Tenants / Landlords...

[Celaena]

Just watching nightmare tenants slum landlords (which I like as it seems more balanced than just one side is 'bad')

There are tenants that haven't paid rent in 7 months, and the ll has to wait longer to get them out? That surely cannot be right? I know there are some terrible LLs out there as well....
I'd hate to be a landlord - my mum has property and wants us to rent out when she leaves it us in her will - no chance!!

It can take months. Tenants have to be two full months behind before you can even start the eviction process.

Takes 2 months unpaid rent before you can even fill the court form in. Courts have huge backlogs these days so it can take 3 or 4 months to get a court hearing date.
By the time you go to court the tenant could be 5 or 6 months in arrears. They then give the judge a hard luck story and the judge may give them more time. so now 7 months in arrears.
LL needs to enforce the court judgment and fill out paperwork to get baliffs to evict the tenant.
Baliffs are busy, will take at least a month for them to turn up. 8 months in arrears easy. Finally you get your house back, BUT no rent (need more court action for that!). And its a rare tenant in these circumstances that hasnt also trashed the house.

When it goes wrong its hideous.(before people start, I know lls can be equally bad, this is just in reponse to this particular topic)

We rent out a small flat. The tennents have just left.

The place is filthy. Mildew all over the shower, the kitchen is greasy, the carpet has burn marks and stains, the walls are stained.

We used to rent out a furnished house. The tennents told the children off for jumping on the sofa we provided whilst they wouldn't allow the children to do the same on the sofa they bought themselves.

Another tenant went on a bender and shit and pissed all over the carpets.

We have a lovely young couple with a young child in our rental property. Rent is always paid, the property is in perfect condition, we've been very lucky.

We are also tenants too, our LL is great, any issues are dealt with the same day, he won't put our rent up as he'd rather have long term good tenants than make a quick buck (We have this in writing).

I'm an accidental landlord. Our tenant refused to move out and I had to take her to court. It's been expensive and taken over 7 months.

Her dad sends me abusive emails about how nasty I am to be making her homeless, she refused to let our insurers designated tradespeople in to do repair work; won't allow prospective purchasers round and last week threw her toys out of the cot because I refused to let her keep all of our furniture when she finally leaves.

Its been exhausting.

I used to be a letting agent. It can take months to get people out, and the landlord has a mortgage and service charge and insurance etc to pay through all that time.

One lot of charmers shat on the floor and wiped their arses on the curtains when they moved out!

The state of renting in this country is appalling. It works against both tenants and landlords alike.

From the landlord's POV, they have such little comeback against tenants who refuse to leave despite not paying rent, etc. Or who trash/steal part of the property.

Part of the issue is people being forced to get themselves evicted in order to avoid falling foul of the 'intentionally homeless' rule when it comes to seeking housing through LAs, which is bonkers.

Rents have been pushed artificially high by a combination of lack of social housing at affordable rents. Some (not all) landlords have a mortgage on their rental property they cannot really afford and so have inflated rental costs that way as well.

Agency fees are appalling.

I recently looked into renting to avoid a chain while selling mine. I found teh rental price for the same sized property I was paying a mortgage on was higher and I would have ended up paying about £2000 on top in various fees. That's insane.

Part of the issue is people being forced to get themselves evicted in order to avoid falling foul of the 'intentionally homeless' rule when it comes to seeking housing through LAs, which is bonkers.

You're dead right there, it's a poor system

Yes, the programme is right.

The trouble is that the system is one size fits all, so the protections in place for both tenants and landlords take no real account of what they do. I also have had to sort a smart clean property transformed into a shithole - and you have to wait while it happens, the law stops landlords doing anything else.

I quite like what they do in florida. ( can't believe I'm saying that!) Non paying tenants get three days before proceedings start, then it takes a couple of weeks before eviction by an armed sheriff. Tenants belongings go at the property boundary for collection , unlike the system here where the landlord has to jump all sorts of hoops.

Meanwhile tenants can with hold rent if repairs are not done and have strong protections against harrassment and illegal eviction.

Obviously a programme called 'happy tenants, good landlords ' would be a bit dull....

Eviction is the one area where the tenant is at an advantage over their landlord. Yes it can take months, yes they might leave the property in a poor state of repair, yes they might not pay their rent for months while you are trying to evict them. But those are the risks you take when you try to make a profit off someone's basic need for a roof above their head, or believe that someone else should be paying your mortgage for you. In every other circumstance, the landlord has the power.

