviced etc. They tend to end the tenancy as they don't like tennats aserting their rights

I live in a nice rented place and the landlord is ok but he wanted to put the rent up with 3 weeks noticed within the first six months and wondered why I had a problem with this.

Personally if rented is to become the new OO there needs to be longer tenanencys similar to the Finland post. There has to be an advantage to living in rented otherwise you might aswell by a bedsit over a crack den and have done with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much more common is the tendency not to keep the house clean and abuse the equipment, because it's not theirs and they can't be bothered. That's why landlords ask for a deposit, just to have a little bit of protection from the abuses that tenants are capable of doing.

Alternatively, LLs could develop a business plan that includes a cost for keeping their business premises in the required state of repair.

You can't expect your customers to repair your business premises for you. If your business can't fund the repairs, then it is not really viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a landlord, I think tenants already are very well-protected in this country.

In some ways they are. But security should be better: finding a new place on two months notice is not fun, even if the time isn't interrupted by holidays, sickness, work, or just plain ol' life.

The case of a landlord getting repossessed is particularly iniquitous, because it's the tenants losing a home without even the two months notice, let alone all the taxpayer help available to owners. That's the particular circumstance where compensation should be automatic *and* prioritised over the lender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternatively, LLs could develop a business plan that includes a cost for keeping their business premises in the required state of repair.

You can't expect your customers to repair your business premises for you. If your business can't fund the repairs, then it is not really viable.

Or simply have a healthy economy in which having a home of your own isn't at all unobtainable and so people tend to rent accomodation for mere short term convenience rather than a long term place to live. That swathes people are forced to live in each other's houses is an absurd and intrinsically abusive situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with increasing tenants' rights is that you're effectively entrenching the tenant landlord relationship even further.

The relationship itself needs to be looked at more closely as some people are benefitting more than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 months notice would be unfair on landlords with delinquent tenants.

UK rules seem constitutionally unable to distinguish between good tenants and bad ones, so protects nobody.

That's why I said so long as we behave ourselves. Failure to pay promptly would lead to court fairly quickly,

but I don't know how long it typically takes to get an eviction.

Neighbours can get repeatedly rowdy people evicted as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 months notice would be unfair on landlords with delinquent tenants.

UK rules seem constitutionally unable to distinguish between good tenants and bad ones, so protects nobody.

As a landlord, I have *no problem* with longer periods of notice for the landlord to ask the tenant to leave, as you say, for GOOD tenants. I hate voids, I love tenants who like the houses and want to live there for ages. Anything for a quiet life, I say!

The current situation is mad, decent tenants have only 60 days notice, while actually getting someone who won't pay the agreed rent, and/or who is wrecking the place and/or annoying the neighbours by noise, mess, anticsocial behaviour etc etc, can take several months.

Everybody loses with this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my landlord wants me to leave he has to give 6 month's notice.

But I live in Finland and by law after 12 month's residence the landlord's notice is 6 months.

I only have to give 1 month's notice. But if I had left within the first 12 month's I would have

paid one month's rent as a penalty for leaving early. This is not due to a special contract but is

defined by law.

So we tenants in Finland have pretty good rights, so long as we behave ourselves.

I'm not so familiar with UK tenancy laws, but I get the impression that tenants' rights are

pretty damn bad in the UK. People should be campaigning for better tenancy rights.

Where the hell is the Labour Party? No longer a real labour party.

Have you ever heard of squating? now tell me who has the rights - the guy who owns the property or someone who has refused to pay his rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or simply have a healthy economy in which having a home of your own isn't at all unobtainable and so people tend to rent accomodation for mere short term convenience rather than a long term place to live. That swathes people are forced to live in each other's houses is an absurd and intrinsically abusive situation.

You make the mistake of assuming that virtually everyone wants to buy a house at the first opportunity, probably because you think that way, so you cannot imagine that others don't.

I don't believe that this is the case.

Many people, for quote long periods of their lives, don't want the responsibility or "tie" that owning your own place involves.

They want to be able to move somewhere else with work, friends or a current or future partner, or want to travel, or are just not financially stable enough to deal with a mortgage.

Poor people don't like the idea of fluctuating mortgage interest and unexpected repair bills - they would prefer renting, where a £1500 bill for new boiler doesn't fall on them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, actually most commercial rent agreements are on a repair and maintenance basis.

My business plan does include regular upgrades and redecoration of the property - what's unreasonable are tenants who comprehensively trash the property and move out just as the baliffs arrive after months of not paying their rent.

Alternatively, LLs could develop a business plan that includes a cost for keeping their business premises in the required state of repair.

You can't expect your customers to repair your business premises for you. If your business can't fund the repairs, then it is not really viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the number of cases where this happens and the landlord fails to give the tenant due warning is *miniscule*: it's just been highlighted as yet another thing for tenants to moan about. Shelter and other organisations devoted to tenants' rights to the exclusion of all other issues completely ignore the large numbers of landlords affected by tenants not paying the bills, which is the main cause of landlords falling into arrears with their mortgages, or the impossible situation faced by landlords who have to pursue debts through the Small Claims Court: you may get a County Court Judgment, but try actually getting any money out of an ex-tenant.

And as for taxpayer help for owners, I don't see any at all. If you mean mortgage interest being tax-deductible, that's standard for any business as it's a business cost. And any "saving" here is overwhelmed by the fact that BTL landlords have to pay 18% capital gains tax on any rise in value of the property when they sell, whereas owner-occupiers get every penny tax-free. If you want equal treatment as regards tax-deductible mortgage interest, are you also going to campaign for homeowners to pay CGT on their main home, as used to be the case before 1965?

The case of a landlord getting repossessed is particularly iniquitous, because it's the tenants losing a home without even the two months notice, let alone all the taxpayer help available to owners. That's the particular circumstance where compensation should be automatic *and* prioritised over the lender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are counting the buying up monopoly rights over the tenant as a production cost the tenant needs to compensate you for in order to be allowed to live somewhere.

If you untangled that abusive idiocy from your position, there would be very little of it left

No, I am just comparing the cost paid by the tenant with the cost they would be paying if they owned the property, which would be mortgage interest plus the implied cost of their capital embedded in the property (original deposit + any gain in value + any mortgage debt they've paid off) plus maintenance costs. Of course I don't expect the tenant to cover this full cost just to have the right to live in the property: he or she is likely to pay considerably less than the real cost of ownership because we are in a competitive market-place and landlords choose to bear some of the cost themselves in order to find a tenant and own an asset that is at risk of capital gain or loss. My point is simply that in financial terms the tenant is paying less than the cost of ownership, and is therefore being subsidised. I see no abuse in this - the landlord is assisting the tenant to find a place to live by investing her capital to their mutual advantage, just as businesses enable consumers like you and me to buy or rent other things that we could not afford to create ourselves.

The same applies with council housing: it represents a massive subsidy by taxpayers to enable certain people - not necessarily poor ones, as there are tens of thousands of lucky people earning more than £50K a year living in council housing - to live at very cheap rents. Is this an abusive relationship too, in your terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we know, tenants have very few rights.

As executor of a Will, I am trying to get a tenant out who hasn't paid for the last 6 months. I'm following the rules but the legal process is very drawn out. I think it could go at least two more months. The tenant received housing benefit without passing it on so I will be completely annoying and ruin their credit record with a CCJ when done.

There can't be many cases where failure to meet a contract mean you live rent-free for best part of year.

I have politely declined an offer for the fast option (involves pain) which was apparently used on an earlier tenant that was trashing the house.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.