Are you able to write fines into a lodger contract for lost time?

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

  • Overthehedge
    replied
    Yes, she shouldn’t be a landlord, at ALL! Ever wondered if the problem with 80 plus percent of tenants is actually the landlady herself?

    Leave a comment:


  • bobwilson54
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    They invoiced them for a service that the court decided that the driver had agreed to by parking in a car park.
    So why can't a landlord invoice them for a service that the court decided a lodger had agreed to pay by breaking the rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    Just because you chose to be a landlord as a business decision doesn't mean everyone was so lucky. Some people are forced into it to make ends meet.
    That's a fair point.
    But, it doesn't change the answer to the original question.
    No, you can't put penalty clauses into an lodgers agreement or charge for admin time.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    The point is that a private company fined an individual & it was accepted in court, so why can't the same thing be done in by a private landlord?
    No they didn't fine anyone.
    They invoiced them for a service that the court decided that the driver had agreed to by parking in a car park.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    Does the LL ask in her tenancy agreement for an address for correspondence in an emergency and for at the end of the tenancy (where the T can be contacted if they 'forget' to leave a forwarding address)? She could then sue for damages, if she can prove it was that T that did the damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobwilson54
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    If your friend can't run their business and make money for the rent they charge, they need to improve their lodger selection or change business.
    Not all home owners become landlords by choice, can improve lodger selection beyond what's available or change business. There are many legitimate reasons why a landlady could be forced into having lodgers. Health issues, salary drop, loss of her job, negative equity, inability to sell due to being in an area unpopular among buyers, savings stolen... I'm sure if you're creative enough you can think of others. Just because you chose to be a landlord as a business decision doesn't mean everyone was so lucky. Some people are forced into it to make ends meet.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobwilson54
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    The supreme court decision was about whether a charge of £85 was justified for overstaying in a car park by 56 minutes (which was an odd choice of defence).
    The point is that a private company fined an individual & it was accepted in court, so why can't the same thing be done in by a private landlord?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post

    The maximum rent you can charge is dictated by area and suggesting an increase beyond that wouldn't work.

    It could be argued that the rent covers the landlord's time for repairs, finding new lodgers at the end of each contract & general maintenance, but not for almost 100% of her time to be taken up rectifying damage & problems caused by ongoing rule breaking every week & finding new lodgers every couple of weeks. A reasonable amount could be deemed included with rent, but not to deal with illegal rule breaking every day.

    Say for example a lodger starts doing drugs, sets up a brothel, or is slamming doors with excessive force 10 times a day making the apartment vibrate each time & causing damage. Neighbours start to complain, and after another lodgers starts copying this behaviour, it multiplies quickly, cracks appear in plaster around doors, seals get damaged or worse the glass of the front door cracks after it's been slammed with sheer force so many times. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable & if she has to remove them from the property for breaking the "no drugs, not to use the home as a sex business, not to slam doors or cause damage" clauses, before the end of their contract, the lost rent could be £500, damage £600, and it could cost her over 100 hours to oversee the repairs & find a replacement lodger part way through the lodgers' contract.

    Particularly things like this happens every couple of weeks with different lodgers, it can't be included in the rent because no rent would ever cover that.
    You evict such lodgers for breaching the terms of their licence.
    If there is a loss beyond fair wear and tear, the landlord can recover it from the lodger.

    You can't charge for your time beyond the rent.
    You can't charge for replacing a tenant that you have chosen to evict.

    If your friend can't run their business and make money for the rent they charge, they need to improve their lodger selection or change business.

    And, being realistic, a lodger can't set up a brothel, it would need more than one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    Doesn't change the fact that it isn't as "illegal" as you mentioned since it was "ruled as fair and proportionate by the Supreme Court.".
    But most of the schemes that issue parking tickets aren't legal.
    There are rules that they have to follow to create the contract that they're invoicing for and most don't.
    I used to supply data to them, for which I feel some guilt!

    The supreme court decision was about whether a charge of £85 was justified for overstaying in a car park by 56 minutes (which was an odd choice of defence).
    It was the £85 that the court decided was fair and proportional, not parking invoices generally.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobwilson54
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    The landlord's time spent working on their business is paid for from the rent.
    If it isn't compensating for the time spent working on the task, increase the rent.
    The maximum rent you can charge is dictated by area and suggesting an increase beyond that wouldn't work.

    It could be argued that the rent covers the landlord's time for repairs, finding new lodgers at the end of each contract & general maintenance, but not for almost 100% of her time to be taken up rectifying damage & problems caused by ongoing rule breaking every week & finding new lodgers every couple of weeks. A reasonable amount could be deemed included with rent, but not to deal with illegal rule breaking every day.

    Say for example a lodger starts doing drugs, sets up a brothel, or is slamming doors with excessive force 10 times a day making the apartment vibrate each time & causing damage. Neighbours start to complain, and after another lodgers starts copying this behaviour, it multiplies quickly, cracks appear in plaster around doors, seals get damaged or worse the glass of the front door cracks after it's been slammed with sheer force so many times. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable & if she has to remove them from the property for breaking the "no drugs, not to use the home as a sex business, not to slam doors or cause damage" clauses, before the end of their contract, the lost rent could be £500, damage £600, and it could cost her over 100 hours to oversee the repairs & find a replacement lodger part way through the lodgers' contract.

    Particularly things like this happens every couple of weeks with different lodgers, it can't be included in the rent because no rent would ever cover that.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobwilson54
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    But almost no one does it properly and almost every proper challenge is successful.
    I've challenged a couple myself.
    Doesn't change the fact that it isn't as "illegal" as you mentioned since it was "ruled as fair and proportionate by the Supreme Court.".

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    "Landowners have a right to charge for and enforce parking, so pay up if you've broken the rules... The issue hit the headlines November 2015 when parking fines issued by private companies were ruled as fair and proportionate by the Supreme Court."
    Source: https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/moto...n-private-land
    Scroll to 2/3 the way down the page to see the above quotes, or do a word search for it.
    But almost no one does it properly and almost every proper challenge is successful.
    I've challenged a couple myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    what about losses for her time? Each rule broken might sound small but when there's a large quantity of them the time she spends rectifying the problem and warning the lodger can easily rack up.
    The landlord's time spent working on their business is paid for from the rent.
    If it isn't compensating for the time spent working on the task, increase the rent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwilson54 View Post
    In which case, why can't the landlady do the same thing by putting signs up & and invoice for her time & losses caused by anyone who breaks the rules?
    The car parking is analysed as a contract to park a car. If the terms are clear the price cannot be challenged.

    Charging for a breach of contract is a penalty if the charge exceeds the actual loss.

    Letting is a business. Some customers are more difficult than others. You have to put up with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson01
    replied
    I see this somewhat different, i can see no real practical advantage to investigate if legally it is ok or not to charge........ these lodgers are by nature transient and as such will simply move on with no forwarding address or ways to contact them, it would be a total waste of the landladies time and effort (i.e even more than she already does), i agree with one of the first posts about picking the lodgers better, if she is not able to do this then i would be looking at a different model to pay her mortgage as lodgers may not be for her. Its something i would never consider as the tenants i have are often a pain in the backside, but at least i am not living with them !!! I would say pick better or get out of the lodger game.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X