PDA

View Full Version : Is law biased towards tenants?



Angela
11-12-2008, 15:27 PM
Reading these forums, It has become my perception (if I were a tenant I'd probably perceive the opposite?) that the law tends to lean in favour the tenant.

Is that a true perception?

If so, why?

Holmes1981
11-12-2008, 15:35 PM
In my humble opinion I would say so..

Why?? Because tenants have the opportunity to stay up to six months rent free and cause damage to the property and legally there is very little a landlord can do other than follow the legal process's.. If I said to my mortgage provider I cant pay you the mortgage I dont think they would have to wait six months to repo the house.. But maybe a legal eagle can correct me on that..

lorenzo
11-12-2008, 15:39 PM
Reading these forums, It has become my perception (if I were a tenant I'd probably perceive the opposite?) that the law tends to lean in favour the tenant.

Is that a true perception?

If so, why?

There is an old saying that if both sides feel aggrieved, then the law is probably about right.

I think it would be fair to say that both sides feel aggrieved.

(But I don't think the law is about right)

rajeshk4u
11-12-2008, 15:42 PM
I could write a book....

The problem is that the people such as Citizen Advice Bureaux and Shelter have strong lobby group (plus politicians tend to be kind as they are a charity). For instance, they show a photo of a squalid property and claim that all landlords are like that. Which in my view is unfair if thousands have been spend on refurbishing property. Plus the courts/law are in favour in of the tenant. E.g. Is tenant trashes a property or does not pay the rent....

However, the CAB will never show a photo of a property that has been trashed and make tenants responsible for damage. Once the tenants is gone, it is hard to find them!. Sometimes it is delibrate damage e.g. social tenants wanting council house. So they damage the property so that landlord is forced to evict.

IN such circumstances, the govt only thinks the only victim is the landlord, but actually it is the next tenants that suffers also, because there is only so much you can do to a property that has been trashed. E.g. For instance a burn mark on the kitchen worktop. Do you spend £200 on refiting the worktop or rent out the property as is?.... Plus, it diverts money from other improvements to the proeprty.

Plus, don't get me started on the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Nothing wrong with the principle, just the implementation sucks..... Now letting agents that never used to charge an admin fee, are charging tenants to cover Deposit Schemes etc....

Angela
11-12-2008, 15:43 PM
Yeah...
I'm sure there are a few unscrupulous landlords out there (at least in the past) who have led to legal changes being made once a few tenants have befallen a mishap inside the house and etc etc which may have contributed to toughening up.

But this whole thing about how LONG it takes to eject troublesome tenants defies me. Especially if the behaviour of the tenant puts the landlord into financial jeapardy with assorted court costs and arrears to cover on the mortgate.

I want to start a 'tenant rating system' (yes like the 'rate the seller' on ebay) :o But Id' be sued for libel!!!

Doesn't stop me thinking about it though....

Gigabyte
11-12-2008, 15:59 PM
I think it is, it’s great to be a tenant...however I do think the length of time it takes to get a troublesome tenant out is farcical. Its totally unfair for it to take 6months + to get a tenant out and even longer to get back money owed.

The law is there to protect the T from unscrupulous LL's and there doesn’t seem to be anything to protect the LL from unscrupulous T's. The simple fact is that a T can move in, not pay anything, destroy property and simply leave when forced - to move on and do the whole thing all over again. Having said that, if everything was skewed towards the LL the T would suffer - its a lose lose situation. I think the TDS introduction has been excellent because it (should) give T's the piece of mind that their deposit is a bit safer than what it was before, (irregardless of what the reality may be)

Theres a wider problem (in the UK at least) that renting is just seen as a stop gap until you buy your own house, why!? - they dont have the same thinking in France & Italy etc...everyone rents. So if it truly is all rosy for the Tenant then surely the perception that its better to own than rent wouldn’t exist?

Angela
11-12-2008, 16:09 PM
I'm sure it's not all rosy for the tenants and a great deal of the time tenants are vulnerable in some way or encounter genuine life-difficulties. I think that the majority of tenants move in with all good intentions of paying rent on time.

What makes me sad is that the tenants who deliberately make trouble are the ones who often take the longest to leave by playing the law to their advantage

One would hope something could be done about that manipulative element - but even as I'm writing this, I know that's a futile hope otherwise there'd be some kind of prevention already in place to stop the practice of deliberately hiding behind the rules of the housing act. TDS is great, but only to the amount it covers, and if that's one month's rent, the landlord is often seen losing more than that amount - hence the perception that there is a bias toward the (deliberately manipulative) tenant

agent46
11-12-2008, 16:18 PM
Pathetic nonsense!

The legal system favours the landlord at the very source of the legislative regime which regulates the residential landlord/tenant relationship (Housing Act 1988 - especially s.21 which excludes security of tenure beyond 6 months).

