Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dave

Subject To An Occupancy

Recommended Posts

Looks to been reposessed, as the house was first sold in 2001 for 41 K, then sold in 2004 for 85k and just sold in Allsops Auction for 70k freehold subject to an occupancy.

252, Green Lane, Clifton, Nottingham

I am presuming this is the same as sitting tennancy, if it is, this could prove to be a nightmare for the new landlord.

My uncle owns a shop with a flat in Kentish town. Some old lady has sitting tenancy rights. She was old and would not leave. Somehow, the sitting tenancy rights passed down to her daughter who did not even live there initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to been reposessed, as the house was first sold in 2001 for 41 K, then sold in 2004 for 85k and just sold in Allsops Auction for 70k freehold subject to an occupancy.

252, Green Lane, Clifton, Nottingham

I am presuming this is the same as sitting tennancy, if it is, this could prove to be a nightmare for the new landlord.

My uncle owns a shop with a flat in Kentish town. Some old lady has sitting tenancy rights. She was old and would not leave. Somehow, the sitting tenancy rights passed down to her daughter who did not even live there initially.

Excuse my ignorance but what are sitting tennancy rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance but what are sitting tennancy rights?

Oh, just a minor thing that happens to be the core of probably the most important UK change that has allowed the housing market to be fairly valued where it is now.

If you don't know what a sitting tenant is, you really don't have a valid voice when you claim a HPC is on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance but what are sitting tennancy rights?

Excuse TTRTR's ignorance

one definition

Sitting tenant:-

A property which has a person having a legal right to live there, even if the property changes hands, The sitting tenant is able to apply to the local authority to set a "fair" rent.

Properties with sitting tenants are generally worth less than their comparable value with vacant possession.

I am sure TTRTR will have another definition in his infinite wisdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse TTRTR's ignorance

one definition

Sitting tenant:-

A property which has a person having a legal right to live there, even if the property changes hands, The sitting tenant is able to apply to the local authority to set a "fair" rent.

Properties with sitting tenants are generally worth less than their comparable value with vacant possession.

I am sure TTRTR will have another definition in his infinite wisdom

How about this definition:

A blood sucking no good thief, stealing the services of the landlord & refusing to pay the fair value of the property they occupy. Leeching is their way, until they fall off & die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, lets see....

The plumber, the electrician, the handyman, the DIY store staff, the appliance makers, the furniture makers, the builder, it just goes on & on. Not to mention the taxman of course.

Every householder in the country employs them as well

So the real answer? - would it be none perhaps

TTRTR I enjoy some of your wit and the majority of your posts (although I don't agree with much of what you say) but it is not your position to verbally lambast someone who asks a genuine question

Remember no one loves a smartarse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you forgot it employs me! The job I used to do is now in the hands of someone else & so on down the chain.

I think people deserve a good beating for having an opinion without knowledge. I think it's my job to make them realise when something is an important detail that they should familiarise themselves with before deciding their opinion.

I don't think it's your place to tell me what my place is either. So you can shove off now thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, just a minor thing that happens to be the core of probably the most important UK change that has allowed the housing market to be fairly valued where it is now.

If you don't know what a sitting tenant is, you really don't have a valid voice when you claim a HPC is on the way.

Look matey, I know when something is overpriced. Just because I don't hand shuffle myself blind over economics does not mean my voice is not valid. The clue is in the handle ... common sense. My profession is to keep your country safe from attack so you better hope that I have some sort of brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you forgot it employs me! The job I used to do is now in the hands of someone else & so on down the chain.

I think people deserve a good beating for having an opinion without knowledge. I think it's my job to make them realise when something is an important detail that they should familiarise themselves with before deciding their opinion.

I don't think it's your place to tell me what my place is either. So you can shove off now thanks.

This person didn't express an opinion he/she asked a question

You want me to shove off - is it too difficult when you encounter a reasoned argument

TTRTR's not playing any more it's his ball and he's taking it home with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse TTRTR's ignorance

one definition

Sitting tenant:-

A property which has a person having a legal right to live there, even if the property changes hands, The sitting tenant is able to apply to the local authority to set a "fair" rent.

