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.

Ideally, the private housing market wouldn't even exist, but here we are and it's shit.

Is this for real? Do you know just how well the housing situation in the former USSR, DDR, and so one worked?

It was shittier than a very shitty shit.

That's a good laugh you've given me on this lovely Sunday morning.

I don’t think curbs on and greater regulation of BTL will turn us into the Soviet Union.

once you chose to do that you should have accepted that you had locked your property into a use that shouldn’t allow sudden sale.

Why should she have accepted that when it isn't actually the law? You can't just unilaterally decide what you think the rules should be and then shame landlords who don't comply with your personal sense of morality.

It may be that the housing market would crash if much needed reforms were introduced.

Yes it would. Being a landlord would become a significantly less attractive possibility, former rental properties would flood the housing market driving house prices down and private rentals would become much much rarer and more expensive. No doubt many people think house prices should fall but it would send the country into a significant recession and have a huge financial impact on millions of families (including those who have to rent, even if houses prices fall).

I wouldn't necessarily expect a to vacate standard clean- as I have never had that done on any bought property I have moved I. To. I'd expect it to be clean and tidy, and to clean it myself on moving in day- like most people do. Did they state what the £100 was to cover? Agree it's not enough for another full clean, so what did they feel you hadn't done?

Why should she have accepted that when it isn't actually the law?

It should be the law. That’s why I used the word ‘should’.

Being a landlord would become a significantly less attractive possibility...

That would also be for the better.

I’m saying that it should be much harder to be a private landlord. It is a bad thing that people can act as housing providers with so few obligations.

"you should have accepted that you had locked your property into a use that shouldn’t allow sudden sale."

Why should the PP have accepted something that you think should be the law?
I'm not sure why it's important that landlords accept you view of what the law should hypothetically be, is my point. It's of no relevance to her or her tenants.

That would also be for the better.

But that would make private renting much more expensive and difficult to find. Unless the government magics up millions of social housing properties overnight that's not going to help renters.

the poor sod is being made homeless because the landlord now wishes to sell

No, she isn't. She said herself that she had sorted out somewhere to move to. She's no more homeless than all the people who choose to move house every day of the week. If she were homeless at all it would be because she hadn't taken advantage of the notice/possession proceedings period to sort out an alternative home.

Of course regulation the rental market is necessary, Kissing, my remark was to a post saying there should be no private housing market at all.

In OP's case though she should leave the property cleaned to the same standard she found it.

Is this for real? Do you know just how well the housing situation in the former USSR, DDR, and so one worked?

Just because it's not private in the way we have it here, doesn't mean it has to be the same system as what you have listed. All those sitting houses with no one living in them etc should be reappropriated by the state and given to those who need them etc. Everyone should have at least a property that meets their needs as a family.

A kinda humourous take on things here

Ok, let me re-phrase: You should have had to accept that you had locked your property into a use that shouldn’t allow sudden sale. It’s not that hard to understand.

Why shouldn’t private renting be much scarcer? I see no particular public good in a landlord being a private person making profit, above a housing association.

A law to prevent multiple property ownership other than by exempted providers would be useful.

None of this is particularly radical or scary. There are all sorts of controls on general property (i.e. not just real property) ownership and use. What’s so horrific about greater controls on landlords?

What other systems are there?

And who decides what you needs as a family are and how best to meet them?

And then, after you're needs change then you will need to vacate the property for someone else who needs it more, right? And then you will be in the same situation as the OP.

And then, after you're needs change then you will need to vacate the property for someone else who needs it more, right? And then you will be in the same situation as the OP.

The video explains it better, but I'm basically against rents/mortgages etc full stop.

Ok.

And then, after you're needs change then you will need to vacate the property for someone else who needs it more, right? And then you will be in the same situation as the OP.

No, because you wouldn't need to find a deposit and rent for the next property. You could just literally move house, as long as one was free, or swap with someone else etc etc. There are houses people could be moved into right now, homeless people, but because of rents and the housing market and restrictions they cannot.

The two months notice that is the current rule for landlords to give tenants is woefully inadequate. With a longer notice period, people wouldn't feel forced to move quickly to an unsuitable property/out of the area, and it would alleviate at least some of the stress. That's a relatively small adjustment that could be made in favour of renters, not ideal but better than nothing.

On a side note, I have found your posts excellent KissingInTheRain, especially the one at the top of this page which said things far better than I could have done. And her house was INHERITED!

Kissing I agree in theory, but in practice there is a reason the government hasn't magically waved their wands to make it so.

How do you propose housing associations gain the stock to fill the void left by private landlords?

What about people who have "legitimate" reason to own two properties i.e. work in two locations or inherit a property? How long do they have to sell up? What if the property doesn't sell? Should it lie empty rather than be rented out?

What about current landlords? Do you think it's fair to, in a stroke, devalue property they may be depending on for e.g. their pension? Would you compensate them for this, or would you expect landlords to personally bear the cost of your housing reform? What about the impact this would have on foreign investment in the UK economy?

Thank you Takemedown.

We can’t make more land. There will always be a practical limit on housing. Once you’re in the business of putting a roof over someone’s head in return for money you should take on substantial duties. Thinking otherwise is really entitled.

This, with bells on.

How do you propose housing associations gain the stock to fill the void left by private landlords?

By compulsory purchase. Probably at below market rates. But then as the owner is likely to have made above-market profits that’s not unreasonable.

There would of course have to be exemptions and exceptions. Renting in the same property the landlord lives in is one obvious one. Generally, it would be complicated change. But it could be done.

In most tenancy agreements there’s usually a clause that the renter must get the place professionally cleaned when they move out.
The company managing the place I rented tried to force Me to use their mate’s cleaning firm , he was charging 400 quid to clean a one bed place so I said NO and hired a cleaning company for an end of tenancy clean for 120 plus vat.
Of course the property managers then found fault where they could ( dust on top of paintings and one small streak on the stovetop) and tried to fine me!! I just got the cleaners back in ( it was work done under guarantee). IT was also all a farce as the owner was renovating the place anyway and frankly it didn’t matter if there was dirt everywhere as he was getting the place totally gutted and tossing all those paintings away!!!
Some of these management firms can be a bit unscrupulous

By compulsory purchase. Probably at below market rates.

That's just never going to happen though. I'm all for housing reform but dreaming up schemes that will absolutely never have mainstream political support in the UK is just a waste of time that doesn't actually help the people bearing the brunt of the housing crisis.

That's just never going to happen though.

I wouldn’t be so sure. ‘Compulsory’ can mean a lot of different things. Landlords actually promote it when they say ‘if tenants get loads of rights I’ll sell up’. Fine, a glut of properties in the market will bring prices down and the government can step in and buy more cheaply. Outlawing multiple ownership by those unwilling to live by new legal duties would effectively compel sale as well.

To boot a good tenant just because you fancy selling, I think it’s disgusting

So the ll should wait till the tenant dies of old age?! Utterly ridiculous comment.

The OP has not been 'evicted' or 'made homeless'. Nice emotive language there! She is not on the streets. Renting means you might need to move. That's just the way of it. And yes, cleaning should be to a certain standard with photos of move in and move out day to protect the tenant.

Our rental was newly decorated and sparkling clean, new carpets etc on move in day. When the tenants leave, I hope they leave it clean, but I'd expect to buy new carpets and curtains probably. If they left the cooker in a disgraceful state, yes, I'd take some deposit, whether I then cleaned it myself or got a company to do so. I'd want a minimum of £10 an hour of cleaning.