You lot make me laugh/sick/shake my head in disbelief - you whinge about the tiny bit of leeway that the law (officially) or judges (unofficially) allows to tenants, or the fact that tenants have a vocal lobby group, when the very way the entire relationship between landlord and tenant is set up allows you to make a virually effort-free living either from the sweat of their brows in the case of employed tenants, or by raiding the public purse in the case of housing benefit tenants.

Honestly - even after Thatcher's government systematically and cynically stripped the rights of tenants, just because you can't have that last 5% of the run of the green, you wallow in complacent and narrow-minded self-pity.

IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching. What I mean by that statement is that these problems often arise out of any or all of the following:

(1) over-eagerness to rent the property to anyone at all as soon as possible at the highest possible rent, regardless of the tenant's non-pecuniary attributes,

(2) poor character judgement (vis a vis the tenant),

(3) absent or inadequate referencing procedures,

(4) absent, defective or improperly executed documentation (eg: tenancy agreements and notices etc),

(5) woefully inadequate knowledge about housing law and the legal system,

(6) indecision, delay, timidity and weakness when dealing with delinquent tenants,

(7) an unwillingness to pay for professional representation when legal problems do occur.

(8) a propensity to blame the legal system instead of remedying problems 1-7, above.


IIRC, Rodent1 claimed yesterday that he has owned 35 properties for 15 years, dealing with up to 100 tenants at a time (making a total of approx 1500 tenants over that term) and yet has only needed to go to court twice. I also have first hand knowledge of an agency that has managed 150 properties for 15 years (approx 6000 tenants over the term), but has only ever needed to become involved full blown legal action twice. How can that be if the legal system is so heavily biased in favour of the tenant?

Perhaps those landlords that whine about how hard done by they are under the current legislative regime should consider whether they are in the right "profession" (and I use that last term very loosely)

:rolleyes:

lorenzo
11-12-2008, 16:29 PM
Honestly - even after Thatcher's government systematically and cynically stripped the rights of tenants, just because you can't have that last 5% of the run of the green, you wallow in complacent and narrow-minded self-pity.

IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching. What I mean by that statement is that these problems often arise out of any or all of the following:

(1) over-eagerness to rent the property to anyone at all as soon as possible at the highest possible rent, regardless of the tenant's non-pecuniary attributes,

(2) poor character judgement (vis a vis the tenant),

(3) absent or inadequate referencing procedures,

(4) absent, defective or improperly executed documentation (eg: tenancy agreements and notices etc),

(5) woefully inadequate knowledge about housing law and the legal system,

(6) indecision, delay, timidity and weakness when dealing with delinquent tenants,

(7) an unwillingness to pay for professional representation when legal problems do occur.

(8) a propensity to blame the legal system instead of remedying problems 1-7, above.
I have to agree with agent here. Bang on IMO.

I would add one further point

(9) collectively (with the complicity of OOs) pushing the price of property to uneconomic proportions, viz, paying way over intrinsic value for the asset in the first place.

Angela
11-12-2008, 16:34 PM
"IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching."

Almost all. There are indeed unsatisfactory landlords out there as there are unsatisfactory tenants.

The above principles guarantee an unsatisfactory tenant (not a great landlord who follows thoes principles then!)

Good business principles (as opposed to landlord greed), intelligence, good judgement and a level of reasonable and legally due outlay to ensure the property/insurances/legal documents etc etc are not a 100% guarantee of L securing a satisfactiory T and when met with a tenant who deliberately makes full use of the rules in the housing act over a long term, with accruement of rental arrears etc, the landlord suffers. IMHO :)

Lawcruncher
11-12-2008, 16:37 PM
Pathetic nonsense! Etc Etc

Mr Johnson is right! [Blazing Saddles]

To quote what I have just written on another forum:

I should hope the law does require you to go through a process. [That in response to : "The law gives me no protection unless I go through the process which I think is likely to take several weeks."] No one should be deprived of their accommodation without due process of law. The law is there to protect good tenants. You cannot have one set of rules for good tenants and one for bad. The problem is rather the length of time the process takes. Landlords have to join the queue with all others seeking justice; there is no good reason why they should get preferential treatment in the court system.

The HA 1988 was a major plank in the last government's policy of shifting residential letting from the public to the private sector. If you let residential property you buy into the idea that residential property should be in the private sector. That means accepting the problems that go with it. All too often landlords only want the benefits of income and capital appreciation, but as soon as things start to go wrong, want the public sector to take over. Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.

lorenzo
11-12-2008, 16:46 PM
Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.[/I]

Another bang on point.

Hence why assets should be purchased at a price at which the yield offers a risk premium commensurate with actual risk.

Those who have invested in the share market are re-learning this same lesson.

agent46
11-12-2008, 16:53 PM
Mr Johnson is right!

To quote what I have just written on another forum:

I should hope the law does require you to go through a process. [That in response to : "The law gives me no protection unless I go through the process which I think is likely to take several weeks."] No one should be deprived of their accommodation without due process of law. The law is there to protect good tenants. You cannot have one set of rules for good tenants and one for bad. The problem is rather the length of time the process takes. Landlords have to join the queue with all others seeking justice; there is no good reason why they should get preferential treatment in the court system.

