To think that if a landlord evicts you ie makes you homeless to sell you shouldn't get stiffed for cleaning charges by the agent when you move out?

[Bleddry]

Clean your own house if you want to sell it you tightwad.

@Handsoffmysweets

You’re right. There are several reasons for wanting to rent, not always a lack of options. One of my tenants has poor credit and is getting to the stage where they will struggle to get their first mortgage owing to their age. I also have one who isn’t planning on staying in the County, a young couple who are testing the waters living together. But of course I ignore all that when I meet them and just hang them upside down to empty their pockets.

Good news today for tenants

Not such a contented soul then?

So much anger is very unhealthy, maybe you should try counselling.

Jessie

Thanks! That’s good.

This para is frightening: The most recent research by Citizens Advice suggested that tenants who made a formal complaint about their landlord or the state of their rented home had a 46% chance of being issued with a section 21 eviction notice in the following six months.

And someone on this thread denied that landlords hold all the cards...

When the Tories are bringing in laws like this even the most resistant landlord surely has to recognise the strength of the argument (that’s not an anti-Tory comment by the way - they’re far preferable to anything else on offer at the moment - but a realistic observation that they’re the party least likely to rebalance the law towards tenants).

@contentedsoul - yes, absolutely!

I've been both a renter and a landlord at the same time - and our landlord wanted to sell the house. We bought it - we were not planning to buy another property and it is hard to pull it all together at short notice, we were lucky to be able to do that. We still live there now.

We sold our other property after having non-paying tenants. I see this morning they have been talking about renting and they are going to put in place 'speedy redress' for the landlords too, because if someone doesn't pay it is difficult - and very slow via the Section 8 method - to do anything about it. 2 months notice with a section 21 is often quicker (even if, like us, the tenant stops paying very early during the 6 month AST!).

The properties round here that are rented tend to have a high turnover - short tenancies before people move on, possibly due to moving for work (which is what we did) or to get a school place (some well-rated primary and secondary schools nearby).

Not everyone wants an indefinite tenancy or to own property, there's nothing wrong with either option.

The most recent research by Citizens Advice suggested that tenants who made a formal complaint about their landlord or the state of their rented home had a 46% chance of being issued with a section 21 eviction notice in the following six months.

In one place I rented, the gas fire, the sole source of heating, was condemned. I was without heating for weeks whilst this was sorted. My landlord's response? He put the rent up by £25pcm. Then the following winter the porch became saturated with damp to the extent that a hole developed in the ceiling and water poured down into the hallway. My landlord's response? He put the rent up.

I gave him a month's notice and moved. He held onto the deposit until I threatened him with legal action and he realised that he would get stung for not having put it in a deposit protection scheme.

I’ve known people clean for three days and get charged for cleaning. Some landlords just do it anyway without checking what the tenant has done. It’s common for this to happen.

I think if we had a sort of large wicker doll into which a few estate agents, selected by lottery, were introduced and immolated once a year it would do much to jollify the business.

Yanbu about landlords who try to charge professional cleaning fees on a clean house. I had a landlord try and charge me £250 for a broken lamp that was £20 at Argos. (Could tell it was Argos from markings)
With regards to the sale, yabu to assume it's because he fancied more money. He might need the money for many other reasons like redundancy, long-term illness etc and might sell the property to a FTB.
It sucks not having security and having the hassle of moving etc and it's good that you've got a new place sorted.

I am a landlord - I rent out my mother’s house and have done since she died 8 years ago. We are currently on our second set of tenants. I don’t plan on selling the house, but in five years time when my dh and I retire we are planning on living there, as we want to move back to the area we both grew up in.

We don’t need the money from renting it out but thought it was better for the house to be lived in - given that there’s a housing crisis and all...

For that reason, if no-fault evictions are indeed going to be abolished - meaning that all tenancies are effectively open-ended with the tenants calling the shots - then I will simply have to evict our tenants before that legislation comes into place. When we retire, dh and I want to move in straightaway. We can’t afford to wait around for our tenants to decide they want to leave - what if they never do?

It’s our house, and it should be up to us who lives there. Therefore, given that this legislation will almost certainly pass, once I get an idea of the timeframe I will have to evict our tenants before it’s too late.

I’ll feel very bad about doing it - they’re a young family & as they knew about our plans, thought they had the option of staying there for five more years (though nothing was promised or written down). But I simply can’t take the risk of them not leaving in five years. It would screw up our retirement entirely. Until then the house will have to be empty.

if no-fault evictions are indeed going to be abolished - meaning that all tenancies are effectively open-ended with the tenants calling the shots - then I will simply have to evict our tenants before that legislation comes into place

Not necessarily, Billy - if I've read it correctly, wanting the property back to live in yourself will be included as a reason to end the tenancy under Section 8

To me, the proposals sound a good thing providing they're used responsibly. The big difference seems to be that, whereas a Section 21 couldn't be challenged, a Section 8 can ... and that could mean a very long delay, with horrible consequences for the LL if a tenant's failing to pay or damaging the property

@BillyBog

I think you should take a deep breath and look at the exact terms of any legislation that emerges from this proposal.

• It is very unlikely that any new laws will be applied retrospectively. They will apply only to tenancies enterered into after the law is passed. So your current rental will not be affected.

