I fucking hate letting agents and crappy landlords who take the piss

[ouda]

Just want to get that off my chest.

I see the point-but really all a tenant can 'do' is criminal behaviour. Not pay rent, trash the place etc. And I get that it's hugely problematic for a landlord if that happens. But as a pp said, they can get and check references and pick and choose.

Meanwhile, it's much much more common that a landlord can and does get away with all the selfish, psychotic, abusive, invasive behaviours mentioned above. They can and do thieve money whatever way they can get it from a tenant. The properties can be substandard but rented at premium prices, filthy, broken and ugly. They walk in whenever they want, and allow their employees to do likewise.

The gist is that the tenant is (imo) treated as a second class citizen by the land 'lord', whilst they in turn literally hold the keys to the person's home. It's pander and put up, or get out.

I would imagine that for every bad tenant who's cost months of unpaid rent and bailiff fees there must be plenty more of us who've had bits of money stolen here and there, put up with terrible behaviour, cleaned up absolute filth, and made to feel uncomfortable and insecure in our own homes. There are definitely some good and fair landpeople (usually the ones who've fallen into it unintentionally actually) about but imo the outright majority of them are downright greedy moronic pricks.

But it didn't start as an argument thread though, did it? It was the OP venting against a particular subset of landlords and letting agents, and inviting others to do the
same. I genuinely don't understand why some landlords waded in when it clearly didn't apply to them.

Why does a story like mine, about having my family's privacy and quiet enjoyment of home violated by fuckwit agents, somehow NEED countering with a story of some bad tenants who are completely unrelated to me and my situation? It doesn't! Just barrelling in with a "well my tenants didn't pay their rent on time, blah de blah" feels like an attempt to justify OUR poor treatment; like tenants deserve a sort of collective punishment for the actions of others.

Our scumbag ex landlord almost killed us with faulty wiring, a month after we moved. My DH would have usually been on a night shift when it happened. I was asleep. No fire alarm, just him screaming to get out, and me hospitalised for smoke inhalation. He said it was God's will. Didn't even clean the gutted bathroom or repair it, we still find soot in our furniture 4 years later. Then evicted us the day after I found out I was pregnant, 6 weeks later.

Hope he burns in hell but he won't, he evicted us to sell the flat for 400k. Scum.

I still don't get what you're saying when you say they should have assured tenancies like you said in your previous post but no matter. Was just curious.

Surely the point is as well that even though by law the landlords should sort these issues out, if the landlord doesn't like it they can just say to move out at the end of your tenancy agreement and surely that is the risk that tenants have

Oh another friend had her rent illegally hiked by a few hundred after she had a baby. Like the baby was meant to pay for its occupation of the second room. She fought and won that one but had to move anyway because said mental landlady sent her bully son round to physically threaten her. The single mother whore.
Another friend recently had a landlord come in when she was at work to look at something and he helped himself to her dinner and left the dirty plate for her to wash up.

Assured tenants have a tenancy that like ASTs can be ended by breaches of tenancy. However the mandatory grounds that apply to ASTs don't normally apply to assured and secure tenancies because housing associations don't often use them. It's a grey area whether they can. That means for breaches of rent arrears for example, the judge has discretion whether to order possession or give a suspended possession order. Judges normally exercise their discretion and suspend the order which gives the tenant time to sort out their finances or hb claim. However if there is absolutely no chance of the tenant affording the rent they will normally award possession. The tenant can make an application for the order to be suspended though anyway, if they have grounds. Normally housing associations and other not for profit organisations grant an introductory tenancy which is very similar to an AST and can be ended with s21 followed by application to court. The HA will use mandatory grounds in these circumstances. After a year of being a good tenant they will grant an assured or secure tenancy. Hope that helps.

Me too!!! We are currently battling with our former letting agent as he wants £760 out of our deposit. The DPS have released the undisputed £135. He is saying the cleaning was haphazard and is claiming we broke a window handle (we didn’t) He has admitted that someone was in the property between us vacating and the inspection. He want an end of tenancy clean, carpets cleaned (done and proof provided) and gardening (done) So fuming.

