Paranoid Landlord

[Neverland]

Almost.

Scum are tenants generally speaking, cos scum aint too clever at getting secure jobs, deposits and meeting regular payments.

Does not follow that tenants are scum.

TBH My only knowledge of rental is of nice middle income people letting to other nice middle income people, usually without fuss for longish periods. For example friends are renting their lovely large house to Germans who look after their garden and chickens.

All a world apart from the low end segment which sounds absolutley dreadful from the threads I see on here, with villains on both sides.

Unfortunately a lot of "nice" middle income people have plunged into it as an "investment" by buying new build slaveboxes in cities they may rarely have been to

Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

[SarahBell]

I'd want similar levels of checks done on his status too. Is he a fit and proper person to be a landlord, how are his finances?

[VacantPossession]

A little known but now established fact is that almost all clauses and terms of rental agreements comes under the EU regulations for the conduct of consumer contracts, and UK courts now acknowledge this as over-riding all the traditional (and bonkers) laws concerning Landlord and tenant, except, unfortunately, for the 6 months shorthold tenancy which the landlord is entitled to limit to, but is not obliged. However that does not stop Landlords setting up silly hurdles to get the lease in the first place. Furthermore, Landlords are now so desperate for reliable tenants that they often wave the short hold tenancy after the first six months and go on to offer two, three or more years renewed lease. A good tenant is considered gold dust.

I would say that the requirements made of the OP are outrageous, especially the guarantor and the six weeks bond. I would walk away from this "offer" because it all indicates that the Landlord is probably going to be awkward, interfering, pedantic and a pain in the neck to deal with even if you successfully ran through his hoops.

The poster who says he would require the same should consider that maybe he was unlucky, and his bad luck does not imply that every potential tenant is a violent, fraudulent, stubborn, non rent-paying immoveable object. You might as well apply the same principle to any transaction and you'll end up never doing any business with this level of paranoia.

But if I was in this situation I would, if I had time to waste just to teach the Landlord and agent a lesson, send them (both) a long letter outlining YOUR requirements which to make your point might include the following:

1. A business and bank reference from the agent confirming he has had no prosecutions for swindling tenants, has not abused client account cash deposits and has treated tenants with respect.

2. Production of an agent's bank account showing HE has sufficient funds to operate.

3. A reference from the Landlord's bank account and building society confirming that he has the right to offer a lease and has a sound financial background.

4. A personal reference demonstrating the good character of both the agent and the Landlord.

5. Details of past tenants so they can be contacted and questioned as to the honesty and behaviour of both Landlord and agent.

Of course all of the above would instantly result in the LL going elsewhere but you would have made your point: You can be as demanding, pedantic and outrageous as your LL is. Two can play at this game!

[VeryMeanReversion]

This is all a horrible symptom of the subservient landlord / tenant relationship. Tenants need to man-up and start treating BTLs as they are - for the most part commodity service providers.

Tenants need to realise the landlords are being very generous in taking capital losses far in excess of the rental payments.

My landlord is great. They get a 2.5% gross yield (probably 0% net yield) before even considering capital losses, past and present. It's a big thanks for saving me a fortune.

They can have a DNA sample as long as they are the ones taking the big capital losses.

VMR.

[MacGuffin]

By the way, 6 weeks bond is standard, at least in London. If I am wrong, someone please tell me.

[Neverland]

[...]

The poster who says he would require the same should consider that maybe he was unlucky, and his bad luck does not imply that every potential tenant is a violent, fraudulent, stubborn, non rent-paying immoveable object. You might as well apply the same principle to any transaction and you'll end up never doing any business with this level of paranoia.

[...]

No I wouldnt get into BTL, you may end up dealing with some crazy people directly

While not all tenants are crazy, crazy people usually rent (see post above)

I also agree there is a small risk of a rogue tenant, but a rogue tenant can cause tens of thousands of damage if they trash the place

Much better to put your money into something corporate like stocks, bonds and commodities for most punters with day jobs

[Guest X-QUORK]

While not all tenants are crazy, crazy people usually rent (see post above)

You do talk shite.

