'I took my landlord to court and won £15,000'

[Ah-so]

How five Leeds renters triumphed over their landlord and went viral

It transpired their landlord hadn’t acquired a House in Multiple Occupation Licence(HMO). An HMO must be held by any home housing five or more unrelated people who share communal facilities (like a kitchen), with at least one tenant paying rent. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/745ea8b2-2ef2-46ee-89ac-3e596b0efeb1

Apologies if it has been posted already, but it is a good story and leads to a lot of additional information about the general resentment from a whole exploited generation. 

[MattW]

Good for them!

It will wake up some lazy HMO landlords for sure.

[highcontrast]

Saw that earlier....Loving all this anti scumlord hate atm...lolz. The media it seems is finally getting their teeth into them.

Plus HMO scumlords are the scummiest of a scummy bunch too...get all they deserve IMO.

Scumlords...we know you're reading this! Get out while you still can!!! Mhuwahahaha ?

[spyguy]

Well ..... i doubt that sets a precedent .... there are so few HMOs in Leeds .........

[spyguy]

Good.

I hope LL ffers are reamed.

Bits of Leeds are like slums.

[24gray24]

Just shows what a bunch of parasites and scroungers those tenants are; they think getting something for nothing off  the landlord is ok. 

Morally equivalent to those old landlords who used to keep your deposit. 

Scroungers and parasites always think their activity is ok. 

Still, one out of the 6 had some morals. That's probably a fair description of England.  

 

[Peter Hun]

34 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Well ..... i doubt that sets a precedent .... there are so few HMOs in Leeds .........

You are joking? I have never lived in a HMO but even I knew you can claim all the rent back if it's not registered as a HMO.

 

14 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

Just shows what a bunch of parasites and scroungers those tenants are; they think getting something for nothing off  the landlord is ok. 

Not registered = cannot charge rent.

Don't know what's hard to understand about that. If you are a professional landlord you must understand your responibilities, same as an employer.

[spyguy]

17 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

You are joking? I have never lived in a HMO but even I knew you can claim all the rent back if it's not registered as a HMO.

 

Not registered = cannot charge rent.

Don't know what's hard to understand about that. If you are a professional landlord you must understand your responibilities, same as an employer.

Yes.

I know Leeds.

Its riddled with HMOs.

 

[spyguy]

I have a long running gripe about Building societies having BTL mortgages.

One, its not what they were setup for.

Two, they are clueless about the risk.

I have a particular, personal gripe with LBS as they are lending to all the brassy Wessy n South Yorkshire trollopes who are buying up cottages for FHL in my area.

https://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/your-society/about-us/history/

We’ve been a mutual right from the very beginning. Our origins can actually be traced back to 1845 when a group of people formed the Leeds Union Operative Land and Building Society. Back then, ordinary people struggled to find lenders and somewhere to call home for the long term. Mutuals answered that call by allowing people in working communities to save and borrow, so they could get the home they wanted and support their families.

http://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/intermediaries/news/2019/leeds-adds-5yrdeals-to-bespoke-hmo-mortgage-range/

Leeds Building Society is updating its bespoke HMO* mortgage range for shared houses, adding new five year products after feedback from brokers.

The products, which will launch on 8 February, come with free standard valuation and £500 cashback.

Ive checked LBS website. They dont have a Chief Irony Officer. Or a Brass face bo llox Officer.

Part ofthis is due to yield compression from QE, so BoE/UKGOV are not of the hook.

Other part is complete grreed n stupidity.

FHL, HMO and BTL will sink the remaining Bses.

 

 

 

 

[Peter Hun]

28 minutes ago, spyguy said:

brassy Wessy

Lol, you one of those poor East Yorkshire tykes are you?

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, Peter Hun said:

Lol, you one of those poor East Yorkshire tykes are you?

Rich North.

They are welcome to Brid and Filey.

 

[Peter Hun]

Snobby then...

[Ah-so]

45 minutes ago, spyguy said:

I have a long running gripe about Building societies having BTL mortgages.

