Landlords' lack of rights?

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

    Landlords' lack of rights?

    In another thread:

    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    ...charge higher rents to take account of the fact of the costs associated with your lack of substantial rights.
    So:

    (a) What substantial rights do landlords lack which you think they should have?
    (b) What rights do tenants have which you think they should lose?
    (c) If landords were to get the rights you think they should have and tenants were to lose the rights you do not think they should have, would you be reducing the rents you charge?




    #2

    Here are my thoughts for starters:

    a) The right to charge for repairs to damage caused by the tenant, where the LL has carried out the repairs themselves and not by a tradesman. To charge a reasonable amount for setting up a tenancy, rather than making an increase in the rent. Quicker evictions. Continuation of S21.
    b) The right to have HB/HE paid direct to tenant instead of LL. CCJs ending after 6 years should continue until paid off.
    c) yes.

    Comment


      #3
      The right to claim disrepair in a s8 court case without evidence or prior notification to the landlord.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
        In another thread:



        So:

        (a) What substantial rights do landlords lack which you think they should have?
        (b) What rights do tenants have which you think they should lose?
        (c) If landords were to get the rights you think they should have and tenants were to lose the rights you do not think they should have, would you be reducing the rents you charge?


        You already have some examples above, but in brief summary:

        a) (for both tenants and landlords) The right to be able to have contracts upheld through a properly functioning court system (nothing to do with Coronavirus), or in the alternative for the legislative process to take account of the fact that there is no properly functioning or timely judiciary

        b) (for both tenants and landlords) the right to be able to contract with another willing human being where both parties wish to contract in a likewise manner to the mutual benefit of both (I want a 3 month fixed term contract that will not be undermined, I want to accept a tenant with pets subject to certain conditions both parties can willingly set)

        c) The right not to have laws implemented in retrospect or effectively in retrospect (by way of a simple example I have a tenant on a fixed term who will become periodic - I now have to spend £2000 on electrical certification, which I would have taken account of in deciding whether to contract at all, but have no effective ability to prevent a new contract). Just one random example of many.

        It's not a matter of what rights tenants should lose. Both parties lose in almost every instance as a result of legislation, so the premise of your questions (b) and (c) incorporates your answer. Yes of course rents would reduce if the freedom to negotiate those rents and associated terms was allowed.

        Comment


          #5
          a) The ability to interact with the legal system in a timely manner. 9 months to evict a non-rent paying tenant is ludicrous and has reached the point where the timescales are actually an incentive for some people.
          A different type of tenancy along continental lines, where the tenant rents for a long term and has significantly more scope to do what they want with the property.
          b) Change the disrepair defence to a s8 notice to a compensation claim for the proven and reported disrepair. That claim could be offset against rent owed, but wouldn't simply stop the process otherwise.
          c) No.
          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


            #6
            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
            A different type of tenancy along continental lines, where the tenant rents for a long term and has significantly more scope to do what they want with the property.
            As well as a different type of tenancy which is very short term (months) and where the tenant has no scope to do anything at all (including stay beyond that term or breach contract terms with impunity).

            Comment


              #7
              There you are.
              An Assured Very Shorthold Tenancy, an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and an Assured Longhold Tenancy.

              Problems solved.
              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


                #8
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                There you are.
                An Assured Very Shorthold Tenancy, an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and an Assured Longhold Tenancy.

                Problems solved.
                Indeed. And it would also address the glaring anomaly as to what longish term AirBnB rentals actually are - clearly a service which people want to provide in safety, and which other need as an alternative to moving ones family into a hotel during a 3-6 month gap between house moves, or a short university course.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                  (c) If landords were to get the rights you think they should have and tenants were to lose the rights you do not think they should have, would you be reducing the rents you charge?
                  Landlords would be forced to reduce rents due to the increase in competition.

                  Currently, decent tenants are paying the price for a system heavily weighted in favour of non paying problem tenants.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by boletus View Post

                    Landlords would be forced to reduce rents due to the increase in competition.

                    Currently, decent tenants are paying the price for a system heavily weighted in favour of non paying problem tenants.
                    Quite. And to extend that, the heavy price paid by decent people is not only a financial price relating simply to crude rent. They cannot find the product they need at all, and are therefore forced to fund other more expensive products which are a poor fit to their needs. More vulnerable but reliable tenants cannot move home, cannot move jobs and cannot have stability precisely because of the fools who pretend they are designing laws to grant stability and cost effectiveness (but actually they know that).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      [QUOTE=Berlingogirl;n1113894]
                      Here are my thoughts for starters:

                      a) The right to charge for repairs to damage caused by the tenant, where the LL has carried out the repairs themselves and not by a tradesman

                      You can charge the tenant the full cost of repairing the damage via their tenancy deposit.
                      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                        There you are.
                        An Assured Very Shorthold Tenancy, an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and an Assured Longhold Tenancy.

                        Problems solved.
                        Not quite. There needs to be a properly functioning student tenancy too.

                        I would also add a serious review of the process for evicting violent and/or anti-social tenants using section 8, otherwise only the most desperate landlords are going to take any chances following the implementation of the RRB.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I think the balance is about right and I am prepared to be shot down! Re the electrical installation certificates, I think this is a good idea and don't have any objection to it at all. My son rented some absolute shitholes while at university and I don't think any person should be expected to put up with dangerous accommodation.

                          The real issue is that where you do get a tenant who fails to pay for whatever reason, and falls into arrears, it can take up to 6 months or so to get rid of them because of the backlog in the courts. And the backlog is not as a result of covid 19, there is now a worse backlog due to this, but the backlog was there in any case.

                          If we can issue proceedings, get a possession order and a warrant of possession within 6 weeks, it would help the tenants, who obviously cannot afford the property, to move on and perhaps get some local authority assistance, and it would help the landlords, who may be a little more engaged with taking a chance on some tenants.

                          One of the reasons landlords give for not taking on UC or HB tenants is the length of time it takes to get rid of them if it all goes wrong.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
                            My son rented some absolute shitholes while at university and I don't think any person should be expected to put up with dangerous accommodation.
                            Driving out good landlords isn't going to solve the problem.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by boletus View Post

                              Driving out good landlords isn't going to solve the problem.
                              No but is that happening? I do think enforcement of the laws we already have would be helpful but local authorities are very slow to take action, probably because there's no money in it for them. Gas safety and electrical safety are surely fundamental, and while these were not certified, open to abuse by some landlords. There is some dire property out there to rent. And it's like everything, there are very nice properties and there are horrible ones but having a range fulfils the need. The very least that should be ensured is basic safety even in the very bottom end.

                              How do we ensure properties to rent are of a basic safe standard otherwise? And that's a genuine question not a rhetorical one.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X