• a landlords right to end a tenancy because he (or a family member) wishes to move into the property themselves will certainly be included in any future legislation. The same will apply to major works etc. This is a corner stone of all rental legislation across the globe.

This is all about making things fairer for tenants AND landlords, - something all reasonable people want to see.

One small point about the proposed legislation, though ... given the "all LLs are b**tards" mentality we see so often, I'd imagine many will want much more rigorous checks on potential tenants in future

Obviously checks will only go so far and things can still go wrong, but a degree of prudence may be necessary to avoid being lumbered with the kind of tenant who considers themselves untouchable

Billy

Do you own both houses? If so, I think I have to take issue with the idea that you should have a right to decide who lives in your inherited house.

As ‘radical’ as it may seem, my view is that anyone who owns more than one property should be obliged to sell all but one to live in (yes, including holiday homes) unless they become a licensed and regulated landlord with considerable statutory obligations towards tenants. Which would
mean in effect that you could only realise the rental value, never the sale value other than by sale to another landlord.

We must release housing stock. This cannot go on.

Isn't that a bit contradictory, KIssing? You said everyone should sell a second home, but then that "you could only realise the rental value, never the sale value other than by sale to another landlord"

Surely by doing that they would realise the "sale value", unless you're suggesting owners should be forced to sell only to other LLs or HAs ... which simply isn't going to happen

It wasn’t contradictory - though it was incomplete, because a regulated sale to a tenant should also be possible. I would wish to stop landlords who take on the necessary proper burdens of being a housing provider simply selling out of the rental market when it suits them. So, I did indeed mean that privately owned rentals should be barred from sale otherwise than to new operators or incumbent tenants.

In effect I would want the private rental market to be similar to the social provision of housing.

‘Simply never going to happen’ isn’t really any argument at all. In a year or two all sorts of things might happen - Corbyn’s more or less in now. Most of what he would do would be terrible and vindictive acts by overgrown students. But not in respect of housing: that deserves massive intervention.

Puzzled
Yes. Totally contradictory. Bizarre comments.

Why?

Do you actually mean ‘totally unwelcome for BTL landlords?’

kissing - interesting thought. why not take it one step further and say houses shouldnt be inhabited by just one person, or if they are they have to pay extra especially tax/rates especially if they have spare bedrooms?

You mean like the council tax?

yes kissing. currently single people living alone get a discount. if you are looking for ways of helping the housing crisis then get rid of this. have loads of people living in each house

some families own more than one house because they need it for their work/living situations. so i dont agree they should all be penalised if they have more than one.

i also think LLs are highly regulated already. But then i am one - i recently had a tenant who was out of her contract period, hadnt paid me rent for 6 months, and was trashing the place (at least front door had been kicked in, old sofa in backgarden and dog poo everywhere despite them not being allowed a do without permission). I wasnt allowed inside even to service gas boiler as that might have spoiled her enjoyment of the property.

the reason there are so many 21 cases is because section 8s can be challenged and a tenant who knows the system will play for time....and all that time not pay rent and trash the place.

Some councils are penalising owners of empty houses through council tax. Why not take a further step and force a sale?

As has been said on this thread, some tenants are awful. So are many landlords (read the s.21 research done by the CA).

But my position on this is that the issue is structural, not personal. We should be encouraging home ownership and protecting much more carefully the rights of those who can’t or don’t want to buy.

Other than market economics - which plainly don’t work for this country’s housing crisis - what argument is there for owning more of the scarce resource of domestic real property than you need to live in yourself?

A scenario for you Kissing. I have a child with disabilities, who will never live independently. He will never be able to earn his own income. If he gets to the stage where he can live in a rental we one with the assistance of carers (which is doubtful but not impossible) should I not be able to decide he can live there? One of our motivators for rental properties is to provide an income for him from beyond the grave. They’re relatively low maintenance and realistically our other children will have to manage them but we didn’t want to burden them with a business that is more burdensome. But I know you don’t believe in nest eggs. So I presume you’d be happy to allow the state to look after your child in similar circumstances?

The scenario like mine above is why IMO it’s completely unreasonable to suggest you should be able to dictate what people do with their assets. I’m not saying the industry shouldn’t be better regulated, but to actually prevent the use of the property for the owners own purposes or force a sale is a bit far IMO.

You don’t seem to like personal liberty much, do you, Kissing?

I wouldn’t be opposed to maybe an additional one-off tax to go into social housing provision when someone buys or inherits a second home, but banning possession of two properties is an infringement on individual freedom.

My family and I live in Surrey. My husband works in London, and - when things get stressful - he often has to work very long hours. For this reason, in addition to our house in Surrey, we own a small flat in London, so he doesn’t have to commute home at midnight. This arrangement works for us - who are you to tell us we can’t continue like this?

We have worked hard all our lives, and saved every penny we could - we had no parental help and had to make a lot of sacrifices when we were younger to get to where we are today. It’s up to us what we then spend or money on to make our lives as convenient as possible.

The housing crisis isn’t our fault. And a large part of the problem is people wanting to live in cities like London when they haven’t chosen a sufficiently high-paying career to sustain that. You can’t afford to rent in London? Then move to somewhere you can.

Imposing limits on property is tyranny and will never stand in this country.