One, its not what they were setup for.

Two, they are clueless about the risk.

I have a particular, personal gripe with LBS as they are lending to all the brassy Wessy n South Yorkshire trollopes who are buying up cottages for FHL in my area.

https://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/your-society/about-us/history/

We’ve been a mutual right from the very beginning. Our origins can actually be traced back to 1845 when a group of people formed the Leeds Union Operative Land and Building Society. Back then, ordinary people struggled to find lenders and somewhere to call home for the long term. Mutuals answered that call by allowing people in working communities to save and borrow, so they could get the home they wanted and support their families.

http://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/intermediaries/news/2019/leeds-adds-5yrdeals-to-bespoke-hmo-mortgage-range/

Leeds Building Society is updating its bespoke HMO* mortgage range for shared houses, adding new five year products after feedback from brokers.

The products, which will launch on 8 February, come with free standard valuation and £500 cashback.

Ive checked LBS website. They dont have a Chief Irony Officer. Or a Brass face bo llox Officer.

Part ofthis is due to yield compression from QE, so BoE/UKGOV are not of the hook.

Other part is complete grreed n stupidity.

FHL, HMO and BTL will sink the remaining Bses.

Agree with you on LBS - they went into BTL pretty big a few years ago; like all the other building societies that do not see the irony in this. 

They will argue that they can't run a viable business without BTL. The margins are low on owner occupier mortgages and they need a higher yielding product to meet costs.

There is some truth in this. Unlike banks, building societies cannot tap into a huge reserve of zero percent current accounts and so have to pay much more for deposits. This leavesthem with a higher cost Base.  And except for Nationwide they don't really have the scale to compete with the big lenders on costs. Most have a fairly high cost to income ratio.

[Captain Kirk]

4 hours ago, Ah-so said:

How five Leeds renters triumphed over their landlord and went viral

It transpired their landlord hadn’t acquired a House in Multiple Occupation Licence(HMO). An HMO must be held by any home housing five or more unrelated people who share communal facilities (like a kitchen), with at least one tenant paying rent. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/745ea8b2-2ef2-46ee-89ac-3e596b0efeb1

Apologies if it has been posted already, but it is a good story and leads to a lot of additional information about the general resentment from a whole exploited generation. 

Two sentences in that article stick out for me

Quote

This stands in stark contrast to the heady days of previous decades - for example, in 1980, UK private renters only spent an average of 10% of their income on rent.

and

Quote

crucially – no one had returned after Christmas to find the landlord snoozing in their bed (a Boxing Day surprise they’d encountered during a previous tenancy

The UK private rental sector is a cesspit of speculation.

[adarmo]

3 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

Just shows what a bunch of parasites and scroungers those tenants are; they think getting something for nothing off  the landlord is ok. 

Morally equivalent to those old landlords who used to keep your deposit. 

Scroungers and parasites always think their activity is ok. 

Still, one out of the 6 had some morals. That's probably a fair description of England.  

 

Finally we agree on something

By all accounts the property and landlord were excellent, or at least decent and better than their other digs which were registered (presumably).

Two things stand out here. 

1. HMO and rental regulation in general are not at all up to scratch. 

2. They suffered no financial loss for the landlord's deception but can sue for a non financial loss? Are we America? Are they arguing that they wouldn't have rented anywhere had they known it was unlicensed?

There's an additional point now about the need for a licence to rent to five individuals but not a family of five, or six.....

Death to btl of course but students have pretty much always rented.

[longgone]

Landlord bashing is ok with me. 

Poor tenants found a way for free digs.

[spyguy]

9 hours ago, adarmo said:

Finally we agree on something

By all accounts the property and landlord were excellent, or at least decent and better than their other digs which were registered (presumably).

Two things stand out here. 

1. HMO and rental regulation in general are not at all up to scratch. 

2. They suffered no financial loss for the landlord's deception but can sue for a non financial loss? Are we America? Are they arguing that they wouldn't have rented anywhere had they known it was unlicensed?