The HA 1988 was a major plank in the last government's policy of shifting residential letting from the public to the private sector. [B]If you let residential property you buy into the idea that residential property should be in the private sector. That means accepting the problems that go with it. All too often landlords only want the benefits of income and capital appreciation, but as soon as things start to go wrong, want the public sector to take over. Letting is an investment and like all investments has risks. It is also a business and like all businesses it has its bad debtors that you have to allow for. No one is forced into letting.

Absolutely right.


Cake and eat it etc

Heat and kitchen etc

Cats, fish, wet paws etc

And, doubtless, numerous other appropriate sayings.....

Angela
11-12-2008, 17:08 PM
No one is forced into letting.

Given the current market and (yes you're right, yes yes yes) the completely unrealistic and almost hysterically uncontrolled rise of property prices up until last year, through their own doing and their own financial risk, some people on this forum probably do think that letting was their only option, for better or worse, inexperienced or no, and whilst not 'forced into' letting felt that it was the only option in these difficult times, in a different context to those Ls making an effortless living on the back of the Ts hard won earnings

And then throng to Landlordzone to pose questions to the well-respected 'elder members' when the inevitable foibles between L and T thus begin, for the appropriate advisements. All to the good as well.

Preston
11-12-2008, 20:54 PM
Hi,

Well, I dont agree with all the comments made above, but I do agree that it is very far from the case that the law is "biased" in favour of tenants.

Imagine a world where, except for resident landlords, nearly every new tenancy is fully "protected" (which means that the landlord cant get possession except on certain specified, limited grounds); and where most tenants can - and many do - apply to have their rents registered, strictly limiting current rents and future rent increases. That was how things were until the mid 80s - not all that long ago.

Landlords now have much, much more control over who they let to, for how long and what rents they charge.

In return, we have to comply with some fairly strict health and safety rules; carry out repairs promptly; and comply with some other legislation aimed at making sure our customers know exactly what their rights are, in various circumstances. Seems like a good deal to me.

And in fact, in the long run, it suits everyone much better, having this reasonable balance between rights and responsibilities. The old Rent Act regime and rent regulation drove legitimate investors out of the market because they couldnt make a reasonable return; that certainly wasnt in tenants' interests, many of whom had lots of security and low rents, but lived in very poor quality accommodation. A relaxation in regulation was necesssary in order to grow the sector.

I also wonder, though, whether many of the funders who have poured billions into the buy to let market would have done so had the governments of the day not retained at least a reasonable degree of regulation of conditions and standards in the rented sector; I doubt it personally.

So, all in all, I think landlords need to accept that, overall, the present regime isnt that bad. We should probably focus more on making the right commercial decisions and ensuring good management than complaining about perceived "red tape".

Anyway, just my view.

Preston

agent46
11-12-2008, 21:20 PM
Hi,

Well, I dont agree with all the comments made above, but I do agree that it is very far from the case that the law is "biased" in favour of tenants.

Imagine a world where, except for resident landlords, nearly every new tenancy is fully "protected" (which means that the landlord cant get possession except on certain specified, limited grounds); and where most tenants can - and many do - apply to have their rents registered, strictly limiting current rents and future rent increases. That was how things were until the mid 80s - not all that long ago.

Landlords now have much, much more control over who they let to, for how long and what rents they charge.

In return, we have to comply with some fairly strict health and safety rules; carry out repairs promptly; and comply with some other legislation aimed at making sure our customers know exactly what their rights are, in various circumstances. Seems like a good deal to me.

And in fact, in the long run, it suits everyone much better, having this reasonable balance between rights and responsibilities. The old Rent Act regime and rent regulation drove legitimate investors out of the market because they couldnt make a reasonable return; that certainly wasnt in tenants' interests, many of whom had lots of security and low rents, but lived in very poor quality accommodation. A relaxation in regulation was necesssary in order to grow the sector.

I also wonder, though, whether many of the funders who have poured billions into the buy to let market would have done so had the governments of the day not retained at least a reasonable degree of regulation of conditions and standards in the rented sector; I doubt it personally.

So, all in all, I think landlords need to accept that, overall, the present regime isnt that bad. We should probably focus more on making the right commercial decisions and ensuring good management than complaining about perceived "red tape".

Anyway, just my view.

Preston

All of which assumes that the amount of property which has passed from owner occupation into the hands of landlords is a Good Thing. Whilst that might suit lan.....Oh, FOR GOD'S SAKE, I can't do it. I can't face the prospect of having to explain (from scratch) to yet another shortsighted, complacent dullard why those one-sided views are massively flawed. Just follow the links in this post:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=102430&postcount=34

If you take issue with anything therein, and have any NEW points to make in rebuttal of my arguments, then please post them in this thread.

Please read the threads carefully and in full and please note the use of the word "NEW" in the above sentence.

