How do you handle the Tenant Fees ban?

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

    #16
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    I believed this (and argued it) until someone showed me a map correlating the areas of the country with the highest rent increases per annum and the highest number of s21 notice based possession hearings.
    I'd be interested to see that if you have a link. Did the S8G8 show the same correlation?
    But it is quite a leap to claim that proves landlords chop and change tenants to increase rents.
    I've never come across a landlord who does it. Seen plenty of bad tenants claim it (omitting to mention the rent arrears and ASB).
    If indeed these high end landlords are doing this, why aren't they selecting tenants who can afford rent increases in the first place?

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      I believed this (and argued it) until someone showed me a map correlating the areas of the country with the highest rent increases per annum and the highest number of s21 notice based possession hearings.
      I hope you're not referring to this little gem of convincing argument JPK;

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/44230...pletely-legal/
      In 2016, research by Generation Rent found that rising house prices have fuelled no-fault evictions.

      It claims that rising prices make landlords feel more confident to sell or find new tenants who will pay higher rent.
      The same research that revealed that of those tenants who had to move, only 2% were because they had breached the tenancy agreement.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        I believed this (and argued it) until someone showed me a map correlating the areas of the country with the highest rent increases per annum and the highest number of s21 notice based possession hearings.
        The correlation was uncanny (although the regions with high rent tend to be areas with a lot of people).

        I think that what happens (broadly) is that some landlords increase the rent until the tenant can't afford another increase and then serve notice to the tenant.
        Most tentants given notice who have been able to afford an already high rent will move out without a court hearing, and some of those that don't go to court.

        In my part of the world (the West Midlands) rents don't increase at anywhere near the rate that they do in (say) London and Cambridge and aren't as high to start with, and, for me, the cost and void period would wipe out the benefit of a rent increase for a long time.
        To the point where the idea had never really occurred to me as a possibility.

        But a 10% annual increase on a monthly rent of £1500-£2000 plus per month changes the economics.
        High population areas will have more rental activity. You should look at the number of S21 per 1000 people or average number of properties advertised over a certain period, per 1000 of population. That way population size won't matter.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

          ^^^ That's the crux of the thing. And marginally risky tenants won't get tenancies at all. I certainly won't bother going through hoops. A 20% increase in rents across the board would balance the risks for me -- obviously that won't happen in a single step, but it is the net long-term effect.
          How can a ban on tenant fees lead to risky tenants losing out? If anything, they can apply to more properties as they have no fee to pay. If they slip through the net, it's the LL who hasn't done due diligence, with or without tenant fees.

          How can a LL tell if the tenant will be short-term or not if the tenant doesn't want to reveal that? Especially in the new climate that will favour longer-term tenancies, tenants would learn to present themselves as long-term.

          I think the bottom line is tenants will end up with a higher rent to make up for the fee ban. The higher rent may well make LL more money in the end, especially if they try to cut down on short-term tenants (and manage to do so).

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by boletus View Post
            I'd be interested to see that if you have a link. Did the S8G8 show the same correlation?
            But it is quite a leap to claim that proves landlords chop and change tenants to increase rents.
            I've never come across a landlord who does it. Seen plenty of bad tenants claim it (omitting to mention the rent arrears and ASB).
            If indeed these high end landlords are doing this, why aren't they selecting tenants who can afford rent increases in the first place?
            I'll try and find it.

            It was sent to me by Giles Peaker (Nearly Legal website) during a discussion on Twitter.
            I made pretty much the same point you did (which reflected my thinking at the time) and he, very politely pointed out that he spent a lot of time representing people that this was happening to (I think London based) and shared the stats.

            It wasn't just that there was a bit of a correlation, it was really notable.

            What I outlined as the kind of process is how I think it happens in a very general way.
            And why aren't the landlords finding tenants who can afford increases in the first place? Until recently increases were so steep and regular that people started off in the can afford it group, swiftly moved into the can barely afford it if we don't eat group and then into the can't afford it group.


            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


              #21
              Nothing like confusing correlation with causation, eh?

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by kelbol View Post
                How can a ban on tenant fees lead to risky tenants losing out?
                He said marginally risky tenants.
                For example, a landlord might have taken a punt on someone who is recently self employed when they were paying for the checks themselves. In fees and time, it costs maybe £100 to check a tenant, why bother when there are plenty of other vanilla candidates?

                How can a LL tell if the tenant will be short-term or not if the tenant doesn't want to reveal that?
                By interviewing them and then checking out their story. If they claim the 5th amendment, move on to the next enquirer.



                Comment


                  #23
                  Think this is everything I was sent.


                  Background:
                  Population of England (about) 55m, London (about) 8.5m (15% of total).
                  Dwellings in England (about) 23.9m, dwellings in London (about) 3.5m (14.5% total).

                  https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/povert...d-forced-moves

                  TL/DR version - "Rents have risen faster in London than other parts of Britain, especially in the last year. The annual increase in rents in London now stands at 4.1 per cent"

                  ​"​​​​​​Nearly two-thirds (62.4%) of all repossessions using Section 21 take place in London."