I don't agree with the tenants who refuse to pay and refuse to move out, but it is hard to find sympathy for the landlord. I agree the process for evicting someone who doesn't pay their rent should be faster, but I think greater rights for honest tenants are more of a priority, such as:

• Can't be evicted if you pay your rent on time and abide by tenancy agreement (even if property changes owner).
• Rent can only be a maximum of 80% of the monthly mortgage payment the owner has (no mortgage = no rent).
• Rent can only be increased by 1% per annum (notwithstanding the 80% rule above).
• Maximum of 6 weeks' rent as deposit.
• Deposit to be refunded on day of departure.
• Tenant has first refusal to buy property if landlord sells, and at a discount on the market rate of 1% per year they've lived there.
• Landlords are legally required to ensure the property is safe, free of damp and free of infestation at all times.
• Landlords are not entitled to enter the property without the tenant's written consent, unless in a genuine emergency.
• Landlords who breach these terms and conditions forfeit the property - the tenant inherits the equity and has the option to take over the remaining mortgage on the property or continue to rent once new owner is found.
• Tenants more than three months behind with there rent can be evicted - a special tribunal to be set up, funded by a "landlord levy", to ensure that these evictions are fair but swift.

I think these simple rules would tip the balance back in favour of the tenant, which is of course where it should be. Landlords can still invest in property - they can buy it, benefit from increasing house prices and so on - but they will perhaps think twice before getting involved. A lot of landlords are frankly pretty amateur - even if they are well intentioned to begin with.

barinatxe - some of your points are wildly optimistic even as a current renter I say this Rent can only be a maximum of 80% of the monthly mortgage payment the owner has (no mortgage = no rent).

Why should a LL essentially end up paying for someone else to live in their home? You'd end up in a system whereby no-one would want to be a ll as they'd be subsiding someone else's living costs and then more people who would reliant on the council to provide them with housing, instead of private lets.

Can't be evicted if you pay your rent on time and abide by tenancy agreement (even if property changes owner).

So once I decide to be a landlord regardless of my circumstances I'm stuck with it?

• Rent can only be a maximum of 80% of the monthly mortgage payment the owner has (no mortgage = no rent).

Who would do this? There are additional costs such as buildings insurance, maintenance contracts etc. You have to break even at least.

• Rent can only be increased by 1% per annum (notwithstanding the 80% rule above).

Fine, just means you would get 1% rise every year. More than I would charge good tenants normally

• Maximum of 6 weeks' rent as deposit.

Even if they have significant risks factors? Who will house these high risk people then?

• Deposit to be refunded on day of departure.

Within a week is reasonable.

• Tenant has first refusal to buy property if landlord sells, and at a discount on the market rate of 1% per year they've lived there.

So I can't kick you out ever and then become entitled to up to 50% off?

• Landlords are legally required to ensure the property is safe, free of damp and free of infestation at all times.

Ok but what if the tenant is the cause?

• Landlords are not entitled to enter the property without the tenant's written consent, unless in a genuine emergency.

Agree

• Landlords who breach these terms and conditions forfeit the property - the tenant inherits the equity and has the option to take over the remaining mortgage on the property or continue to rent once new owner is found.

Omg

• Tenants more than three months behind with there rent can be evicted - a special tribunal to be set up, funded by a "landlord levy", to ensure that these evictions are fair but swift.

Why three months? Further fees from the levy no doubt. From no profit as you've seen to that.

Oh dear lord, I hadn't even see this: Landlords who breach these terms and conditions forfeit the property - the tenant inherits the equity and has the option to take over the remaining mortgage on the property or continue to rent once new owner is found That's insane. On every level. What you basically want is a way to snatch property from those people who are basically better off than you. I know of councils who would fail your list - what are you going to do then - have tenants take council properties away?!!

Barinatxe - I love it. Not sure about no mortgage no rent. But it should not be more expensive to rent than buy!
I think you should only be able to let a property if there is no mortgage in it.

All I want as a tenant is:

Safe place to live.
Maintenance to be carried out within reasonable time.
Not too expensive. (Paying 675 currently. Up 50 this year. Still the cheapest available for similar property in the area)
Longer term tenancy.
No more bloody extortionate LA fees.