Oh ok I think I see. So it's better for the tenants then.

I think your point about being asked to move out at the end of your term if you ask the landlord to deal with disrepair issues has been remedied by the Deregulation Act for tenancies granted after 2015. Sadly it hasn't been widely published in the media. Again, I go back to my original point, that the legislation is there, but local authorities need to step up and ensure people renting in their areas are aware of these protections. Please pass this info on to anyone you know are renting.

33Preventing retaliatory eviction
(1)Where a relevant notice is served in relation to a dwelling-house in England, a section 21 notice may not be given in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of the dwelling-house—
(a)within six months beginning with the day of service of the relevant notice, or
(b)where the operation of the relevant notice has been suspended, within six months beginning with the day on which the suspension ends.
(2)A section 21 notice given in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England is invalid where—
(a)before the section 21 notice was given, the tenant made a complaint in writing to the landlord regarding the condition of the dwelling-house at the time of the complaint,
(b)the landlord—
(i)did not provide a response to the complaint within 14 days beginning with the day on which the complaint was given,
(ii)provided a response to the complaint that was not an adequate response, or
(iii)gave a section 21 notice in relation to the dwelling-house following the complaint,
(c)the tenant then made a complaint to the relevant local housing authority about the same, or substantially the same, subject matter as the complaint to the landlord,
(d)the relevant local housing authority served a relevant notice in relation to the dwelling-house in response to the complaint, and
(e)if the section 21 notice was not given before the tenant's complaint to the local housing authority, it was given before the service of the relevant notice.
(3)The reference in subsection (2) to an adequate response by the landlord is to a response in writing which—
(a)provides a description of the action that the landlord proposes to take to address the complaint, and
(b)sets out a reasonable timescale within which that action will be taken.
(4)Subsection (2) applies despite the requirement in paragraph (a) for a complaint to be in writing not having been met where the tenant does not know the landlord's postal or e-mail address.
(5)Subsection (2) applies despite the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) not having been met where the tenant made reasonable efforts to contact the landlord to complain about the condition of the dwelling-house but was unable to do so.
(6)The court must strike out proceedings for an order for possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in relation to a dwelling-house in England if, before the order is made, the section 21 notice that would otherwise require the court to make an order for possession in relation to the dwelling-house has become invalid under subsection (2).
(7)An order for possession of a dwelling-house in England made under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 must not be set aside on the ground that a relevant notice was served in relation to the dwelling-house after the order for possession was made.
(8)Subsection (1) does not apply where the section 21 notice is given after—
(a)the relevant notice has been wholly revoked under section 16 of the Housing Act 2004 as a result of the notice having been served in error,
(b)the relevant notice has been quashed under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to that Act,
(c)a decision of the relevant local housing authority to refuse to revoke the relevant notice has been reversed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to that Act, or
(d)a decision of the relevant local housing authority to take the action to which the relevant notice relates has been reversed under section 45 of that Act.
(9)Subsection (2) does not apply where the operation of the relevant notice has been suspended.
(10)References in this section and section 34 to a relevant notice served, or complaint made, in relation to a dwelling-house include a relevant notice served, or complaint made, in relation to any common parts of the building of which the dwelling-house forms a part.
(11)But subsection (10) applies only if—
(a)the landlord has a controlling interest in the common parts in question, and
(b)the condition of those common parts is such as to affect the tenant's enjoyment of the dwelling-house or of any common parts which the tenant is entitled to use.
(12)In this section and section 34 a reference to a complaint to a landlord includes a complaint made to a person acting on behalf of the landlord in relation to the tenancy.
(13)In this section and section 34—
“assured shorthold tenancy” means a tenancy within section 19A or 20 of the Housing Act 1988;
“common parts”, in relation to a building, includes—
(a)the structure and exterior of the building, and
(b)common facilities provided (whether or not in the building) for persons who include one or more of the occupiers of the building;
“controlling interest” means an interest which is such as to entitle the landlord to decide whether action is taken in relation to a complaint within this section or a relevant notice;
“dwelling-house” has the meaning given by section 45 of the Housing Act 1988;
“relevant local housing authority”, in relation to a dwelling-house, means the local housing authority as defined in section 261(2) and (3) of the Housing Act 2004 within whose area the dwelling-house is located;
“relevant notice” means—
(a)a notice served under section 11 of the Housing Act 2004 (improvement notices relating to category 1 hazards),
(b)a notice served under section 12 of that Act (improvement notices relating to category 2 hazards), or
(c)a notice served under section 40(7) of that Act (emergency remedial action);
“section 21 notice” means a notice given under section 21(1)(b) or (4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on termination of shorthold tenancy).