[Jason]

The Bond should just be the deposit, which is held by one of the tenant insurance schemes.

[@contradevian]

By the way, 6 weeks bond is standard, at least in London. If I am wrong, someone please tell me.

No its not.

[Neverland]

You do talk shite.

Yeah, usually, but this poster made the logical point I was agreeing with

Its been awhile since I've seen any wisdom from you, anyways

Scum are tenants generally speaking, cos scum aint too clever at getting secure jobs, deposits and meeting regular payments.

Does not follow that tenants are scum.

[@contradevian]

The irony being that this landlord probably acquired the house with a no income check, liar loan.

I've often thought that getting a mortgage is easier than getting a loan for a car, or accepted as a decent short hold tenant.

Anyway who is renting houses to all these families evicted for not paying their mortgage?

[Skirmish]

Bottom line is that it's HIS property and providing he's within the law he can do what he wants.

[VacantPossession]

Bottom line is that it's HIS property and providing he's within the law he can do what he wants.

Doubt that. It is highly unlikely that it is HIS property, since the majority of BTL stuff is, or was, between 70% and 100% mortgaged.

[Skirmish]

Doubt that. It is highly unlikely that it is HIS property, since the majority of BTL stuff is, or was, between 70% and 100% mortgaged.

I don't really think that's relevant anyway. It will be the landlord that has to clear up the mess (either physical, legal or financial) when the tenancy goes pear shaped. I know full well the trouble a bad tenant can cause as my girlfriend ended up going through the legal system to get rid of a non paying, alcoholic, damage causing tenant.

And before you ask the property was owned outright by my girlfriend.

[404]

It may be the letting agency trying to justify their existance. I had a similar list ( ok not quite that bad) but when I contacted the LL directly he knew nothing of it and did not require half of it. Worse still the agency check on emplyment was nothing of the sort. I provided them with details of my employer and a reference number for them to independantly ring up and check but they complained and demanded a written reference on letter head paper that was never checked.

I declined to offer a guarantor and only provided proof of my solvency direct to the LL as the LA is also a local EA and at some point I probably will buy a house in the area and I don't want them knowing the contents of my bank account. ( that is obvious when you think about it.)

LL has been great. New lease was signed without the benefit of the LA fleecing both of us. :-)

There is some risk both ways but it's minimal. The law is rubish if you are a good tennant or a good landlord.

If your LL does start to less you around most good tennant's would rather walk away then fight it even if that costs you $$. I certainly would not want my family living in a property owned by somebody I was only willing to talk to via the courts.

[babesagainstmachines]

I had an agent who asked for this stuff. I duly brought in all my details, including statement from my savings account with my STR fund in. I negotiated 15% off for 6 months up front.

Then I asked for proof that the landlord owned the property, if he had a mortgage, a copy of the terms of the mortgage to ensure he wasn't breeching any terms, and a credit reference fee so I could ensure I wouldn't be evicted by the mortgage company.

I didn't end up renting from this particular agency

[kingsgate]

I thought the max you could ask for is 4 weeks deposit/bond.

No, you can ask for whatever "bond" you want. Whether anyone will pay it is another question.....

[Guest X-QUORK]

No, you can ask for whatever "bond" you want. Whether anyone will pay it is another question.....

We paid a 5 month bond when I was self-employed. With hindsight I think this was a bit over the top, but I understood the LL's concerns.

[tim123]

If I was a landlord, that's whay I would ask for. It's easy for a tenant to stop paying then stay for free for 6-9 months. I've just been through this as executor for an estate of a BTL owner.

VMR.

Payment of utility bills is not the landlord's concern

tim

[tim123]

I thought the max you could ask for is 4 weeks deposit/bond.

You can ask for what you like.

In some parts of the country, 2 months is not unusual (in case the tenant doesn't pay the last month's rent).

tim

Edited July 28, 2009 by tim123

[Guest Skinty]

Paranoid Landlord. Radiohead's classic album of all time.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Paranoid Landlord. Radiohead's classic album of all time.

I was a bit gutted that my "Paranoid and void" comment wasn't recognised for its genius.

[MacGuffin]

No its not.

Oh, thanks, that was helpful.

