Is law biased towards tenants?

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

  • Is law biased towards tenants?

    Reading these forums, It has become my perception (if I were a tenant I'd probably perceive the opposite?) that the law tends to lean in favour the tenant.

    Is that a true perception?

    If so, why?

  • #2
    In my humble opinion I would say so..

    Why?? Because tenants have the opportunity to stay up to six months rent free and cause damage to the property and legally there is very little a landlord can do other than follow the legal process's.. If I said to my mortgage provider I cant pay you the mortgage I dont think they would have to wait six months to repo the house.. But maybe a legal eagle can correct me on that..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Angela View Post
      Reading these forums, It has become my perception (if I were a tenant I'd probably perceive the opposite?) that the law tends to lean in favour the tenant.

      Is that a true perception?

      If so, why?
      There is an old saying that if both sides feel aggrieved, then the law is probably about right.

      I think it would be fair to say that both sides feel aggrieved.

      (But I don't think the law is about right)
      Now signature free.

      Comment


      • #4
        I could write a book....

        The problem is that the people such as Citizen Advice Bureaux and Shelter have strong lobby group (plus politicians tend to be kind as they are a charity). For instance, they show a photo of a squalid property and claim that all landlords are like that. Which in my view is unfair if thousands have been spend on refurbishing property. Plus the courts/law are in favour in of the tenant. E.g. Is tenant trashes a property or does not pay the rent....

        However, the CAB will never show a photo of a property that has been trashed and make tenants responsible for damage. Once the tenants is gone, it is hard to find them!. Sometimes it is delibrate damage e.g. social tenants wanting council house. So they damage the property so that landlord is forced to evict.

        IN such circumstances, the govt only thinks the only victim is the landlord, but actually it is the next tenants that suffers also, because there is only so much you can do to a property that has been trashed. E.g. For instance a burn mark on the kitchen worktop. Do you spend £200 on refiting the worktop or rent out the property as is?.... Plus, it diverts money from other improvements to the proeprty.

        Plus, don't get me started on the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Nothing wrong with the principle, just the implementation sucks..... Now letting agents that never used to charge an admin fee, are charging tenants to cover Deposit Schemes etc....

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah...
          I'm sure there are a few unscrupulous landlords out there (at least in the past) who have led to legal changes being made once a few tenants have befallen a mishap inside the house and etc etc which may have contributed to toughening up.

          But this whole thing about how LONG it takes to eject troublesome tenants defies me. Especially if the behaviour of the tenant puts the landlord into financial jeapardy with assorted court costs and arrears to cover on the mortgate.

          I want to start a 'tenant rating system' (yes like the 'rate the seller' on ebay) But Id' be sued for libel!!!

          Doesn't stop me thinking about it though....

          Comment


          • #6
            I think it is, it’s great to be a tenant...however I do think the length of time it takes to get a troublesome tenant out is farcical. Its totally unfair for it to take 6months + to get a tenant out and even longer to get back money owed.

            The law is there to protect the T from unscrupulous LL's and there doesn’t seem to be anything to protect the LL from unscrupulous T's. The simple fact is that a T can move in, not pay anything, destroy property and simply leave when forced - to move on and do the whole thing all over again. Having said that, if everything was skewed towards the LL the T would suffer - its a lose lose situation. I think the TDS introduction has been excellent because it (should) give T's the piece of mind that their deposit is a bit safer than what it was before, (irregardless of what the reality may be)

            Theres a wider problem (in the UK at least) that renting is just seen as a stop gap until you buy your own house, why!? - they dont have the same thinking in France & Italy etc...everyone rents. So if it truly is all rosy for the Tenant then surely the perception that its better to own than rent wouldn’t exist?

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm sure it's not all rosy for the tenants and a great deal of the time tenants are vulnerable in some way or encounter genuine life-difficulties. I think that the majority of tenants move in with all good intentions of paying rent on time.

              What makes me sad is that the tenants who deliberately make trouble are the ones who often take the longest to leave by playing the law to their advantage

              One would hope something could be done about that manipulative element - but even as I'm writing this, I know that's a futile hope otherwise there'd be some kind of prevention already in place to stop the practice of deliberately hiding behind the rules of the housing act. TDS is great, but only to the amount it covers, and if that's one month's rent, the landlord is often seen losing more than that amount - hence the perception that there is a bias toward the (deliberately manipulative) tenant

              Comment


              • #8
                Is law biased towards tenants

                Pathetic nonsense!

