Landlords' lack of rights?

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

  • Jon66
    replied
    [QUOTE=AndrewDod;n1114219]
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post


    But deposit deductions have to do with notional diminution in value -- there is no need to actually repair -- but the reality is that without an actual repair some things can be hard to cost. The consequence is that tenants pay more as you just get an expensive repairman.
    Yes absolutely agree with you, that is what happens. But the previous system apparently did not work, where the deposit was taken and never returned, and deductions made that were not genuine losses, apparently . . .. The problem is there are some very bad landlords out there. Two friends, one renting a property with no carbon monoxide detector but a log burner, the other a detached house but no paperwork, no written tenancy agreement, no how to rent booklet, no epc, ancient electrics! And before I'm shot down I know there are also some diabolical tenants, particularly at the bottom end.

    As long as enforcement remains a joke in this country, bad landlords will continue taking the piss. The real issue is that nobody is enforcing the laws we have, but then they make more laws, that again remain unenforced. But what can be done and is there any political will to do that?

    There is an article in the law gazette today which is interesting. It's going to get worse for landlords that's for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    [QUOTE=Berlingogirl;n1114213]
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post

    But you can't charge for your own time as a LL if you make the repairs yourself. That's what I meant.
    Yes that does seem silly (obviously your own time is not a tax-deductible expense but that is a different issue.

    But deposit deductions have to do with notional diminution in value -- there is no need to actually repair -- but the reality is that without an actual repair some things can be hard to cost. The consequence is that tenants pay more as you just get an expensive repairman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    [QUOTE=mind the gap;n1113945]
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
    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.
    But you can't charge for your own time as a LL if you make the repairs yourself. That's what I meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    pebblepebble,

    That is the point I'm making. We should be able to evict in 6 weeks. This is a Tory government. The announcement of staying possession proceedings gave a green light to tenants not to pay their rent, it was so stupid. If the Tories are doing this how bad could Labour be?

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Have you at least initiated a money claim online ("small" claims court)?

    But yes, it is facilitated theft. Not good for democracy, the economy or anything else. State facilitated murder, rape and other forms of abuse are some steps away - but not many.

    Leave a comment:


  • pebblepebble
    replied
    At the moment I don't feel I have any rights. Tenant not paid rent since the start of Covid, not responding to correspondence, changed phone number, gone away to buy property and installed a relative in the property. In the meantime we have paid for a GSC and will have to have an electrical certificate done - probably before we can get them evicted.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    I think the balance is about right and I am prepared to be shot down!
    What balance are you talking about? The balance caused by having the inability to act on legislation, or the balance of terrible tenants being subsidised by the great and decent majority?

    The whole premise of this thread is wrong. It is not about any sort of balance - between undifferentiated "tenants" on the one hand and undifferentiated "landlords" on the other. It is much more subtle than that. Often the balance is between both T & L on the one side and lawmakers on the other damaging both. Or it is a balance between the interests of crooks and decent folk. Or a balance between the interests of those who want cost effective decent safe short term flexible accommodation and those who want a home for a decade. What benefits one group may (and often does) harm the other. There is also a balance between the interests of people (T or L) in London versus anywhere else.
    What might benefit a student tenant in Hackney might severely harm a professional tenant in Grimbsby. There is a balance between those who need mobility and flexibility, and those who do not. A balance between those to whom cost is everything (and who are prepared to live in a small room) and those who have different priorities. What might benefit someone with lots of money and an unblemished record, might not benefit someone with a blemished record and a dog who is trying to prove they can make a new start.

    So there are many balances. And a lot of rubbish spoken.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post

    No but is that happening?


    Yes.

    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post

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

    Dreaming up ever more unenforced and pointless laws achieves nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    It is very easy to get sidetracked by a skewed approach to risk. In reality electrical risks are quite low (the number of residential electrocutions per year is tiny, and the number of those that are due to issues with household wiring or electrical fires in rental properties that would be prevented by this certification is absolutely tiny, possibly nearly zero. That is not to say it is not important. But there are many other much more important H&S risks that are totally ignored (I can think of at least a dozen - I won't mention them here in case some jobsworth decades to create more money making opportunities for middlemen).

    But anyway, you missed my point entirely -- it was not about the desirability or otherwise of electrical checks (which tenants obviously pay for) but about retrospective legislation (pricing a contract only to have the rules change afterwards).

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DPT57
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    [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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X