                  Most relevant part starts on page 11

                  "Figure 7 shows that the repossession rate, across all types of private landlord action, in the three regions of London, the East and the South East, has risen by more than a half (60%), from 4.49 per 1,000 to 7.2 per 1,000 since 2003, while in the rest of England, the repossession rate has risen by 7% since 2003, from 1.9 per 1,000 to just under 2.1 per 1,000."

                  "Four out of every five (81.4%) of all repossessions using Section 21 take place in the three regions of London, the East and the South East."

                  "Figure 10 shows that the repossession rate using Section 21 in London has risen by 87%, while in England excluding London, the rate has risen by 66%.."


                  The data on rent increases is here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infla...-country-level

                  The data on repossessions (is here) - https://assets.publishing.service.go...Oct-Dec_18.pdf

                  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


                    #24
                    Thanks for digging that out JPK.
                    I think your discussion with Giles Peaker must have been slightly different to the one here.

                    What your link shows is landlords exiting a housing benefit market that has become no longer viable due to circumstances outside of their control (tax, benefit changes, changes in legislation). The large number of section 21's is because benefits tenants are told to stay until evicted.

                    It's not the same as (implied) greedy landlords chopping and changing tenants on a (implied) whim.
                    -Because they don't.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Rather like climate change causing CO2 increase, instead of CO2 increase causing climate change, I wonder if it was the repossessions that caused the rent increases rather than rent increases causing repossessions?

                      Perhaps having a larger turnover of tenants who refuse to even pay existing rent means landlords tend to update their rent more often, rather than updating their rent necessitating turnover of tenants? I know which I think sounds more sensible.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by kelbol View Post
                        How can a ban on tenant fees lead to risky tenants losing out?
                        That's fairly obvious:

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to pay a holding deposit to secure a property (for example while awaiting a visa or a final job confirmation)

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to be able to prove their low risk status to secure a property and to have me get that information rapidly (I will simply assume the worst)

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to pay a premium to delay a start date.

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants who have pets or are a potential risk (because the deposit will not be commensurate with the risk)

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants do not yet have UK bank accounts with sufficient funds (because they live abroad and are not allowed to pay a holding deposit)

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants do not yet have a UK visa (because they are not allowed to pay a holding deposit while I wait)

                        I will no longer be able to accept tenants who require a guarantor because it is not absolutely clear to me that they can be asked to pay the costs involved to draw up proper agreements

                        More broadly, I will not use an agent to procure tenants and will do so myself. Agents tend to select riskier tenants because the risk is not their risk.

                        I would also prefer to select tenants where it is clear they have no desire to lay down roots in the area, to the detriment of those who do (because some fool like Jeremy Corbyn with a political philosophy derived from the most odious regimes in history might place me in a situation where I am faced with a lifetime of financial detriment and distress).


                        Comment


                          #27
                          From JPK's kindly provided links. Note the dates;

                          JRF report;
                          the rented sector has grown in the past 12 years by nearly a half, and the number of tenants being evicted from their homes has grown by a third: 10,000 more tenants lost their homes in 2015 than in 2003
                          Latest possession statistics;
                          Landlord possession claims, orders, warrants and repossessions by county court bailiffs have decreased by 5%, 1%, 3% and 5% respectively (compared to the same quarter last year). The general fall across landlord possession actions continues the long-term decreasing trend seen since April-June 2014.
                          Rents haven't been falling over the last 5 years.

                          But without the benefit of hindsight, those very cleverly presented statistics are hard to argue against at the time, even when you know the premise is blatantly false.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                            That's fairly obvious:

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to pay a holding deposit to secure a property (for example while awaiting a visa or a final job confirmation)

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to be able to prove their low risk status to secure a property and to have me get that information rapidly (I will simply assume the worst)

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to pay a premium to delay a start date.

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who have pets or are a potential risk (because the deposit will not be commensurate with the risk)

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants do not yet have UK bank accounts with sufficient funds (because they live abroad and are not allowed to pay a holding deposit)

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants do not yet have a UK visa (because they are not allowed to pay a holding deposit while I wait)

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who require a guarantor because it is not absolutely clear to me that they can be asked to pay the costs involved to draw up proper agreements

                            More broadly, I will not use an agent to procure tenants and will do so myself. Agents tend to select riskier tenants because the risk is not their risk.

                            I would also prefer to select tenants where it is clear they have no desire to lay down roots in the area, to the detriment of those who do (because some fool like Jeremy Corbyn with a political philosophy derived from the most odious regimes in history might place me in a situation where I am faced with a lifetime of financial detriment and distress).