                The legal system favours the landlord at the very source of the legislative regime which regulates the residential landlord/tenant relationship (Housing Act 1988 - especially s.21 which excludes security of tenure beyond 6 months).

                You lot make me laugh/sick/shake my head in disbelief - you whinge about the tiny bit of leeway that the law (officially) or judges (unofficially) allows to tenants, or the fact that tenants have a vocal lobby group, when the very way the entire relationship between landlord and tenant is set up allows you to make a virually effort-free living either from the sweat of their brows in the case of employed tenants, or by raiding the public purse in the case of housing benefit tenants.

                Honestly - even after Thatcher's government systematically and cynically stripped the rights of tenants, just because you can't have that last 5% of the run of the green, you wallow in complacent and narrow-minded self-pity.

                IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching. What I mean by that statement is that these problems often arise out of any or all of the following:

                (1) over-eagerness to rent the property to anyone at all as soon as possible at the highest possible rent, regardless of the tenant's non-pecuniary attributes,

                (2) poor character judgement (vis a vis the tenant),

                (3) absent or inadequate referencing procedures,

                (4) absent, defective or improperly executed documentation (eg: tenancy agreements and notices etc),

                (5) woefully inadequate knowledge about housing law and the legal system,

                (6) indecision, delay, timidity and weakness when dealing with delinquent tenants,

                (7) an unwillingness to pay for professional representation when legal problems do occur.

                (8) a propensity to blame the legal system instead of remedying problems 1-7, above.


                IIRC, Rodent1 claimed yesterday that he has owned 35 properties for 15 years, dealing with up to 100 tenants at a time (making a total of approx 1500 tenants over that term) and yet has only needed to go to court twice. I also have first hand knowledge of an agency that has managed 150 properties for 15 years (approx 6000 tenants over the term), but has only ever needed to become involved full blown legal action twice. How can that be if the legal system is so heavily biased in favour of the tenant?

                Perhaps those landlords that whine about how hard done by they are under the current legislative regime should consider whether they are in the right "profession" (and I use that last term very loosely)

                Health Warning


                I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by agent46 View Post
                  Honestly - even after Thatcher's government systematically and cynically stripped the rights of tenants, just because you can't have that last 5% of the run of the green, you wallow in complacent and narrow-minded self-pity.

                  IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching. What I mean by that statement is that these problems often arise out of any or all of the following:

                  (1) over-eagerness to rent the property to anyone at all as soon as possible at the highest possible rent, regardless of the tenant's non-pecuniary attributes,

                  (2) poor character judgement (vis a vis the tenant),

                  (3) absent or inadequate referencing procedures,

                  (4) absent, defective or improperly executed documentation (eg: tenancy agreements and notices etc),

                  (5) woefully inadequate knowledge about housing law and the legal system,

                  (6) indecision, delay, timidity and weakness when dealing with delinquent tenants,

                  (7) an unwillingness to pay for professional representation when legal problems do occur.

                  (8) a propensity to blame the legal system instead of remedying problems 1-7, above.
                  I have to agree with agent here. Bang on IMO.

                  I would add one further point

                  (9) collectively (with the complicity of OOs) pushing the price of property to uneconomic proportions, viz, paying way over intrinsic value for the asset in the first place.
                  Now signature free.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching."

                    Almost all. There are indeed unsatisfactory landlords out there as there are unsatisfactory tenants.

                    The above principles guarantee an unsatisfactory tenant (not a great landlord who follows thoes principles then!)