Preston
11-12-2008, 21:48 PM
Hmm,

The trouble with using a machine gun is that its very difficult for the people in the crowd in front of you to know who you are firing at. But I'll duck along with the others, just in case.

So is the rule that unless one has something completely original to say, then dont say anything? Just need to know, because if it is, I've got alot of reading to do.

Preston

agent46
11-12-2008, 22:25 PM
The trouble with using a machine gun is that its very difficult for the people in the crowd in front of you to know who you are firing at. But I'll duck along with the others, just in case.


Yes, it's crude but effective ;)

Nelly30
11-12-2008, 22:48 PM
I believe the system is biased towards tenants and there are so many loopholes that can be exploited. It's ridiculous that in this day and age it takes SO long for evictions, never mind the expense.

I am dealing with a tenant who has been claiming housinng benefit and not paid the rent in 4 months! Apparently the council tell me this isn't fraud either although I think the name of the benefit gives a clue: HOUSING benefit!

Secondly, I have a friend who went through a similar process and the judge favoured the tenants as they did not bring legal aid. Forget the fact my friend was paying something like £225@VAT an hour!!!

So the tenants were given extra time and a solicitor for free and ending up being given a further 2 months to move out. They completely trashed the place breaking all the porcelain sinks with sledgehammers, putting angle grinders through the garage door, worktops etc, kicking all doors off hinges and breaking all the double glazed windows.. Unfortunately for my friend, the insurance company would not cough up and she paid £30k to fix the place up again!

It was ridiculous. Police did nothing and apparently the tennants were being chased by the benefit office for fraud although they had the cheek to claim for a new property from the council which was given!

agent46
12-12-2008, 00:16 AM
Nelly - I don't really want to stick the boot in when you're down, but as you posted in this thread, I won't pull my punches.

From what I've read in your other (postage/service) thread, you are guilty of at least reasons 5 and 7 in the list below (pasted from my post #8 in this thread) and, possibly also 2 & 3.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the current balance of landlord/tenant rights, Lawcruncher also makes the (very good) point in this thread that as a landlord, you have voluntarily entered into a business, and alongside the financial benefits which it can offer, that business also contains a number of risks, all of which are very well known in advance to even the most casual observer. Simply put, if you couldn't afford to absorb those losses within your business, or you felt morally affronted by what you see as the injustice of the system, then you should not have gone into the landlording business in the first place. Perhaps you should have put your capital in a Post Office savings account or some other equally safe haven instead.

In summary, you made a poor/unlucky business decision (in respect of this tenant) and, you are IMHO, continuing to make poor decisions. You then have to take your chances in the (imperfect and slow) legal system along with all the other people who are fighting over unpaid debts, ownership of property, negligently inflicted personal injury, breaches of contract etc etc. As LC says, landlords are presumed to be fully aware of the legal regime that governs lettings (along with the problems of asserting their rights under that regime) so why, when it all goes wrong, should landlords receive any favourable treatment or jump the queue ahead of equally deserving litigants? In fact, a case could be made that businessmen are not "equally deserving litigants" because they have entered freely into a potentially lucrative but risky commercial transaction, and therefore they should be "triaged" to the back of the "court queue" in order to make space and time for those claimants who have suffered injury and financial loss without having voluntarily entered into such arrangements (for example, innocent pedestrians knocked down by cars etc).

In conclusion, if you approached your business in a business-like manner, firstly, you would have made appropriate financial provision to ensure that a defaulting tenant would not ruin you, and secondly, you would not now be asking contributors on LLZ to give you advice on how to succeed at a hearing which involves a number of quite technical legal points on which you are already struggling badly - you would instead instruct professional representation.


IME, almost all the problems landlords have with the legal system arises out of their own greed, lack of professionalism, stupidity, poor judgement and penny pinching. What I mean by that statement is that these problems often arise out of any or all of the following:

(1) over-eagerness to rent the property to anyone at all as soon as possible at the highest possible rent, regardless of the tenant's non-pecuniary attributes,

(2) poor character judgement (vis a vis the tenant),

(3) absent or inadequate referencing procedures,

(4) absent, defective or improperly executed documentation (eg: tenancy agreements and notices etc),

(5) woefully inadequate knowledge about housing law and the legal system,

(6) indecision, delay, timidity and weakness when dealing with delinquent tenants,

(7) an unwillingness to pay for professional representation when legal problems do occur.

(8) a propensity to blame the legal system instead of remedying problems 1-7, above.


:

Preston
12-12-2008, 01:00 AM
you would not now be asking contributors on LLZ to give you advice on how to succeed at a hearing which involves a number of quite technical legal points on which you are already struggling badly - you would instead instruct professional representation.

Hi

I dont know whether you have forgotten to take your statins today, but I can feel the tension this evening!

Anyway, I dont think your comments are a fair reflection of why most people use sites like this. You say that people should try to learn their business; well I think that is what most contributors and enquirers are trying to do.

