Renting: No-fault evictions to be banned in England

[gnvqsos]

How about landlords not being able to demand a deposit unless they put one up for the same amount?

What would that deposit cover? You presumably have some ideas given your advocacy? Sensible suggestions ,please?

[boletus]

Tenants should be able to request a reference about a landlord from an existing tenant.

They already can.

[Lawcruncher]

What would that deposit cover? You presumably have some ideas given your advocacy? Sensible suggestions ,please?

The same as the tenant's deposit covers - a breach of covenant by the landlord, for example a failure to repair.

Could it be argued that requiring a deposit from the tenant while not providing one is an unfair term because it creates an imbalance in rights?

[boletus]

Could it be argued that requiring a deposit from the tenant while not providing one is an unfair term because it creates an imbalance in rights?

Not with a straight face.

[jpkeates]

Could it be argued that requiring a deposit from the tenant while not providing one is an unfair term because it creates an imbalance in rights?

It's no more of an imbalance than the ability of a tenant to leave at the end of a tenancy without providing a forwarding address, so any end of tenancy issues can be addressed, which is an option not afforded to the landlord.

The tenant's deposit mitigates that inbalance.

[Lawcruncher]

The imbalance is that the tenant is required to provide security for the performance of his obligations while the landlord is not. It is true that a landlord may lose track of his tenant after the end of the tenancy, but against that a tenant cannot end a tenancy if his landlord is in breach.

[JK0]

a tenant cannot end a tenancy if his landlord is in breach.

He can just not pay the rent, surely, and wait until the end of the fixed term?

[Lawcruncher]

He can just not pay the rent, surely, and wait until the end of the fixed term?

He can, but precisely what the law is is uncertain. Besides, the roof may spring a leak the day after the rent has been paid.

[JK0]

He can, but precisely what the law is is uncertain. Besides, the roof may spring a leak the day after the rent has been paid.

Oh, well unless the tenant is going to repair the roof himself, using the money from the rent, I'd say he should pay his rent.

[dp17]

It's no more of an imbalance than the ability of a tenant to leave at the end of a tenancy without providing a forwarding address, so any end of tenancy issues can be addressed, which is an option not afforded to the landlord.

Yes another one which should be mandatory for the the recent white paper......so that's not going to happen.

[gnvqsos]

The same as the tenant's deposit covers - a breach of covenant by the landlord, for example a failure to repair.

Could it be argued that requiring a deposit from the tenant while not providing one is an unfair term because it creates an imbalance in rights?

Yes it could.

[jpucng62]

Surely it is really about supply and demand - if there was a surplus of properties tenants could ask for references, deposits etc but at present LLs are the ones who can make those demands because of the lack of supply.

[Hudson01]

Surely it is really about supply and demand................... LLs are the ones who can make those demands because of the lack of supply.

Every single thing in life is, to a great or lesser degree, centered around somebody wanting something and another person having that ' something', that balance of power has always been there.

The PRS appears to be going down a road where the proverbial ' Tail is starting to wag the Dog' !! The govt is slipping into treating us as an extension of the social rental model....... i don't want to house the waifs and strays of society, i am not geared up for that, that is societies job and that translates to this (or previous) governments.

[Lawcruncher]

The PRS has always been an extension of the social rental model because may PRS tenants can only pay their rent with the help of benefits.

[Hudson01]

The PRS has always been an extension of the social rental model because may PRS tenants can only pay their rent with the help of benefits.

I can see there has always be an implied relationship between the private landlord and the council but with what the govt are looking to do they are attempting to ensure that once we have tenants in our properties we will find it very hard to ever get them out, that is a real worry and something i have never known.

What i am reading on other property forum's is quiet scary (even without my current fear... EPC C), in Scotland i understand that even if the landlord wishes to sell it still has to be agreed by the courts, it is not automatic. If so, what if your tenant over the years has become very vulnerable, will they refuse ? Can they ?

I have little faith in all govt's but especially this current crop, so everything they do i need to fully understand before any decisions by myself.