                    Good business principles (as opposed to landlord greed), intelligence, good judgement and a level of reasonable and legally due outlay to ensure the property/insurances/legal documents etc etc are not a 100% guarantee of L securing a satisfactiory T and when met with a tenant who deliberately makes full use of the rules in the housing act over a long term, with accruement of rental arrears etc, the landlord suffers. IMHO

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by agent46 View Post
                      Pathetic nonsense! Etc Etc
                      Mr Johnson is right! [Blazing Saddles]

                      To quote what I have just written on another forum:

                      I should hope the law does require you to go through a process. [That in response to : "The law gives me no protection unless I go through the process which I think is likely to take several weeks."] No one should be deprived of their accommodation without due process of law. The law is there to protect good tenants. You cannot have one set of rules for good tenants and one for bad. The problem is rather the length of time the process takes. Landlords have to join the queue with all others seeking justice; there is no good reason why they should get preferential treatment in the court system.

                      The HA 1988 was a major plank in the last government's policy of shifting residential letting from the public to the private sector. If you let residential property you buy into the idea that residential property should be in the private sector. That means accepting the problems that go with it. All too often landlords only want the benefits of income and capital appreciation, but as soon as things start to go wrong, want the public sector to take over. Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                        Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.[/I]
                        Another bang on point.

                        Hence why assets should be purchased at a price at which the yield offers a risk premium commensurate with actual risk.

                        Those who have invested in the share market are re-learning this same lesson.
                        Now signature free.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                          Mr Johnson is right! [Blazing Saddles]

                          To quote what I have just written on another forum:

                          I should hope the law does require you to go through a process. [That in response to : "The law gives me no protection unless I go through the process which I think is likely to take several weeks."] No one should be deprived of their accommodation without due process of law. The law is there to protect good tenants. You cannot have one set of rules for good tenants and one for bad. The problem is rather the length of time the process takes. Landlords have to join the queue with all others seeking justice; there is no good reason why they should get preferential treatment in the court system.

                          The HA 1988 was a major plank in the last government's policy of shifting residential letting from the public to the private sector. If you let residential property you buy into the idea that residential property should be in the private sector. That means accepting the problems that go with it. All too often landlords only want the benefits of income and capital appreciation, but as soon as things start to go wrong, want the public sector to take over. Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.
                          Absolutely right.


                          Cake and eat it etc

                          Heat and kitchen etc

                          Cats, fish, wet paws etc

                          And, doubtless, numerous other appropriate sayings.....
                          Health Warning


                          I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                          All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No one is forced into letting.

                            Given the current market and (yes you're right, yes yes yes) the completely unrealistic and almost hysterically uncontrolled rise of property prices up until last year, through their own doing and their own financial risk, some people on this forum probably do think that letting was their only option, for better or worse, inexperienced or no, and whilst not 'forced into' letting felt that it was the only option in these difficult times, in a different context to those Ls making an effortless living on the back of the Ts hard won earnings

                            And then throng to Landlordzone to pose questions to the well-respected 'elder members' when the inevitable foibles between L and T thus begin, for the appropriate advisements. All to the good as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi,

                              Well, I dont agree with all the comments made above, but I do agree that it is very far from the case that the law is "biased" in favour of tenants.

                              Imagine a world where, except for resident landlords, nearly every new tenancy is fully "protected" (which means that the landlord cant get possession except on certain specified, limited grounds); and where most tenants can - and many do - apply to have their rents registered, strictly limiting current rents and future rent increases. That was how things were until the mid 80s - not all that long ago.

                              Landlords now have much, much more control over who they let to, for how long and what rents they charge.

                              In return, we have to comply with some fairly strict health and safety rules; carry out repairs promptly; and comply with some other legislation aimed at making sure our customers know exactly what their rights are, in various circumstances. Seems like a good deal to me.

                              And in fact, in the long run, it suits everyone much better, having this reasonable balance between rights and responsibilities. The old Rent Act regime and rent regulation drove legitimate investors out of the market because they couldnt make a reasonable return; that certainly wasnt in tenants' interests, many of whom had lots of security and low rents, but lived in very poor quality accommodation. A relaxation in regulation was necesssary in order to grow the sector.

                              I also wonder, though, whether many of the funders who have poured billions into the buy to let market would have done so had the governments of the day not retained at least a reasonable degree of regulation of conditions and standards in the rented sector; I doubt it personally.

                              So, all in all, I think landlords need to accept that, overall, the present regime isnt that bad. We should probably focus more on making the right commercial decisions and ensuring good management than complaining about perceived "red tape".

                              Anyway, just my view.

                              Preston

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X