Properties with sitting tenants are generally worth less than their comparable value with vacant possession.

I am sure TTRTR will have another definition in his infinite wisdom

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My girlfriend and 3 friends got 3 grand each when they were asked to leave a shared house up for sale - they had no real contract so were able to fleece the stupid landlord :lol: (cue bleeding heart, not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, lets see....

The plumber, the electrician, the handyman, the DIY store staff, the appliance makers, the furniture makers, the builder, it just goes on & on. Not to mention the taxman of course.

I employ all of those and a landlord to run the administration. All at a click of my fingers of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A blood sucking no good thief, stealing the services of the landlord & refusing to pay the fair value of the property they occupy. Leeching is their way, until they fall off & die

For once I agree with TTRTR.

My Grandfather suffered a sitting tenant in one of his two houses and eventually was more or less forced to sell it to the tenant for 25% of it's real worth. The rent he got didn't even cover the cost of the annual maintenance. This was back in the 1960s before the long overdue overhaul of the rental market. The house sold for £600 and the descendants of the original sitting tenant re-sold the same house last year for £295K.

Sitting tenancy law was odious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in your example RB, the tenant profited, it's my belief that the old system made both tenants and landlords suffer.

I saw many derelict properties for sale in the mid 90's that had been occupied by sitting tenants. The landlords hadn't kept them up to date and the tenants lived in squallor until their deaths. The reality was that the tenants weren't paying enough to make it possible for the landlord to renovate.

But more importantly, hanging onto a property as a sitting tenant means losing other opportunities in life like buying your own place or moving away to a better climate if the tenant was unhappy.

A friend I used to work with who was a sitting tenant himself, told me in 1999 that he'd missed the boat and that his rent kept rising as an anti stiing tenant feeling was rippling through the courts. I told him the boat was always sailing, but I bet he didn't listen & now we can all see that 1999 prices were a bargain compared with today. Not wanting to put him down, but his family has suffered for that decision and for that opportunity to stay in that flat. Had he been a standard tenant, he may have decided to move & buy instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in your example RB, the tenant profited, it's my belief that the old system made both tenants and landlords suffer.

I saw many derelict properties for sale in the mid 90's that had been occupied by sitting tenants. The landlords hadn't kept them up to date and the tenants lived in squallor until their deaths. The reality was that the tenants weren't paying enough to make it possible for the landlord to renovate.

But more importantly, hanging onto a property as a sitting tenant means losing other opportunities in life like buying your own place or moving away to a better climate if the tenant was unhappy.

A friend I used to work with who was a sitting tenant himself, told me in 1999 that he'd missed the boat and that his rent kept rising as an anti stiing tenant feeling was rippling through the courts. I told him the boat was always sailing, but I bet he didn't listen & now we can all see that 1999 prices were a bargain compared with today. Not wanting to put him down, but his family has suffered for that decision and for that opportunity to stay in that flat. Had he been a standard tenant, he may have decided to move & buy instead.

I see your point but it's a bit of a circular argument - you're saying that abolition of the old system is partly the reason for much higher prices (I agree with that). And then that your sitting tenant friend suffered because of rising prices (er, caused by abolition of the old system...).

You're right that the inflexibility of the old system sometimes made it hard for people to adapt, but a lot of people are now suffering because of high house prices and increased rents whether they were sitting tenants or not.

Personally I agree with you that the old system was too inflexible, and that it didn't always encourage landlords to update or look after property (although many old landlords were longstanding owners who didn't need to cover IO mortgages etc and therefore didn't begrudge fulfilling their duties as much as some of the new breed). But I think that the changes in tenancies shifted the balance too far the other way. Now tenants have very little protection or security, there are very few long term cheap rentals available (which damages society in a different way), and as a result there are fewer options in society. Landlording now has far fewer responsibilities so a lot of amateurs see it as a way of making a cheap buck.

Essentially I agree with you that the changes in tenancies have contributed to a higher equilibrium level for house prices. But I don't see that as a good or inevitable thing, and I think there probably were ways of achieving a better balance between tenant and landlord and freeing up the market without going so completely to the other extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you broadly agree with me, but I can't help but pick up on a few points.