There's an additional point now about the need for a licence to rent to five individuals but not a family of five, or six.....

Death to btl of course but students have pretty much always rented.

I dont think thse are students, not that that matters - HMO laws apply to working and students.

This is not about giving money to tenants. Its about fining a LL for blatantly disregarding the extra rules and laws about HMOs, which are in place because

1) HMO can cause serious problems for an area.

2) They can be very very very dangerous, This one was relatively safe but there are cases of a similar sized property having 15+ adults and kids stuffed in.

However - the nly reasons why a LL would avoid complying with HMO regulation is purely money. And is only right that a LL is hit where it hurts - wallet.

 

[Spindler]

13 hours ago, spyguy said:

I have a long running gripe about Building societies having BTL mortgages.

One, its not what they were setup for.

Two, they are clueless about the risk.

I have a particular, personal gripe with LBS as they are lending to all the brassy Wessy n South Yorkshire trollopes who are buying up cottages for FHL in my area.

https://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/your-society/about-us/history/

We’ve been a mutual right from the very beginning. Our origins can actually be traced back to 1845 when a group of people formed the Leeds Union Operative Land and Building Society. Back then, ordinary people struggled to find lenders and somewhere to call home for the long term. Mutuals answered that call by allowing people in working communities to save and borrow, so they could get the home they wanted and support their families.

http://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/intermediaries/news/2019/leeds-adds-5yrdeals-to-bespoke-hmo-mortgage-range/

Leeds Building Society is updating its bespoke HMO* mortgage range for shared houses, adding new five year products after feedback from brokers.

The products, which will launch on 8 February, come with free standard valuation and £500 cashback.

Ive checked LBS website. They dont have a Chief Irony Officer. Or a Brass face bo llox Officer.

Part ofthis is due to yield compression from QE, so BoE/UKGOV are not of the hook.

Other part is complete grreed n stupidity.

FHL, HMO and BTL will sink the remaining Bses.

 

 

 

 

i recall 20 years ago Nationwide when i took out a mortgage forced me as part of the mortgae offer to sign away any rights to cash if they demutualized....they were under threat from carpetbaggers......and under their current(have you seen his ears ? Or is that a small head ?) boss have behaved despicably by getting into BTL.....they are no building society....they fund the very people who make it difficult for people to buy their own homes....

[Spindler]

14 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

You are joking? I have never lived in a HMO but even I knew you can claim all the rent back if it's not registered as a HMO.

 

Not registered = cannot charge rent.

Don't know what's hard to understand about that. If you are a professional landlord you must understand your responibilities, same as an employer.

these the ones still being surprised by S24......when you are working a full time job it doesnt leave much time to be be on the ball on that property portfolio....and now you're screaming about s24 and the tex implications.......to argue with myself even f they arent working and are just rentiers they would likely fill their day with golf..holiday anything than keep tabs on the legislative angle.....in essence with a select few most are fly by nights....fly by nights who in some cases have borrowed millions to buy up property

 

Finally it seems the TPTB "DO NOT WANT" Amateur/Leveraged landlords messing up their voting base....i don;t think this has finally sunk into the cretins who inhabit mumsnet and are also property moguls...in their minds....when you're facing an extinction event best to evolve....in this case get out and get out fast....

 

To Add: Some of these LL's probably have not thought that if we do get a severe downturn in prices..depending where their entry point was they could end up losing everything inc the family home.....there is already clear evidence of the brutal nature(justified in my book) the lenders will treat you with when called to....if these turkeys are not up on the facts around their borrowings and new legisaltion they face a wipe out....but i think the majority are blissfully unaware....there is plently of evidence to be found via a google search how a LL has gone from mega LL to zilch in a very short time....same rule apply to OO and LL....got a mortgage on it....YOU don't own it......if equity is your buffer that can evaporate quickly in a downturn...even if you have equity and somehow get repossesed because of cash flow probs...voids or whatever...the lender will sell at firesale prices....