FYI, I've lived in this property coming up 7 years and its gone from 570 to 675 in that time.

barinatxe

Some of those rules are genuinely fucking loopy!!

barinatxe I rent privately and have no hope of ever owning. I think many of your suggested rules are ridiculous. I am a good tennant, I pay my rent on time and keep the property as I found it. My LL has done any repairs promptly. They do quarterly inspections but I am given usually 2 weeks notice of these.

Landlords should be able to evict tenants who genuinely trash a property (independent third party to verify damage to stop bad lls evicting tenants for normal wear and tear or accidental damage). This should be whether or not rent is paid and regardlsss of time left on the tenancy.

Tenants should be secure in their tenancy, maybe tax incentives for landlords to offer 3, 5 or 10 year terms (longer terms = less tax).

Fines for landlords who refuse to undertake essential repairs.

Scrapping the rule about being intentionally homeless unless you sit and wait to be evicted, causing huge stress to both ll and tennant. If you have paid your rent every month and the ll refuses to renew your tenancy you are not intentionally homeless!

barinatxe 'no mortgage=no rent' but still expect the LL to pay for all repairs, insurance, maintenance?

What would be the point?
We don't live in a communist society.

abitcrap - 'I think you should only be able to let a property if there is no mortgage in it.'
Why? As a current renter and an ex ll, that's just daft. The reason we rented our house out was because of moving abroad for a job. It wasn't for ever, we loved the house, had owned it for 15 years, done many improvements and still and a fair sized mortgage on it. What should we have done then, sell it for way below market value and have no home to come back to? Or leave it standing empty? Smh. Some of you are living in bloody la La land.

orangebird69

checkedstripes honestly, ffs!

orangebird I know! That's wanting something for fucking nothing and theft, frankly nought

I think people have this bizarre thing that every landlord is out to get them. Of course there are lots of shitty landlords, which of course they are. But tenants are equally as shitty too.

We rented our family house out as we couldn't afford the mortgage whilst DC was small and I was on maternity, we had to rent a smart-ish tiny house ourselves to save up and move back.

Rented to family with 3 teenage DCs. Rent barely covered mortgage and costs (but was almost a grand and that's up north). Got a dog without our knowledge or consent, it has left scratch marks in our beautiful vintage bare wood internal doors. Also boy teenage DCs leave questionable bodily fluids on curtains. Boak. And apparently parents never lifted the toilet seats to clean underneath. EVER. Never mind the call to request we build them a patio in the middle of (what was) an impeccable lawn. (Even though there is an existing large patio at the end of the large south facing garden).

The house we rented, we had amazing landlords, similar situation to my friend below, couldn't do enough, trusted us completely, never did inspections. Sent us wine and cards at Christmas etc, almost felt guilty cancelling our tenancy!

Friend of mine rents a house with his wife and their 2 DCs. They are homeowners but due to negative equity they can't sell their own home, it's a 2 bedroom flat so they rent it out to mainly couples. They are able to accept HB tenants. Said tenants offered them a lump sum to evict them so they could get social housing. Friend obviously said no. Tenants are 3 months in arrears currently.

from all accounts though social housing isn't much better...

But those are the risks you take when you try to make a profit off someone's basic need for a roof above their head, or believe that someone else should be paying your mortgage for you. In every other circumstance, the landlord has the power.

Are you quite mad? My tenants don't pay my mortgage, how do you think I managed to buy a rental? Why, by increasing my own mortgage massively for the deposit, of course!

Landlords who breach these terms and conditions forfeit the property - the tenant inherits the equity and has the option to take over the remaining mortgage on the property or continue to rent once new owner is found.

Definitely a crackpot scheme. It's MY house, not theirs! I've worked for years to get the capital to do this and added massively to my mortgage.

Tenants more than three months behind with there rent can be evicted - a special tribunal to be set up, funded by a "landlord levy", to ensure that these evictions are fair but swift

So if my tenants fail to pay for three months, I am levied against to ensure the eviction is fair?! More than three months behind? No, I can't afford to pay that extra £2400, mate, sorry!

Lots of heart warming landlord the here.

Obviously, as a landlord, I find the jumping through hoops to remove a non-paying tenant unfair, particularly as a pp said, it can take months, then the property is not necessarily left looking great, so another month while it's being restored to a decent state and new tenants are found, plus the fee to the agent for new tenants. Super. I'm only in this so I don't have to work til I'm nearly 70.