                            I wouldn't call most of them "risky". To me risky is not paying rent or trashing the house.
                            The one who can't pay a premium to delay the start date - just get them to sign now and start paying the rent asap even if they can't physically move in.
                            Pets - just increase the rent accordingly.
                            No UK visa - not a financial risk for me as above, but agreed, you don't want to keep to house for them for nothing and lose out financially.
                            But with or without fees, why would you consider most of the above if you can get a straightforward tenant?
                            I wouldn't bother with a tenant requiring a guarantor - this already says a lot about the tenant's financial situation. I don't accept pets either, no matter what the rent or deposit.


                            Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                            I will no longer be able to accept tenants who need to be able to prove their low risk status to secure a property and to have me get that information rapidly (I will simply assume the worst)
                            How else are you going to know if a tenant is low risk or not?

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by kelbol View Post
                              I wouldn't call most of them "risky".
                              He said "marginally" risky. I would do too.

                              But with or without fees, why would you consider most of the above if you can get a straightforward tenant?
                              Diversification. I've got many perfect tenants all from one country, but I don't want anymore of them. What if the Zlasmark booms? What if the industry they work in collapses? What if....

                              I wouldn't bother with a tenant requiring a guarantor - this already says a lot about the tenant's financial situation.
                              The latest tenant I took on with a guarantor was a celebrity DJ earning well over £100K, perfect credit history. The only way I took him on was with his old man on a pension acting as a guarantor.

                              I don't accept pets either, no matter what the rent or deposit.
                              I've got tenants approaching 20 years with pets.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                It's a bit like playing the lottery when taking tenants with pets. You don't know if they will take care of the pets and not dirty your property. I'd rather not find out the hard way.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Reply to accepted definition of furnished?
                                  by Section20z
                                  It's very clearly defined. It is what is in the property when you view and subsequently agree with landlord on inventory.
                                  For a new let I buy very little as tenants will often come with some of their own furniture and I don't want to have to remove items. I will then provide anything that tenants...
                                  23-01-2021, 08:27 AM
                                • accepted definition of furnished?
                                  by whatsthenews
                                  Hi,
                                  New member here. As I believe there's no legal definition of "furnished", would people offer their opinions as to what they consider the minimum items for a furnished letting? Is there a doifference between "furnished" and "fully furnished"?
                                  If it makes...
                                  22-01-2021, 21:43 PM
                                • Reply to Pandemic problems
                                  by jpucng62
                                  Can't really help with this Ruth, but if you wanted to write a piece on how the requirement to bring rentals unto EPC C from 2025/8 is going to impact small LLs and their tenants I would be happy to help. This is going to put a lot more pressure on me than the pandemic has (so far) and will have far...
                                  23-01-2021, 08:13 AM
                                • Pandemic problems
                                  by Propertyhack
                                  I am writing a piece for a broadsheet national newspaper on how the pandemic has impacted on landlords, what with so many tenants in arrears. I'm looking for landlords willing to talk to me, on the record, about what 2020/1 has done to them. I'm interested in small scale landlords, who own just one...
                                  22-01-2021, 22:58 PM
                                • Reply to accepted definition of furnished?
                                  by jpucng62
                                  The more you put in the more can go missing / get damaged.

                                  I rented to students and put everything in except bedding - including a fully equipped kitchen. The thing that went missing the most was forks! Really irritating as I couldn't match the set!

                                  I would put in as little...
                                  23-01-2021, 08:06 AM
                                • Reply to BTL - Council Tax Bill - Ancient!
                                  by theartfullodger
                                  Think council tax and dwp debt can be enforced for at least 20 years
                                  23-01-2021, 08:00 AM
                                • BTL - Council Tax Bill - Ancient!
                                  by Claymore
                                  Hi

                                  Today I have received a Council Tax Bill - I had to have a double-look when I saw the date. Its for a two-week period in July 2010! So, it's taken 10 years and 6 months to send me a bill.

                                  As it is so long ago, I have no records to check to see if I had been invoiced previously...
                                  22-01-2021, 22:59 PM
                                • Reply to BTL - Council Tax Bill - Ancient!
                                  by jpucng62
                                  Are you a LL - is this for a void? Do you have accounts from this period? You should be able to get a statement from your bank for that period. I would certainly be querying it with the Council in case it is a mistake.

                                  On the other hand, Councils are so cash strapped at the moment maybe...
                                  23-01-2021, 07:59 AM
                                • Reply to BTL - Council Tax Bill - Ancient!
                                  by Celibin
                                  Phone the CAB or debt advice line but I don't think a debt can be enforced after 6 years (Are Councils different?) You need to follow council complaints procedure if you disagree. In the worst case scenario you could negotiate to pay off in instalments or go to the Ombudsman first if your complaint...
                                  23-01-2021, 07:03 AM
                                • Reply to Renting to a housing professional
                                  by Celibin
                                  Yes it is a nice place/area and near the Council offices which may be relevant later if they stop having to work at home.
                                  I was wondering how you deal with disobedient tenants if you cannot visit them eg ASB rent arrears , bad landlords
                                  and eviction ban. Finally how will they do the Right...
                                  23-01-2021, 05:31 AM
                                Working...
                                X