The past two tenancy agreements I have entered into (Dec 07 and Mar 09) have required a 6-week desposit; all of the other flats I looked at around those times (and I always look at a LOT of flats) required a 6-week deposit as well.

[VacantPossession]

He appears to have missed out a blood test to prove you have not smoked tobacco in the last five years.

A skin swab test to prove you have not been near domestic pets might also be useful. After all, the cream sofa from DFS must be protected.

Excellent stuff!!

One largely untested aspect of the new regulations governing all consumer contracts, including unfair terms and conditions in leases, is that it is probably unenforceable to restrict the lifestyle or personal habits of any tenant, including smoking, small pets like fish or any other aspect Landlords arrogantly feel they can be a tyrant about. Provided any EXCESSIVE wear and tear, stains or damage is put right, then a tenant is entitled to live in exactly the same way that an "owner" would.

The key principle here is the concept of "Householder". In UK law a householder is anyone who has been granted the right, either through a lease or ownership, to possess and occupy a dwelling. In the eyes of the law therefore, a tenant has rights and reponsibilties in a social and contractual sense equal to, and not less than, an owner occupier.

That is why almost every lease contains, or should contain a clause thus:

"The Landlord covenents the tenant's right to remain and quietly enjoy the dwelling...." or something similar. The words "quietly enjoy" do not mean the tenant has to be quiet, nor is he forced to "enjoy" anything. What it means is that provided the tenant adheres to the ENFORCEABLE terms of the agreement (ie: to cough up the rent on time and not beat up the place) he is granted the right to occupy without interference from the landlord, in exactly the same way that an owner occupier has similar rights.

The relentless misconceptions and myths so often expressed on this website about this subject really are well overdue to be corrected. In law a tenant's hold over the property is inviolable, even if he has apparently been in breach of some of the terms, because the only terms and conditions that can be enforced are what a COURT decides are reasonable, not what the Landlord or his agent decides are reasonable.

I fully understand that many Landlords are now infected with the illusion that they can exploit current politcal correctness in order to impose lifestyle restrictions on a tenant, and I recognise that for example many people find things like smoking unacceptable But the fact is that they cannot in law impose anything on a tenant that could not be equally imposed on a mortgage holder. The same goes for restrictions on the type of tenant: for example "no children" or "no students". Quite rightly the law recognises the legitimate right of every adult to have children and to house them, so any sane court would throw out a Landlord's action on the basis that the tenant was in breach of a clause relating to children. The only exception would be in the case of sheltered accomodation or the existence of general covenents restricting certain categories of people in the estate or development in question, but even then it might be quite difficult to uphold.

The crucial point here, which many Landlords and even agents simply do not understand, is that, whether you like it or not, once you assign a lease to a tenant, that tenant is in legal possession of the property, and the Landlord has zero power to enter (except by appointment), interfere, threaten, cajole or in anyway tamper with the rightful occupier unless a court gives that permission, and to ignore this is a serious criminal offense. While there are undoubtedly genuine cases of tenants abusing these rights, there are also many Landlords who are convinced that they somehow still "in charge" of the property they leased and can likewise abuse their position by use of intimidation. They are not "in charge", and until the lease terminates it is the tenant's HOME, not the landlord's. A tenant is not the recipient of a license to merely occupy. He is the householder and that remains an unassailable status in UK law.

This also has wide ranging implications for third parties which are still misunderstood. For example in my particular street, the managing agent still thinks that parking vouchers, which should be distributed to each HOUSEHOLDER, should only be distributed to the landlord, not the tenant. This is a serious breach of the tenant's right to be treated as a householder, and is one example of the way third parties and even local councils treat tenants based on ignorance. Many providers of power to homes now routinely quizz the occupier on their status: They are asked if they are a tenant or "owner". Strictly speaking this is a breach of the Data Protection Act because it is not the business of any utility supplier to know what the occupier's status is apart from the fact that he is legally entitled to occupy and "quietly enjoy" the dwelling.

[Guest Skinty]

I was a bit gutted that my "Paranoid and void" comment wasn't recognised for its genius.

I have to admit to not reading the thread past the first or second post ...