I ask why there should be cheap rents? I know that I strive to meet my obligations by being as productive as I can. For example I've done three extensions in the last 2 years & have got one in the pipeline now, waiting for planning permission. That's my way of trying to make sure my earning potential stays ahead of my obligations.

So IMO, giving a person an opt out of future obligation in the form of cheap rent, is damaging both to them personally and to the value of the property (therefore to the market and also to the broader economy). The person is less productive and so is the property.

So I am saying that not only did the abolition (for new tenancies) of the old rules help to restore the value of the UK property market - I'm also saying that the UK was undervalued for decades right up to the the birth of BTL.

So I'm also saying that the old vs incomes value model was wrong, or that the old valuation methods only applied when the old rules existed. These new & brighter times have been good for tenants (much more quality property available to rent), good for valuations, good for OO's, good for the economy, good for younger people who stepped into an economy of very high employment (a lot of it in the housing market) and finally, good again for tenants who are compelled to do the best they can & try to become OO's to get away from endlessly (into retirement) rising rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you broadly agree with me, but I can't help but pick up on a few points.

I ask why there should be cheap rents? I know that I strive to meet my obligations by being as productive as I can. For example I've done three extensions in the last 2 years & have got one in the pipeline now, waiting for planning permission. That's my way of trying to make sure my earning potential stays ahead of my obligations.

You're basing your view of how the market should operate on your own circumstances as a LL, having bought relatively recently at increasing prices. Traditionally there were a fair number of landlords or trusts who had owned the property on a long-term basis and didn't have such high short-term cashflow requirements. I would speculate that extending your property is more about increasing the potential earnings rather than looking after your tenants (not that I'm saying you don't - but I don't think the current low-yield short-term profit model of landlording always encourages social responsibility).

So IMO, giving a person an opt out of future obligation in the form of cheap rent, is damaging both to them personally and to the value of the property (therefore to the market and also to the broader economy). The person is less productive and so is the property.

Cheap rent provides the possibility of alternative lifestyles - productivity can be a good thing, but I'm uncomfortable with it being the only way of measuring value and worth. Cheap accomodation may have allowed some to wallow in unproductivity - but it allowed others to pursue altruistic, artistic or other socially worthwhile lifestyles (sorry for sounding a bit Guardian reader, but you get the point). If we all now have to slog 60 hours a week to pay the rent, that detracts from our society in that respect. That doesn't mean all rent should be cheap, but some of the useful options of the past have been closed off (for instance Housing Associations have now been largely co-opted as council housing rather than fulfilling their original alternative non-profit role).

I also don't accept that UK property stock being valued higher is a good thing per se. It has some good effects but also some bad effects.

So I'm also saying that the old vs incomes value model was wrong, or that the old valuation methods only applied when the old rules existed. These new & brighter times have been good for tenants (much more quality property available to rent), good for valuations, good for OO's, good for the economy, good for younger people who stepped into an economy of very high employment (a lot of it in the housing market) and finally, good again for tenants who are compelled to do the best they can & try to become OO's to get away from endlessly (into retirement) rising rents.

Yes it's mighty salutary for us to have to pay massive, increasing rents so we can forced into buying overpriced houses... Actually I already said there's a degree of truth in your theory that the changes in the market have created a new higher equilibrium, although I also think that some of the miracle economy is a Potemkin village and that the real equilibrium is a bit lower than where we are.

But I don't think it had to be this way, or that it is an undiluted good. Greater regulation of landlords, some degree of security in tenancies, some attempt to discourage excess speculation in the property market at a national level - any of these might have led to a less irrationally exuberant outcome.

It's great for you that you've done well out of it, but the country's not just about bright young energetic urban types who can cash in - it's also about people like my wife's nan in a Northern mill town where rents are going through the roof as idiot BTL investors pile in and screw up the local property market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTRTR,

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all. The current system (in its entirety) is not optimal. Regardless of what House Prices do (and of course, those people pushed into buying due to rising rents may not feel they've done so well if the house they buy next month does drop in value - but lets not get into that), the current system is not good for people who don't want to give lots of cash to No 11 Downing Street.

