Freeholder Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) I think I read recently, somewhere, that one of the few ways a prospective house/flat buyer can formally terminate the contract and 'evict' sitting tenants with one of these older pre-AST type rental contracts is IF the prospective buyer intends to live in said property as their retirement residence immediately on purchase (i.e not 20 years from now). Anyone know if this is true? I ask as my own parents are looking for a place to retire to and have recently seen such properties, with sitting secure tenants, come up at auction - again with the piddly rents. The advantage being that they seem, unsurprisingly, to sell at a modest discount to other similar properties in the area. Part 2 of Schedule F of the 1977 Act applies. Tis lists the circumstances in which a court might grant the landlord an order for posession. It reads as follows. The conditions referred to in Paragraph © in each of Cases 11 and 12 and in paragraph (e)(ii) of Case 20 are that—(a)the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner or any member of his family who resided with the owner when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a residence;(b)the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house as a residence;©the owner has died and the dwelling-house is required as a residence for a member of his family who was residing with him at the time of his death;(d)the owner has died and the dwelling-house is required by a successor in title as his residence or for the purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession;(e)the dwelling-house is subject to a mortgage, made by deed and granted before the tenancy, and the mortgagee—(i)is entitled to exercise a power of sale conferred on him by the mortgage or by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925; and(ii)requires the dwelling-house for he purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession in exercise of that power; and(f) the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the owner, having regard to his place of work, and he requires it for the purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession and of using the proceeds of that disposal in acquiring, as his residence, a dwelling-house which is more suitable to those needs. Edited February 9, 2012 by Freeholder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Has anyone stopped to think why anyone would anyone would pass daft laws such as the Rent Acts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I still stand by my statement that LHA is still far too generous when you compare it relatively with what working adults/family's end up paying out. Of course it's far too generous. Primarily, it is far too generous to landlords. Secondarily, it is generous to a minority of tenants who are able to outbid the hardworking. I suspect the latter category is a lot smaller than the extreme stories would have us believe, but it certainly exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman The Rent Acts created the buisness model of criminals like Rachman. What he did was to buy properties subject to Rent Act tenancies cheap then illegally drive out the tenants. He could then either realise an immediate capital gain by selling with vacant posession or let outside the Acts, legally or illegally, at much higher rents. Rent control pre dated Rachman by many years having first been adopted during the 1st World War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Has anyone stopped to think why anyone would anyone would pass daft laws such as the Rent Acts? It has to be more than political dogma. Speculation and unearned income had to actively discouraged. Whereas now parasitic behaviour is positively encouraged. I have to say the Rent Acts did little to encourage the "white heat of technology" however. Of course if were not possible to evict or get rid of statutory tenants, where are all these secure tenancies now? What numbers remain in any quantity seem to be in the social housing sector. I did a great deal of such wondering when I was studying for an exam in the subject back in the 1970s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The Rent Acts created the buisness model of criminals like Rachman. What he did was to buy properties subject to Rent Act tenancies cheap then illegally drive out the tenants. He could then either realise an immediate capital gain by selling with vacant posession or let outside the Acts, legally or illegally, at much higher rents. Rent control pre dated Rachman by many years having first been adopted during the 1st World War. http://en.wikipedia....gland_and_Wales Er, yes, I was, obliquely trying to make the point that it was people like Rachman who inspired the acts to start with then, in some cases, benefitted from them later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Er, yes, I was, obliquely trying to make the point that it was people like Rachman who inspired the acts to start with then, in some cases, benefitted from them later. It was the shortage of houses caused by the 1st WW that inspired the first Act. Shortage always pushes prices up and the government of the day acted prudently to protect tenants during hostilities. edit typo Edited February 9, 2012 by Freeholder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 That kind of tenancy is pretty-much equivalent to council housing. It also basically killed off the rentals market. There was no money in it for landlords, and a huge downside if they got problem tenants. Hence the truly dire situation of the 1980s before the AST kick-started a market: would-be renters were forced into an underworld of licenses (no tenancies), where they were at the mercy of the borderline-gangsters who were the only landlords available. Oh, it was never that bad. I rented in some dodgy areas in the period (Coventry) and I agree that the only option for rental (other than "company lets") was poorly maintained slum property that you wouldn't want to stay in once you could afford not to (so you didn't). But, on the whole, LL's were fair and reasonable in every other respect. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Oh, it was never that bad. I rented in some dodgy areas in the period (Coventry) and I agree that the only option for rental (other than "company lets") was poorly maintained slum property that you wouldn't want to stay in once you could afford not to (so you didn't). But, on the whole, LL's were fair and reasonable in every other respect. tim In 1918 3/4 of residential properties were privarely rented. In 1950 about 1/2. In 1990 about 1/10. The Rent Acts very nearly destroyed the private rented sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 In 1918 3/4 of residential properties were privarely rented. In 1950 about 1/2. In 1990 about 1/10. The Rent Acts very nearly destroyed the private rented sector. To be clear, that part I wasn't disputing. It's was the class of LL that it generated, I was commenting upon. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think I read recently, somewhere, that one of the few ways a prospective house/flat buyer can formally terminate the contract and 'evict' sitting tenants with one of these older pre-AST type rental contracts is IF the prospective buyer intends to live in said property as their retirement residence immediately on purchase (i.e not 20 years from now). Anyone know if this is true? I ask as my own parents are looking for a place to retire to and have recently seen such properties, with sitting secure tenants, come up at auction - again with the piddly rents. The advantage being that they seem, unsurprisingly, to sell at a modest discount to other similar properties in the area. No "Ground 1" is only available if notice was served on the tenant that it may be applied, BEFORE the tenancy is entered into (and presumably it only applies to the owner at that time and, even if it was served, becomes inactive if the property is transferred to a new owner) tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Has anyone stopped to think why anyone would anyone would pass daft laws such as the Rent Acts? It has to be more than political dogma. Speculation and unearned income had to actively discouraged. Whereas now parasitic behaviour is positively encouraged. I have to say the Rent Acts did little to encourage the "white heat of technology" however. Of course if were not possible to evict or get rid of statutory tenants, where are all these secure tenancies now? What numbers remain in any quantity seem to be in the social housing sector. You'll find a couple of dozen a month in each of several auctions around the country. Quite how you can scale this sample up to the complete set, I have no idea. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Well, assuming those tenants were middle aged in the late 70s I would imagine that quite a few are sucking on the sour end of a blade of grass. I would imagine that if there were no one in line to inherit the tenancy who wanted to live there then than tenancy would lapse. hence the reason why Auction sales of such properies now achieve much higher percentages of "market value" than they used to. tim Edited February 10, 2012 by tim123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 From what I recall.....they were called 'sitting tenants' in the 80s the landlords bought many of them out for thousands, some used the money to put down as a deposit of a house their own, others blew it.....once the protected tenant was got rid the rents were hiked and new tenants were put in on ASTs.......the rest is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 From what I recall.....they were called 'sitting tenants' in the 80s the landlords bought many of them out for thousands, some used the money to put down as a deposit of a house their own, others blew it.....once the protected tenant was got rid the rents were hiked and new tenants were put in on ASTs.......the rest is history. I saw some deals done where landlords sold to tenants as well. Typically the deal was done at around mid way between tenanted value and vacant posession value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 You'll find a couple of dozen a month in each of several auctions around the country. Quite how you can scale this sample up to the complete set, I have no idea. tim Interesting, I'd consider investing in one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Interesting, I'd consider investing in one of them. They were fetching up to 80% of VP value last time I was paying attention. I think the glory days for this as a speculative investment are probably past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayneyJR Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Tap the post code in here: https://ebusiness.voa.gov.uk/err/ Thanks for this and for everyones replies. Very interesting indeed. Was hoping to participate in discussions but frequently find with a 'sleep is for the weak' toddler that evenings vanish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongerOfDoom Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Housing Benefit payments are in no way "generous" - that's just a piece of HPC tosh. Even before the recent cuts almost a half of HB claimants had to make up a shortfall to pay their rent... 'House of Commons Written Answers 10 November 2010': http://services.parl...rs/part012.html The link returns a zero-sized reply for me. Either way, before the cuts LHA paid for the median property. I would regard that as ridiculously generous given that it meant some people paying their own rent had to "choose" to live in worse accommodation than claimants. Otherwise both their rent and taxes went up until they did. That problem has not been fixed yet, although it now only occurs outside of the wealthiest areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imminent_plunge Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 In 1918 3/4 of residential properties were privarely rented. In 1950 about 1/2. In 1990 about 1/10. The Rent Acts very nearly destroyed the private rented sector. 38% of people lived in council houses in the 1970s or they bought. They had the opportunity to avoid the private rented sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 38% of people lived in council houses in the 1970s or they bought. They had the opportunity to avoid the private rented sector. Um, when in the 1970s? I expect that figure was falling through the decade, as part of the historic trend. But can't say for sure 'cos my direct experience only goes back to the 1980s. As for having the opportunity to ...., that's great for those who did, but just marginalises those who didn't. That at least I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty: our country's housing has a long, long history of governments interfering to 'help' targeted groups, thereby excluding and marginalising those who miss out on the help (but still get to pay for it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Um, when in the 1970s? I expect that figure was falling through the decade, as part of the historic trend. But can't say for sure 'cos my direct experience only goes back to the 1980s. As for having the opportunity to ...., that's great for those who did, but just marginalises those who didn't. That at least I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty: our country's housing has a long, long history of governments interfering to 'help' targeted groups, thereby excluding and marginalising those who miss out on the help (but still get to pay for it). The "targeted groups" were originally bombed out victims and of course returning soldiers. Tend to look at it differently now. Happen to think the investment in social housing as one of the better decisions, and provides good value. Certainly represents far better value than SMI support and housing benefit to private landlords. Total debt on social housing is now quite low, so of course its now under threat, so that it can be leveraged up and ponzified. Clearly not enough rentiers and bankers have their fingers in its pie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.