No Fault Evictions

[monster]

And further to the above, there is a fee attached to protecting the deposits that legally cannot be passed directly onto the tenant, but its still an overhead for the landlords - so its yet another thing that has to be paid for out of the rents and thus provides yet more upwards pressure on rents.

Those who call for ever more regulations on landlords need to understand that there is often cost associated with that and that like in any business ultimately has to be borne by the customer - in this case the tenant.

 

[RonnieI]

But there is a housing crisis and the private landlord system could be seen as exploiting this and becoming a burden on their tenants.
It's not their fault as such, nor the tenants, the system is "broken" as they say.
One unfortunate detail is the idea of "social" or "affordable" housing as distinct from housing as a whole. It implies a dual system for the haves and the have nots. All housing is "social" housing serving society, and the lack of "affordable" housing is down to unrestrained free market economics leading to the housing bubble.

So, if you remove all the private landlords and their properties, where are the people currently occupying those properties going to live? Many would be unable to buy the house in which they live and councils would be unable to buy up the excess housing stock to rent out.

 

[niemeyjt]

And further to the above, there is a fee attached to protecting the deposits that legally cannot be passed directly onto the tenant, but its still an overhead for the landlords - so its yet another thing that has to be paid for out of the rents and thus provides yet more upwards pressure on rents.

Those who call for ever more regulations on landlords need to understand that there is often cost associated with that and that like in any business ultimately has to be borne by the customer - in this case the tenant.

Yes - our agent picks up some of the new extra costs - thanks George Osborne - and has hiked the management charges I pay by 1%.

We put up the new rent by £100 to cover it. Nice one George!

 

[Jacob]

And further to the above, there is a fee attached to protecting the deposits that legally cannot be passed directly onto the tenant, but its still an overhead for the landlords - so its yet another thing that has to be paid for out of the rents and thus provides yet more upwards pressure on rents.

And downward pressure on the attraction of being a landlord.

Those who call for ever more regulations on landlords need to understand that there is often cost associated with that and that like in any business ultimately has to be borne by the customer - in this case the tenant.

Rent controls urgently needed, plus security and end of no fault evictions.
It's de-regulation and lack of govt. action which has created the current housing crisis

 

[Ozi]

Personally I have been squeezing the agents as hard as possible, as rents go up they can cut their percentages and still make the same return, any gain I split with existing tenants once I know they are OK, can't do it for new tenants without attracting the sort of scum that made me start this thread.

 

[Sachakins]

Ref no fault evictions.

And downward pressure on the attraction of being a landlord.

Rent controls urgently needed, plus security and end of no fault evictions.
It's de-regulation and lack of govt. action which has created the current housing crisis

What's the balanced legislation for landlords? If you decide you no longer want to be a landlord, and that you want to cease renting out a property and wish to sell to recoup your capital how are you meant to remove your tenant to sell property without the option of no fault evictions.?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I suspect Jacob has never suffered the legal costs, stress and loss of income of evicting a lousy tenant then having to totally gut the place. I suspect the moral high ground wouldn't have quite the same appeal if he had.

 

[Jacob]

Ref no fault evictions.

What's the balanced legislation for landlords? If you decide you no longer want to be a landlord, and that you want to cease renting out a property and wish to sell to recoup your capital how are you meant to remove your tenant to sell property without the option of no fault evictions.?

Sell with tenant in place?
Tenants interests should take priority over the management issues of the landlords.
People need good secure homes. It should not be possible to simply withdraw this absolutely essential basic service.
If you want to be a landlord maybe you should accept that you are in it for the duration. You can't mess about with the lives of your clients.

 

[Sachakins]

Sell with tenant in place?
Tenants interests should take priority over the management issues of the landlords.
People need good secure homes. It should not be possible to simply withdraw this absolutely essential basic service.
If you want to be a landlord you should accept that you are in it for the duration. You can't mess up the lives of your clients.

Selling with tenants in place incurs great loss against property true market value.
Lets say after 17 years of renting and now say 67. This property is my retirement pot.
Would you be happy if someone stopped you getting your retirement income pot, on the grounds that somebody else deserves your pension money, so you can't have it. Don't think you would find that acceptable or ethical.

And what about clients messing with our lives.

If you've never dealt with abusive tenants, wrecked houses, defaulted rents, then them hiding behind dubious legal loopholes, eviction delaying extensions, then vanishing leaving several thousand in unpaid rent, 15,000 worth of damage and repairs and a couple of thousand in legal bills, then you would probably have a different view and opinions.

 

[Jacob]

Selling with tenants in place incurs great loss against property true market value.
Lets say after 17 years of renting and now say 67. This property is my retirement pot.
Would you be happy if someone stopped you getting your retirement income pot, on the grounds that somebody else deserves your pension money, so you can't have it. Don't think you would find that acceptable or ethical.