Some people will no doubt want to do everything themselves. And if they do, good luck to them; one of the beauties of our legal system is that it is supposed to fairly accessible to the ordinary person, including the dreaded small business person. And my own view is that, at the lower levels, it is quite accessible.

Others, though, will merely want to turn themselves into "intelligent clients", so they know when to seek advise from professionals and just as importantly, how to make best use of that advice. No lawyer I have ever met is perfect (and certainly non of them get the law right all the time); no property manager is either; but I do know they work much better together when they are both appropriately briefed in their respective disciplines.

So, have bit more faith in the average buy to let landlord. Some may read the Daily Mail a bit too often, but most really do want to do a decent job.

Preston

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 03:47 AM
Theres a wider problem (in the UK at least) that renting is just seen as a stop gap until you buy your own house, why!? - they dont have the same thinking in France & Italy etc...everyone rents. So if it truly is all rosy for the Tenant then surely the perception that its better to own than rent wouldn’t exist?


From my side (a good tenant) it's lack of security of tenure for good tenants here that is the problem. If living with two months notice (or no notice at all for the Sword of Damocles) a tenant feels transient and it isn't worth making the property home. In France and Germany tenants have far more security of tenure.

This is the issue that stops me being happy as a tenant and means long term that I will have to buy again. Which is in many ways bad for me as I'm useless at DIY and it would mean that I can't move about to get the best work opportunities. That is move every few years to suit me and not having to worry about the possibility of perhaps having to move every few months at the landlord's say so.

Also many landlords in the last few years have been in it for the capital gains so I have been asked to move due to the LL selling which is a pain. There are fewer sales nowadays then that's been replaced with the zero rights tenants have if their landlord is repossessed and the lender didn't consent to the mortgage.

So renting isn't a viable long term solution to getting a home in this country in my view which is a pity as apart from that one issue I like being a tenant. I can choose to rent places I would never buy and that can be fun. I still like the previous flat I rented best of all and I would be there still if I hadn't been given notice. But there is no way I'd ever buy it as I know it's a botched job in the conversion from a house to flats. Galling thing is the sale didn't go through in the end, was empty for months and then let again etc.

jta
12-12-2008, 08:36 AM
No lawyer I have ever met is perfect ...................

.............Some may read the Daily Mail ,

Preston

Don't mind me, I'm just lighting his fuse. :D

Ericthelobster
12-12-2008, 09:21 AM
From my side (a good tenant) it's lack of security of tenure for good tenants here that is the problem. If living with two months notice (or no notice at all for the Sword of Damocles) a tenant feels transient and it isn't worth making the property home.Personally as a LL I'd be very happy with a law which gave decent tenants more security of tenure to prevent them from being turfed out via S21 on the landlord's whim, provided the process to get shot of the really bad ones who trash property and don't pay rent, was speeded up.

mind the gap
12-12-2008, 09:34 AM
Don't mind me, I'm just lighting his fuse. :D

I think they call it schadenfreude, jta

But you might be advised to strap yourself into your own bullet-proof vest/chainmail, or whatever. At the very least, use your Daily Mail to shield the bits of your body you value most, before the onslaught.

jta
12-12-2008, 09:47 AM
Personally as a LL I'd be very happy with a law which gave decent tenants more security of tenure to prevent them from being turfed out via S21 on the landlord's whim, provided the process to get shot of the really bad ones who trash property and don't pay rent, was speeded up.

Fine Eric, after a few years there would be a huge number of ex-tenants who cannot get a letting anywhere because they have been evicted for 'trashing'.
What do we (as a society) do with them then? I can see communities of the very worst type of tenants arising from that. It has to be one law for all, even if we find it a pain.

jta
12-12-2008, 09:52 AM
schadenfreude,



I love that word, there is no equivalent in English, it expresses so much. I'm just getting into the bunker now. :D

jeffrey
12-12-2008, 10:34 AM
I love that word, there is no equivalent in English.
So what's the equivalent in English for the French expression, "Je ne sais pas"?

jta
12-12-2008, 10:37 AM
I dunno?..

mind the gap
12-12-2008, 10:39 AM
So what's the equivalent in English for the French expression, "Je ne sais pas"?

Dunno.

But I do know these ones :

entente cordiale = the orange squash is in the tent
moi aussi = I am Australian
coup de grace = mowing the lawn

rajeshk4u
12-12-2008, 12:25 PM
From my side (a good tenant) it's lack of security of tenure for good tenants here that is the problem. If living with two months notice (or no notice at all for the Sword of Damocles) a tenant feels transient and it isn't worth making the property home. In France and Germany tenants have far more security of tenure.

You can't compare Germany to the UK.

I went to a seminar on German properties and it was a revelation that in Germany, tenants are responsible for the interior decor of their own flat even so far as that they re-fit their own kitchens. So the mindset is different, and people treat as if it is their own home. And German tenants are simply better as they look after their property as if it their own home.

