Pay Tenants £1700 - NO, it should be £1710

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

    Pay Tenants £1700 - NO, it should be £1710

    https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/...-fault-notice/

    So, Generation Rent say LLs should pay S21 Tenants £1700 to help with moving costs.

    WRONG

    It should be £1710 not £1700

    Much easier to increase every 6-month AST by £285 per month than it is to add £283.33333333

    Hey, if your average Tenant stays for 18-months we'd be raking in even more obscene profit lol
    My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

    #2
    Interesting isn't it .............
    UK increasingly a rental market

    The data provided here was based on rents paid, instead of advertising costs or asking prices. In recent years, the UK’s residential property market has slowly become more favourable for renters as indicated by the growing house price to rent ratio.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-region-uk/


    My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

    Comment


      #3
      Funny how every tenant given a S21 is 'being made homeless'. Everyone else is simply moving house.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by royw View Post
        Funny how every tenant given a S21 is 'being made homeless'. Everyone else is simply moving house.
        And they are all 'Not at Fault' - because LLs always evict good tenants just for the fun of it!

        Comment


          #5
          Some landlords do when it comes to genuine complaints about the property.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by mokka View Post
            Some landlords do when it comes to genuine complaints about the property.
            A very small number yes, but if the tenant isn't happy then maybe the LL is doing them a favour.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Kape65 View Post

              A very small number yes, but if the tenant isn't happy then maybe the LL is doing them a favour.
              Not really. If the property is in need of repair it is their duty to bring it up to habitable standards. I certainly don’t include the moaners who argue about minor repairs. A LL giving notice instead of implementing their legal obligations is not doing the tenant any favours just clear violating their side of the contract and basically says ‘I will cry if the tenant doesn’t follow the rules but I will kick them out if they dare argue their side of the contract’ does it not?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by mokka View Post

                Not really. If the property is in need of repair it is their duty to bring it up to habitable standards. I certainly don’t include the moaners who argue about minor repairs. A LL giving notice instead of implementing their legal obligations is not doing the tenant any favours just clear violating their side of the contract and basically says ‘I will cry if the tenant doesn’t follow the rules but I will kick them out if they dare argue their side of the contract’ does it not?
                but how many tenancies does that affect - or are you suggesting a LL would never repair?

                surely new tenants would be hard to find if the property was in a poor condition
                My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by landlord-man View Post

                  but how many tenancies does that affect - or are you suggesting a LL would never repair?

                  surely new tenants would be hard to find if the property was in a poor condition

                  This was from my own experience but I since bought a property now thankfully.

                  Electrics tripped constantly, kitchen ceiling collapsed after emailing constantly to fix, penetrating damp from missing roof tiles, the energy rating was rated D but upon further inspection the building was rated very poor on walls and roof areas which explained the potential for mould to manifest.

                  Before someone says why move in my partner already lived in such a mess of a property whom I met and moving out the time wasn’t relevant due to the fact of buying and going through the process. In other words would have cost more to move.

                  Anyway enough of me blabbering but such situations do exist and god knows what will become of that rented property. I’ll do a pass by one day to see if it gets sold or updated.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Section 21 notices being escalated to court for possession correlate strongly with areas of rapidly increasing rentals.
                    S21 notices that go to court are mostly in 3 or 4 London boroughs (in normal times) for example.

                    No one knows how many are issued and are not escalated to court.

                    It is also true that in survey after survey tenants say that their greatest concern is getting a section 21 notice.
                    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


                      #11
                      Section 21 is a weird one for me. It was used as an insurance policy several years ago and it would not be uncommon to receive a Section 21 along with your tenancy agreement. It does not feel good constantly living under the assumption that the landlord wants you out. Or Receiving a Section 21 notice along with the tenancy renewal, basically saying sign this or get out.

                      I also feel that because the section 21 is automatic, its been abused because it works. Instead of using a Section 8 that could be defended against by the tenant, we are happy to use an S21 instead. I completely understand why. Problem is that it doesn't help with the bigger picture.

                      I know we constantly say that no landlord would issue a S21 for no reason, but they do. Technically speaking there is never "no reason" but quite often it will be due to nothing that the tenant has done.

                      My thought about this would be a change to how the section 21 works. 2 months notice, its activation is absolute and cannot be contested (unless in an obvious case of retaliation). After those 2 months, a court order is automatic. However, from the date a Section 21 is issued, the tenant is no longer liable for rent until the expiry of the notice. This gives the tenant the funds they need to find alternative accommodation, but also is a deterrent against those "misusing" the Section 21.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by ExpertInAField View Post

                        My thought about this would be a change to how the section 21 works. 2 months notice, its activation is absolute and cannot be contested (unless in an obvious case of retaliation). After those 2 months, a court order is automatic. However, from the date a Section 21 is issued, the tenant is no longer liable for rent until the expiry of the notice. This gives the tenant the funds they need to find alternative accommodation, but also is a deterrent against those "misusing" the Section 21.
                        Don't give them ideas, mate.

                        I think that would inevitably result in all tenants demanding you issue a s21 when they leave for any reason. Or claiming they received one. Result would be a massive increase in rents to cover the 'free two months'.
                        To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I’m my case the ex T. had the money but did not want to pay. I could not issue S8 because he could have paid off the arrears (that was his intention when he wanted to suspend the eviction) and then stopped paying again and I would have to issue another S8 and go through the court procedures and eviction again. The judge said to him that S21 was mandatory and she she could not do anything for him. She sounded very annoyed. Only S21 saved me from this nightmare.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Perce View Post
                            I’m my case the ex T. had the money but did not want to pay. I could not issue S8 because he could have paid off the arrears (that was his intention when he wanted to suspend the eviction) and then stopped paying again and I would have to issue another S8 and go through the court procedures and eviction again. The judge said to him that S21 was mandatory and she she could not do anything for him. She sounded very annoyed. Only S21 saved me from this nightmare.
                            Sounds like you mean the judge was annoyed that she couldn't thwart you? I've found judges are like that.
                            To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              No the Judge was annoyed with my ex T. what he wrote in his comments why he wanted the eviction to be suspended the last minute and creating an emergency hearing. She asked him “What do you want “ and then dismissed his application and awarded £120 to me for appearing at the court hearing although it was over the phone. The Judge sounded to be on my side. I was surprised. Just in case I had an advocate.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X