I wouldn't use my pension pot to become a landlord.

And what about clients messing with our lives.

You chose to be a landlord. Most tenants don't have the choice.

 

[Sachakins]

I wouldn't use my pension pot to become a landlord.

You chose to be a landlord.

Never said that a pension pot was used by this person to become a landlord.
Just like the person now chooses not to be a landlord
Rights belong to both parties involved, but balanced rights to each side.


Mod edit to remove personal insult.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I have a rental property bought 15 years ago as part of a planned total retirement income. The choice of property over other investments was the expectation of stable returns + (possibly) some increase in asset value.

Problems are fixed promptly. It is maintained to a high standard. Rent is lower mid market. This allows a reasonable choice of tenant - to date no problems bar the odd late payment.

The only significant loss was a letting agent who thought that deposits and rents were better spent on a Porsche and fine wine hobby. Sadly his bankruptcy meant the money was gone for good.

A lease or rental agreement is simply a contract - an enforceable mutuality of obligations:

• the landlord provides the property for an agreed price, term, condition, etc
• the tenant pays the contracted rent, fulfils contracted obligations etc

Landlords are not a branch of social services. Remedies for both landlord and tenant to enforce swiftly and fairly that to which they have agreed should be available to both. Any updates to the regulatory framework should reflect a sense of mutual obligation.

Regulatory demands on landlords have rightly increased over the last few years, but will reduce the number of rental properties available - compliance is costly and burdensome

Stresses in the property market arise due to an excess of demand over supply - particularly in popular areas. Encouraging the sale of rental properties through greater regulation or obligation will simply shift, not remove, the stress.

The solution is more housebuilding or less people.

Further regulation, unless it is (a) fair to both parties, (b) readily and cheaply enforceable, and (c) free of unintended consequences, should be avoided. No fault evictions or rent control legislation would need to be vary carefully drafted to avoid these pitfalls.

 

[Jacob]

Never said that a pension pot was used by this person to become a landlord.
Just like the person now chooses not to be a landlord
Rights belong to both parties involved, but balanced rights to each side.

But they aren't balanced. That's the whole point. Tenants are at a huge disadvantage and there is a housing crisis.
Yes sorry about that it's the way I was brought up! I do think in general that people need to wake up a bit.

 

[Jacob]

Landlords are not a branch of social services. ...

They are when they are dealing with the essentials of life in a time of shortage and crisis. https://www.ft.com/content/f21642d8-da2d-4e75-886e-2b7c1645f063

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Tenants are at a huge disadvantage? Anyone who believes that hasn't spoken to many landlords.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I wouldn't use my pension pot to become a landlord.

That's entirely your choice - but not mine.

You chose to be a landlord. Most tenants don't have the choice.

Some rent from choice - particularly the young and/or mobile where university, career, family breakdown etc etc make the long term commitment of purchase unattractive.

A tenancy agreement is a contract. It imposes rights and obligations upon both tenant and landlord which should be legally enforceable swiftly and at limited cost.

Landlords are not a part of social services.

 

[Jacob]

.....

Landlords are not a part of social services.

They are by default. They are deeply involved with social issues whether they like it or not.

 

[Agent_zed]

I'm not sure that Jacob is aware that if the council is paying the rent directly to the landlord and it turns out that the tenant is found to be fudging the system and shouldn't have had the rent paid, then the council just simply takes the money back from the landlord. The Landlord now has to attempt to get the money off the tenant, which is about as likely as me winning all of the Olympics.

My dad has had a tenant that didn't pay the rent as they couldn't be bothered to go and sign on some weeks. Literally just because they couldn't be bothered to get free rent money. They also left the house after not paying for a couple of months and it was full of their rubbish.

He currently has a tenant who decided rather than buying a house they spent all of their money on a world trip and now the council pays for them.

He's had numerous tenants default on the rent over the years despite doing his best to A. keep the rent below market rates and B. when they are struggling helping to work out delayed payments or not raising rents.

 

[Agent_zed]

They are by default. They are deeply involved with social issues whether they like it or not.

In that case everything is a social service.

The local pub should be subsidising drinks
Supermarkets should be selling goods at 0% profit
Banks should be lending money for free
Garages should be fixing peoples cars at cost
etc etc

where does it end?

 

[Jacob]

In that case everything is a social service.

The local pub should be subsidising drinks
Supermarkets should be selling goods at 0% profit
Banks should be lending money for free
Garages should be fixing peoples cars at cost
etc etc

where does it end?

Non of these things are in crisis with fundamental effects on the lives of many people and even homelessness.