I am not sure if the UK, if tenants are prepared for long term commitments, as most tenants want freedom to move around and see renting merely as a stepping stone to buying their own home.

In Germany peopel are not interested in buying property, hence you have not seen the madness in property prices.

jeffrey
12-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Dunno.

But I do know these ones :

entente cordiale = the orange squash is in the tent
moi aussi = I am Australian
coup de grace = mowing the lawn
OK. If that's today's challenge:
ampere = man who has child or children
pas de deux = father of twins
merde = mother of
impasse = how much electric current is flowing

Izzycam
12-12-2008, 13:11 PM
Re Preston:
In the 80's we had fully protected tenancy agreement's (which meant landlords couldn't get possesion) and tenants applied to be registered (limiting rent increases big time).
Any landord who went through this time knows how hard it was to make a living.
Today's law's , although seem harsh, are a walk in the park.
I suggest, (notice I said suggest!) that 75% of landlords would not be in the market if we went back to those days.
Re Agent 46: I agree with a lot of what you said concerning,
over eagerness to rent property,
poor character judgement,
inadequate knowledge of housing law and legal system and an an unwillingness to pay for proffessional representation.
What do you suggest! leave all the Rental business to legal eagles such as yourself.

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 14:41 PM
Personally as a LL I'd be very happy with a law which gave decent tenants more security of tenure to prevent them from being turfed out via S21 on the landlord's whim, provided the process to get shot of the really bad ones who trash property and don't pay rent, was speeded up.
Makes sense to me. So long as there was proof that the tenant was at fault.

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 14:49 PM
You can't compare Germany to the UK.

I went to a seminar on German properties and it was a revelation that in Germany, tenants are responsible for the interior decor of their own flat even so far as that they re-fit their own kitchens. So the mindset is different, and people treat as if it is their own home. And German tenants are simply better as they look after their property as if it their own home.

I am not sure if the UK, if tenants are prepared for long term commitments, as most tenants want freedom to move around and see renting merely as a stepping stone to buying their own home.

In Germany peopel are not interested in buying property, hence you have not seen the madness in property prices.
I can compare what I please. I do know that tenants refit their kitchens in Germany, for long lets I think they do in France. But if you are talking a five year let then it's a relatively small and worthwhile expense, no need to go for fully fitted like we do here, so you are probably only looking at a couple of thousand if that. If all mainly freestanding then it's probably quite reasonable and at least you don't have to live with the landlord's clapped out old tat and ancient appliances that take yonks for a spare to be sourced. As a tenant here it's not being able to rip out a kitchen means it's hard to use ones own appliances as the gaps are not always the same (undercounter freezer/tall fridgefreezer/slimline dishwasher/ inset hobs/ built in appliances) the standard full width freestanding appliances almost never fit in these days of obsession with built in we have over here. Personally I'd like an all freestanding kitchen both appliances and less units more freestanding furniture, so only the sink unit would need to be fitted.

But in France not all lets are like that, beauty is that there is choice available.

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 19:05 PM
You can't compare Germany to the UK.

I went to a seminar on German properties and it was a revelation that in Germany, tenants are responsible for the interior decor of their own flat even so far as that they re-fit their own kitchens. So the mindset is different, and people treat as if it is their own home. And German tenants are simply better as they look after their property as if it their own home.

I am not sure if the UK, if tenants are prepared for long term commitments, as most tenants want freedom to move around and see renting merely as a stepping stone to buying their own home.

In Germany peopel are not interested in buying property, hence you have not seen the madness in property prices.
Offset: a) the 2,000 T would need to pay for a kitchen and the fact that T gets say five years security of tenure against b) 100-200 per year agency referencing, fees and renewal fees here and removals at 600 a go. Then the kitchen is the same cost as moving twice without even counting the extra rent when moving if the dates require the tenant to pay for some overlap and the hassle of getting the deposit returned etc. Not to mention much of the kitchen and all appliances could be taken away and used in the next place. I'd rather my own kitchen and peace of mind.

lorenzo
12-12-2008, 19:17 PM
Offset: a) the 2,000 T would need to pay for a kitchen and the fact that T gets say five years security of tenure against b) 100-200 per year agency referencing, fees and renewal fees here and removals at 600 a go. Then the kitchen is the same cost as moving twice without even counting the extra rent when moving if the dates require the tenant to pay for some overlap and the hassle of getting the deposit returned etc. Not to mention much of the kitchen and all appliances could be taken away and used in the next place. I'd rather my own kitchen and peace of mind.

...and the beer's better over there too. :D

mind the gap
12-12-2008, 19:26 PM
...and the beer's better over there too. :D

And the pavements aren't covered in chewing gum.

And the men wear interesting leather gear. Leather shorts, IIRC.

lorenzo
12-12-2008, 20:57 PM
And the pavements aren't covered in chewing gum.

And the men wear interesting leather gear. Leather shorts, IIRC.

And they gave Crash Gordon a spray to boot.

Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt.

mind the gap
12-12-2008, 21:23 PM
And they gave Crash Gordon a spray to boot.

Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt.

Useful phrase from a school German textbook used by my mum (circa 1940):

F: Was muss ich Ihnen geben, um einen Kuss zu bekommen?
A : Chloroform.

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 22:27 PM
...and the beer's better over there too.
For France I was thinking wine :) My brother in law lives over there and he said not only is wine ridiculously cheap it's of a good quality too. His landlady rents him a house in her grounds, he has been there several years so far, there is a second house normally used for holiday lets but he could put in a good word for our renting it, hmmm tempted, very tempted. Why am I still here!

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 22:37 PM
Personally I think it should be law that if a tenant does not pay their HB to the landlord after they receive it, they should be forced to pay it back through other benefits and/or attachment to earnings (if they ever do get jobs) AND lose any future housing befit entitlement for life. After all, it is benefit fraud however it is not seen as such by local authorities.
Bring back the workhouse! I remember a lovely old lady who my mum used to visit. She had worked all her life as a midwife, and in nursing through two world wars. Never married or had a family of her own. On retirement she was a live in warden in old people's sheltered accommodation of self contained flats, she lived on one of these as part of the job. I knew her just as she was retiring from that in her 70's/80's (can't remember exactly) as she could no longer manage. Her biggest fear was having to go to the workhouse. This was strictly an old people's home that had formerly been the workhouse but for her the stigma was still there. She died soon after.

bunny
12-12-2008, 22:39 PM
I totally agree with you Wickerman.I also agree with alot of Agent46 views. Too many landlords enter this business thinking it is easy.

I don't profess to know it all by any means but I didn't walk into the business expecting not to have problems along the way so I did my research and continue learning.

The issue of LHA /Housing Benefit I do feel, like you, needs to be addressed. If the money being paid to the tenant is not being used to pay the rent then that is benefit fraud but it seems from what I have read that largely the authorities turn a blind eye to it or at least do not assist the landlord in addressing the situation. Recouping the loss of rent for a landlord is then an unhill struggle/impossible.

That's why I am not involved in letting to tenants in receipt of LHA although inadvertently, you can end up with such a tenant if their circumstances change.






I agree with the comments Agent46 made, however no-one has mentioned the recent changes to housing benefit in getting the tenants paid direct.

Agents are dropping HB like flies where I work (we only take HB tenants in exceptional circumstances now). It is not helped by an ultra-rigid approach by the council with regards to proof for direct payment.

If the tenant wants the landlord to get the direct payment, there is an option on the HB claim form but the tenant must provide proof that they cannot manage their own finances - eg a letter from a doctor. A letter from the LA or landlord is not sufficient. I have seen a few HB claims recently where even after proof of 8 weeks arrears has been provided by the LA, the LA still pay the tenant direct. I get conflicting answers from the local authority - one lady said she can understand landlords need to make money, but if she was renting she would like to look after her own finances. This is different from it being forced on her, as our local authority seems intent on doing. Another lady said that HB direct payments are their biggest problem. Another person (slightly more senior) claimed that LHA has been fantastic and runs with almost no problems (obviously following the party lines).

Personally I think it should be law that if a tenant does not pay their HB to the landlord after they receive it, they should be forced to pay it back through other benefits and/or attachment to earnings (if they ever do get jobs) AND lose any future housing befit entitlement for life. After all, it is benefit fraud however it is not seen as such by local authorities.

Ruth Less
12-12-2008, 23:06 PM
Personally I think it should be law that if a tenant does not pay their HB to the landlord after they receive it, they should be forced to pay it back through other benefits and/or attachment to earnings (if they ever do get jobs) AND lose any future housing befit entitlement for life. After all, it is benefit fraud however it is not seen as such by local authorities.

What sanctions would you impose for a landlord who takes the rent off the tenant yet doesn't use it to pay the mortgage on the rental property having not obtained consent to let from the lender in the first place? In that case T can be made homeless at very short notice should the property be repossessed! There was a case on moneybox last weekend where the lender refused to let the T know what was going in in spite of a letter to the occupier saying the lender was going to apply to repossesses. As he was still in the fixed term the agent said T was not free to move. The courts and lender would not tell T what was happening over the repossession. Leaving T in limbo unsure if and when the axe would fall inspite of the fact T had paid all rent due.

lorenzo
13-12-2008, 02:49 AM
Why am I still here!

Because of the French? :D

Izzycam
13-12-2008, 04:56 AM
Re Wickerman: Local housing benefit...now being paid direct to tenant.
Good points made,
It has made the landlord business (for those renting to mainly dhss) a hundred times harder, the risks are not for the fainthearted.

Rodent1
13-12-2008, 16:15 PM
Pathetic nonsense!



IIRC, Rodent1 claimed yesterday that he has owned 35 properties for 15 years, dealing with up to 100 tenants at a time (making a total of approx 1500 tenants over that term) and yet has only needed to go to court twice. I also have first hand knowledge of an agency that has managed 150 properties for 15 years (approx 6000 tenants over the term), but has only ever needed to become involved full blown legal action twice. How can that be if the legal system is so heavily biased in favour of the tenant?