Lets say I'm working in a job that demands I move around the country at systematic intervals of about 3 or 4 years, or say I am a young man hoping to have a family in due course. I will want to move around and so don't want to fritter away 5-6-7% of my House Price each time on Stamp Duty, Estate Agents fees, etc. But I need some stability to ensure that, for example, my children can go to the same school and not have to keep moving every year. The sitting tenant system was too far in 'favour' of the tenant. The current system is too far in favour of the Landlord. Better would be a model that I am currently using to rent in a European country: leases that run up to nine years (penalties payable to the Landlord if the tenant breaks before 3 years), with the rent indexed to a national rent index i.e. automatically going up each year in line with 'average' rents. It ensures that Landlords have increasing rents, ensures they can chuck tenants out and sell up if they need to without having to wait too too long, but also ensures that tenants can have some degree of security should they desire it e.g. long enough to see a child through a particular junior or secondary school.

The net result is a healthy market where most younger folk rent for a decade or more, moving between two or three rental properties, and then eventually buy/build a family home which they will often live in for years.

I like renting and would gladly pay someone a bit more to fix stuff on my behalf (which I do). But I don't like renting in the UK where that same someone can turf you out at a moments notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has got to be where opinions diverge. I don't agree that security is good for tenants. I believe insecurity keeps them on their toes & encourages them to do more to create a better future for themselves.

Remember, I was a tenant too. I'm not trying to speak as an overbearing landlord, just someone who has a bunch of friends that never really found their path & I wish they'd listened to me a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTRTR,

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all. The current system (in its entirety) is not optimal. Regardless of what House Prices do (and of course, those people pushed into buying due to rising rents may not feel they've done so well if the house they buy next month does drop in value - but lets not get into that), the current system is not good for people who don't want to give lots of cash to No 11 Downing Street.

Lets say I'm working in a job that demands I move around the country at systematic intervals of about 3 or 4 years, or say I am a young man hoping to have a family in due course. I will want to move around and so don't want to fritter away 5-6-7% of my House Price each time on Stamp Duty, Estate Agents fees, etc. But I need some stability to ensure that, for example, my children can go to the same school and not have to keep moving every year. The sitting tenant system was too far in 'favour' of the tenant. The current system is too far in favour of the Landlord. Better would be a model that I am currently using to rent in a European country: leases that run up to nine years (penalties payable to the Landlord if the tenant breaks before 3 years), with the rent indexed to a national rent index i.e. automatically going up each year in line with 'average' rents. It ensures that Landlords have increasing rents, ensures they can chuck tenants out and sell up if they need to without having to wait too too long, but also ensures that tenants can have some degree of security should they desire it e.g. long enough to see a child through a particular junior or secondary school.

The net result is a healthy market where most younger folk rent for a decade or more, moving between two or three rental properties, and then eventually buy/build a family home which they will often live in for years.

I like renting and would gladly pay someone a bit more to fix stuff on my behalf (which I do). But I don't like renting in the UK where that same someone can turf you out at a moments notice.

That's an interesting example of a system that might be better (I'm sure there are others...) One absolutely key thing about it is that if introduced here it would have eliminated a certain element of speculation. As things stand you can buy a property, to flip or rent, then rent it out to cover the mortgage, but always have one eye on the exit as you can kick the tenant out anytime you want to sell. That encourages people to keep buying to let even at very low marginal yields, and even when they have very little experience of landlording, or any idea that being a landlord carries a degree of personal responsibilty to tenants.

This has got to be where opinions diverge. I don't agree that security is good for tenants. I believe insecurity keeps them on their toes & encourages them to do more to create a better future for themselves.

Remember, I was a tenant too. I'm not trying to speak as an overbearing landlord, just someone who has a bunch of friends that never really found their path & I wish they'd listened to me a little.

Well, it's probably a matter of degree - total security or total insecurity each have their own problems.

Without wanting to bang on about it, I would say that the degree of insecurity we have now also contributes to the high house prices - which means that plenty of those insecure tenants can't actually afford to buy - of course there are other ways to create a better future for yourself, but that is a major handicap for many.

I don't think you're trying to be an overbearing landlord here - I just think you're seeing what worked for you as being the best solution for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.