So methinks there are a lot of future "i lost everything" stories to yet to be added to that google search

Edited April 20, 2019 by Spindler

[spyguy]

5 minutes ago, Spindler said:

i recall 20 years ago Nationwide when i took out a mortgage forced me as part of the mortgae offer to sign away any rights to cash if they demutualized....they were under threat from carpetbaggers......and under their current(have you seen his ears ? Or is that a small head ?) boss have behaved despicably by getting into BTL.....they are no building society....they fund the very people who make it difficult for people to buy their own homes....

IIRC this was a clumsy attempt to deal with large number of people opening up member accounts with 10/20 quid.

I have an observation of demute -

The majority of BS that demuted, which took place in a few years around 1997, blew up in 2007.

Think about that.

IN 10 years, BS that had been around for over 100 years blew up.

Halifax, BrdnBing, Scarb BS, Nationwide, Abbey Nat, etc etc etc.

These BS accounted for the majority of mortgage providers.

 

[winkie]

Setting an example that the law is on the tenants side and landlords that do not abide by the rules may lose in court if prosecuted........a good nudge to see they get their house in order.

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

I dont think thse are students, not that that matters - HMO laws apply to working and students.

This is not about giving money to tenants. Its about fining a LL for blatantly disregarding the extra rules and laws about HMOs, which are in place because

1) HMO can cause serious problems for an area.

2) They can be very very very dangerous, This one was relatively safe but there are cases of a similar sized property having 15+ adults and kids stuffed in.

However - the nly reasons why a LL would avoid complying with HMO regulation is purely money. And is only right that a LL is hit where it hurts - wallet.

 

Laws obviously apply to everyone. 

But this is not a fine. Fines are not paid to individuals. Fines are penalties and do not stand in contracts unless a genuine estimate of loss or real one can be demonstrated. 

Clearly the LL was saving a few quid and maybe the place wasnt up to the latest fire regs etc or perhaps wouldn't have been approved in that location but again my points stand. The tenants suffered no financial loss and even saw out their tenancy after being made aware so i don't think it could have been an obviously dangerous place. They were awarded a refund despite having the benefit of accommodation and despite all of that why do you need an hmo licence for a house with 3 or more individuals on separate contracts But not for a family of 8?

I'm saying that all rental property should be regulated to the same standards and that fines should be paid to the authorities to police enforcement of those regulations.

So glad the LL suffered the consequences but do not understand why the former tenants got the money. Maybe now tenants will seek out dodgy HMOs knowing they'll get the money back at some point?

[Dorkins]

14 minutes ago, adarmo said:

So glad the LL suffered the consequences but do not understand why the former tenants got the money. Maybe now tenants will seek out dodgy HMOs knowing they'll get the money back at some point?

I would guess the law was written that way partly because it's difficult for local authorities to identify unlicensed HMOs, so the money going to the tenants means they have an incentive to dob their landlord in.

I agree with your point about all rental property being regulated to the same standards and always thought the definition/cutoff for an HMO was pretty arbitrary but I can understand why policymakers did it this way because HMOs are a known problem area for poor maintenance and breaches of tenants' rights so it allows some focusing of resources.

It would be interesting to make it compulsory for landlords to register all private rentals with the same penalty if they don't (all back rent repaid to the tenants). That would get a couple of million non-declarers twitching.

[bomberbrown]

I wonder if the young lads used these guys? (Credit to another poster on here that posted about this)

https://rentrepaymentorder.co.uk/

Edited April 20, 2019 by bomberbrown

[Peter Hun]

13 hours ago, adarmo said:

. They suffered no financial loss for the landlord's deception but can sue for a non financial loss? Are we America? Are they arguing that they wouldn't have rented anywhere had they known it was unlicensed?

They were put at personal risk by someone who was illegally renting and therefore had no right to charge them anything.

Also, its a deterrent to other criminals. If they are registered the quality of housing can be checked and the tax paying status of the landlord tracked. It also blocks illegal subletting.