:rolleyes:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=106488#post106488

What i posted was :

15yrs , 32 props, 104 Tenants (at a time)and several thousand tenants later, only 2 s21 ever issued and NEVER been to court!

Agent you seem to have "misinterpreted" my post somewhat, even though i went to the trouble of putting the word NEVER (been to court) in capitals, you still missed it.

The Rodent

agent46
13-12-2008, 16:51 PM
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=106488#post106488

Agent you seem to have "misinterpreted" my post somewhat, even though i went to the trouble of putting the word NEVER (been to court) in capitals, you still missed it.

The Rodent

I know that you are engaged in a continual, vain and desperate series of attempts to get the better of me, but is that really the best point you can come up with?

I was not citing your post as evidence, or as an authoritative source, or, for that matter, some sort of memory test, I was merely postulating it as a relevant example. I'm sorry if I didn't approach the citation with what you feel is an appropriate degree of academic rigour, but, IIRC, your post was on another page of the thread, so I couldn't read it at the time I was drafting the post. I didn't go back to check it afterwards because (a) it made no difference whatsoever to the point I was making, and (b) even if it did, frankly, life is too short and my time too valuable to make it worth checking that my words corresponded exactly with your self-satisfied boasting. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but it seems that you have attached an unwarranted degree of importance to your story.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - STOP BEING SO LITERAL ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!

:rolleyes: right back at ya.....

Ruth Less
13-12-2008, 21:52 PM
Because of the French?
It's Bulgarians with umbrellas that worry me ;)

Rodent1
14-12-2008, 14:25 PM
I know that you are engaged in a continual, vain and desperate series of attempts to get the better of me, but is that really the best point you can come up with?

I was not citing your post as evidence, or as an authoritative source, or, for that matter, some sort of memory test, I was merely postulating it as a relevant example. I'm sorry if I didn't approach the citation with what you feel is an appropriate degree of academic rigour, but, IIRC, your post was on another page of the thread, so I couldn't read it at the time I was drafting the post. I didn't go back to check it afterwards because (a) it made no difference whatsoever to the point I was making, and (b) even if it did, frankly, life is too short and my time too valuable to make it worth checking that my words corresponded exactly with your self-satisfied boasting. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but it seems that you have attached an unwarranted degree of importance to your story.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - STOP BEING SO LITERAL ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!

right back at ya.....

Apologies, you had a bad day at the "office" ?;)

Had you quoted me accurately if would have further enhanced your point that good management does make a big difference, as i haven't been to court twice! i have NEVER been at all !

Boasting, to what possible end ?

The Rodent

agent46
14-12-2008, 14:42 PM
i haven't been to court twice! i have NEVER been at all !

Yes, so you've said. Twice now. You must be very proud.


Boasting, to what possible end ?



Self-aggrandisement to remedy a real or perceived sense of inadequacy, perhaps?

Rodent1
14-12-2008, 15:00 PM
Yes, so you've said. Twice now. You must be very proud.

Time Out on this one !




Self-aggrandisement to remedy a real or perceived sense of inadequacy, perhaps?

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE......................AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNN!

No boasting, just utter dismay at how simple problems/situations get so out of control, when if they were handled correctly/more effectively and in a more timely manner would not get anywhere near court.

But then if this were applied on a nationwide scale it could of course have a derogatory effect on your income ?:p

But on the upside make BTL more profitable and even more widespread , heaven forbid !


The Rodent

clothespeg
14-12-2008, 16:21 PM
I've been reading this thread with great interest, as I have previously ventured the view (on earlier posts) that the law favours the tenant.

But I now realise that this seems to be the case only for rogue tenants who know how to work the system ....... and even then, I absolutely have to agree with Agent46 that it's the landlord who essentially brings the problems upon himself by failing to do his homework in the first place. And we all know from experience that skimping on homework usually results in failure !

You've got me converted, Agent --- thanks !

You're right on track Rodent ! And despite the jibes, I can tell you really like each other !

jta
14-12-2008, 16:27 PM
You've got me converted, Agent --- thanks !


Gordon Bennett! There'll be no stopping him now! :p

Rodent1
14-12-2008, 16:37 PM
Gordon Bennett! There'll be no stopping him now!


I beg to differ ;)

The Rodent

jta
14-12-2008, 16:45 PM
Have you got a secret plan then? :D

Rodent1
14-12-2008, 16:52 PM
Have you got a secret plan then? :D

Rotting fish en route

The Rodent

mind the gap
14-12-2008, 17:00 PM
Rotting fish en route

The Rodent

You'll have to catch up with him first:D

Ruth Less
20-12-2008, 02:51 AM
View from Belgium:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=15185733&postcount=21

View from Netherlands

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=15189235&postcount=27
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=16888611&postcount=30

And US

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=15156231&postcount=2