Does that prevent the landlord just hiking the rent though? And hence in effect forcing tenant out by other means?

The point about the posts on here being anti landlord and letting agents are fine, but they are very ALL landlords are shit and ALL letting agents are shit but I am a landlord and I take extremely seriously my statutory duties and if the tenant has an issue, if it's an emergency, like a tap that wouldn't turn off so they had to turn off the mains water, we dropped everything and were there within 2 hours. It was repaired within 3. They had a baby and couldn't possibly manage without water and neither should they be expected to. But if it's the dishwasher isn't working, I have to rely on an engineer coming out so it might take a week or sometimes more if they are busy. If it were a broken washing machine that the tenant has to wait to be repaired because we are at the mercy of the tradesman I will pay for a couple of trips to the launderette whether they have used it or not. If the don't have transport I would pay for a taxi there and back, particularly if they have children.

I do need to enter the property from time to time by agreement. I carry out six monthly checks on all my properties. I don't care if the place is untidy. I am there to check the smoke alarms work, that there aren't any problems with the showers, or the electricity etc etc. Tenants are not great at reporting problems, and if they don't tell me how am I to know. So I do 6 monthly checks which take 10 minutes and I pick up things that could be issues in the future and deal with them before it impacts on the tenant. If my tenant is happy so am I. I want long term tenants and I don't want to have to find new tenants every year. It significantly impacts on my profits and it means I am doing something wrong if they don't want to stay. One tenant is in her 4th year, so when/if she moves out the place will need decorating top to bottom. That's wear and tear. What isn't wear and tear is broken doors, broken appliances, and dirt. Funnily enough I have only made 2 deductions from tenants deposits with their agreement. Both were for £20. One was due to inadequate cleaning and the other was for a damaged carpet. Oh and a tenant who didn't have the carpet cleaned after his tenancy, which is in the agreement and it was mank. I let the rest of the bad cleaning go, because we were needing to decorate anyway.

There are lots of professional landlords who treat it as a business and are good to their tenants. I wouldn't have an issue with a registration system for landlords providing part of that registration was they have to attend how to be a landlord course for the day so they know what their duties and responsibilities are.

I'm sure there are good landlords out there. My first one was ok. And good estate agents. I'm sure people on this thread know this. But most of my experience has been pretty shit. Certainly not had one like you're saying. And if a landlord is doing all he can to fix something but it may take a while what would help is if he/the estate agent communicated then the tenant wouldn't just think he doesn't care cos it's not his property.

A landlord cannot raise the rent within the fixed term period. If rent increases are dealt with in the tenancy agreement then obviously they have been agreed. If not, and most tenancy agreements don't set out rent increases, they cannot raise the rent, unless the tenant agrees, outside of that period without serving a s13 notice. The tenant has the option then of going to a property tribunal to have an independent tribunal look at whether it is a fair rise. The fact is that private rents are expensive in the south east and some other areas and it probably isn't worth your while to do this, unless it is so above market rent it is obvious the landlord is trying to get the tenant to leave. Once the s13 notice is served the new rent increase will take effect one month after the notice is served. If no s13 notice is served and the tenant has not agreed the increase, then the amount of rent increase is not lawfully due, so the amount of the increase would not be treated as arrears by a court.

Yes, interestingly I don't use an agent to manage the properties, and I'm pretty sure the rest of my family don't either, so we deal directly with the tenants and know exactly what is going on, and the tenant are instructed to contact us direct if a problem occurs. But if an agent has 50 properties they are managing on their books they aren't going to be offering as good a service, although they might be able to get a plumber quicker than I can. Which brings us back to bad agents and stuff.

