Newish LL asking about why tenants wants a three year rent period.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    It sounds like a clever theoretical argument from a spin doctor, made to fit around their anti-landlord agenda. Casting just enough doubt to send us off down correlation argument rabbit holes.

    As landlords, we know it is wrong, if only for sound financial reasons. Landlords mainly evict under section 21 for rent arrears followed by ASB.

    An increase in rent was responsible for just 9% of rent arrears.
    (Unemployment, benefit problems, pay day loans, holidays in Ibiza, beer & fags etc were responsible for the other 91%).
    Source EHS;

    https://assets.publishing.service.go...tor_report.pdf

    Not to mention rents are falling/flat in London and the SE and rising in the SW and East Midlands;

    https://www.lslps.co.uk/news-and-med...y-to-let-index

    And this one from Shelter;

    https://england.shelter.org.uk/profe...vate_landlords

    The chart below shows the reasons landlords gave for removing tenants. Rent arrears of over two months (46%) or anti-social behaviour/ damage to the property (26%) were by far the most common reasons given, but in 9% of cases, the main reason was to do with either the landlord needing to sell, move in or get a higher rent (1%), which the existing tenant wouldn’t pay.

    Convinced?


    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by boletus View Post
      It sounds like a clever theoretical argument from a spin doctor, made to fit around their anti-landlord agenda. Casting just enough doubt to send us off down correlation argument rabbit holes.
      I'm fairly sure it was highlighted by Nearly Legal on Twitter.
      It was based on data for a period when rents were rising, as far as I remember.

      It should be interesting when stats are available for the periods with falling rent.

      I don't buy the shelter data.
      It's based on 185 landlords (few of whom are going to claim they kicked a tenant out to make more money).

      Most commonly they blame rent arrears (which makes sense) but most tenants claim they were told it was to sell the property.
      And I've heard the same from a lot of tenants (who then are mystified when the property they've left is readvertised to let).

      I'm not 100% sure, either way.
      I just no longer believe that "no landlord*" would evict a decent tenant just to rent it to someone else for more money.
      Which I once did.

      *I'm ignoring the crooks who would do just about anything.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #33
        Pretty hard to refute without seeing any actual data that backs it up but if someone is claiming it is commonplace, then it sounds like anti-landlord spin to me.

        I just no longer believe that "no landlord*" would evict a decent tenant just to rent it to someone else for more money.
        Me neither, (nearly) all of us are in it for the money but the risk, void, cost and hassle of actually making a section 21 claim hugely outweighs most possible gains. I'd be looking at a 30%+ increase at least before entertaining it, and the earlier link shows nowhere giving that.

        And why not just do a simple section 13 rent increase notice if there are no problems with the tenant?

        Not saying it doesn't happen, just that the amount must be infinitesimal compared with those evicted for rent arrears and ASB.

        The 1% from the Shelter survey sounds about right.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by boletus View Post

          Unless well-paid Mummy and Daddy with a PPR are firmly on the hook as guarantors, I'd question that competency.
          Well I did forget that his agent messed up the guarantor agreement, so that probably wouldnt have been enforceable - but how do you define "competent"? He has tenants who keep the place reasonably tidy, dont ask him to do anything unless it's really needed, pay the rent regularly and dont annoy the other tenants. So he made a good decision in letting to them in the first place and its not surprising he wants to keep them. He has any necessary work done very quickly, didnt ask for a rent increase and doesnt bother them and the other tenants arent too much of a pain so they are happy to stay.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by buzzard1994 View Post

            Well I did forget that his agent messed up the guarantor agreement, so that probably wouldnt have been enforceable - but how do you define "competent"?
            In this context, I meant competent in knowing the legalities of being a landlord, rights and obligations.
            Sounds a decent enough bloke but seems to be winging it a bit with the guarantor agreement.
            Although I'm sure you'd honour it if they'd behaved reasonably. Plus student lets are usually paid substantially in advance, for a student year and with a (hopefully) high paid graduate to go after for the next 6 years if necessary.
            As said, student lets are a different kettle of fish.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              I used to think that too.
              In fact I've made the same argument on here in the past.

              But then someone showed me an interesting graphic.
              Areas of highest use of s21 notices and areas with highest rates of rent increase adjusted for population.
              The areas with the highest rate of rent rise had a disproportionately high level of s21 notices.

              Obviously there's a lot of other things that could impact the figures - the figures on notices come from the courts, so they relate to disputed notices or at least one's not complied with, which could simply be a result of the tenant not being able to comply when rents around them are rising sharply - or simply wanting a few more weeks/months at a lower rent.

              But, overall, it changed my mind.
              Hmm. I think you might put up with a useless tenant if you know you aren't going to get any more money from anyone else.

              If you know you can get more cash from a better tenant, you'll crack on with the s21, won't you?

              Comment

              Latest Activity

              Collapse

              Working...
              X