If tenants learn the law, it would be a great help in trying to get rid of shit landlords because they wouldn't be getting away with it. I'm not victim blaming by the way, I'm just suggesting people be a bit streetwise and know their rights. Which is why I'm quite happy coming on here letting people know what they can do, there are laws to protect them.

And I think here is a perfect example of how to hijack someone's thread . . .

After you moved out my ex landlord claimed to the deposit protection scheme (I think that's right?) that I had removed the electric fire and replaced it with a radiator, and they backed my landlord!! They kept £180 of my deposit to redo the fireplace - they were the ones who replaced it with a radiator but I had no "proof"!!

Oh my god that's awful

Jack65, as long as the landlord can just unilaterally raise the rent to whatever levels they choose as soon as the contract is up (maximum a year) then current laws to prevent landlords throwing out tenants who complain about disrepair are toothless. And as this thread shows, tenants' issues with landlords are not only about disrepair, they are also about abusive behaviour.

Contrary to your patronising assumptions that tenants are stupid and don't know the law, the problem is that tenants know the law only too well and know it is currently set up to disadvantage them and to benefit landlords. And no amount of landlordsplaining from you is going to alter that.

I have had my family's life put in danger (no exaggeration) by dodgy landlords and 4 out of 5 of us now have asthma thanks to dodgy landlords.

So no, I don't need to be gaslit by another landlord on my thread telling me that this is all my own fault for not knowing the law properly.

This is the reality of what actually happens to tenants who complain about poor maintenance from their landlords www.theguardian.com/money/2018/aug/23/uk-rent-groups-deliver-petition-calling-for-ban-on-unfair-evictions

Nearly half of tenants who make complaint face 'revenge eviction'

Estimate by Citizens Advice puts figure at 141,000 tenants since 2015

Unbelievable gaslighting of tenants going on on this thread.

This is exactly why I started it.

But no, some landlords can't just let tenants have even a space of their own online to complain about the bad treatment they've suffered. Oh no. They've got to bloody invade even that and demand to be let in and tell the tenants it's all their own fault really for not complaining hard enough/not knowing the law properly/because some other tenant in some completely different property with no connection whatsoever to them once trashed an entirely different property.

ODFOD.

I rented a property after my divorce and I can definitely state that I was treated like scum by both the estate agents and the landlady for being a renter, but a completely different experience when I was buying after the settlement had gone through. The estate agents openly treat renters and buyers wildly differently. It was so blatant, I was shocked.

Tenants are in every way looked down on as second class citizens, and the irony is that they are paying far more for their homes on a monthly basis than those with mortgages. I'm a prime example - £1500 to rent, £1000 to buy with mortgage. All because I had a deposit. And as a tenant you're looked on as scum.

I can believe they treat tenants differently. Estate agents are mostly shit. They lie and are condescending to you as well a lot!

Also my letting agent gave us a bad reference, no idea why, which caused us to lose our holding fee on a new house (£200). The agent who did it quit her job the week after and her boss had no idea why she did it as we were good tenants.

Another example of abuse of power from Those Who Have to Those Who Have Not.

Clearly some people on this thread don't know the law and it isn't patronising to advise people that the law is there to protect them and they should use it. The law does not favour landlords, it is quite well balanced, but as I said in one of my posts, due to cuts in funding there is no legal aid available to enforce it, and the advice agencies do not have enough good quality caseworkers due to lack of funding by both national government and local government. That is not gaslighting it is recognising the problem exists. There is nothing more satisfying than sitting before a district judge and wiping the floor with the landlord and their legal counsel because they are not fulfilling their statutory duty to the tenant. And the look on their faces when they realise they have screwed up and aren't going to wriggle out of this one is priceless. And what's even better is when they realise how much their screw up is going to cost them. One illegal eviction cost a landlord 20 and a half thousand earlier this year. So don't accuse me of ignoring or pretending bad landlords exist. I've met a helluva lot more shit landlords than you, but good landlords do exist, I'm one, it's just that we don't have anything to say about them . Tenants can help themselves by using the law, the first step is knowing it.