PDA

View Full Version : T's expensive demands and tenancy problems



aznon
30-10-2009, 02:53 AM
i have had a tenant (family of four) renting from me for more than 14 years without problems until early last year (2008), when i announced that i would have to increase the rent. my tennant agreed to meet the revised rental while adding that "further to paying rent" & "during 13 years that they had lived in the property", they had "invested in maintenance and repairs" as i was absent.
i had never experienced any problems from them, and they were always up to date with rent, therefore i had left them to their own devices over the 13 year period.
the tenant did initially meet the increase for several months before demanding that i should attend to various problems arising with the property.

i was initially unable to finance any of the repairs as i had increased the rent to pay for improvements to my own home. i wrote to express this and explained that if they would like me too organise or carry out repairs, i would only do so subject to them signing a 6 months shorthold tenancy agreement.
they refused to sign despite my warning them that i may have to sell the property from under them. unfotunately, as if to prolong their tenancy, i was contacted by the local authority who laid down a list of problems on the tenants behalf. i have fulfilled some of the demands set out by the gentleman from the local authority and tenant, but not all of them.

having completed the improvements to my own home, i now have the oppertunity to leave or sell it and site ground 1 of the housing act using my principal home rule. but would this be a satisfactory way to remove the tenants as i have not entirely met the criteria of the tenant or those from the local authority gentleman.

furthermore & subsequently, the fire service, who were alerted by either the tenant or local authority, have offered either advice or recomendation based on a survey of the property. the tenant has relayed the information to me verbally and i have convinced the tenant that fire regulations are his responsibility.
could this hinder any succesful conclusion to my repossesion of the property if my tenant has recently installed safety equiptment at his cost & due to my say so?

jta
30-10-2009, 06:37 AM
Are you real? You have the rent for fourteen years and do no work to the property in all that time, and then have the cheek to say your tenants are being awkward because they want the place bringing up to date. Join the real world.

justaboutsane
30-10-2009, 07:17 AM
Are you real? You have the rent for fourteen years and do no work to the property in all that time, and then have the cheek to say your tenants are being awkward because they want the place bringing up to date. Join the real world.

You raised the rent to improve your own home then winge that the tenants who are paying you for a service want their property bringing up to date... and by the sounds of it if the EHO have been involved and issued a request for things to be done then it must be pretty bad.

In answer to your question though, yes you could evict them... BUT if you want to evict perfectly good tenants then I hope Karma comes and bites your butt with some of the tenants you read about on here. Its LL's like you that give the goods ones a bad name

mind the gap
30-10-2009, 07:33 AM
:mad:You cannot leave your tenants 'to their own devices' for the best part of fourteen years, doing no repairs/maintenance to the property yourself, then expect them cheerfully to pay an increased rent so that you can improve your own home!

Like jta, I am wondering whether this is a real, or a trollish post.

aznon
30-10-2009, 08:06 AM
Really, what are you talking about here?

the local fire service apparently suggested that the property should have smoke alarms fitted and that due to the layout of the property, an internal door needed to be replaced from the main living room seperating the stairway and hallway because the staircase was the only point of exit in the event of a fire, although i have only the tenants word for this.

aznon
30-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Are you real? You have the rent for fourteen years and do no work to the property in all that time, and then have the cheek to say your tenants are being awkward because they want the place bringing up to date. Join the real world.

i realise i might be seemingly unreasonable , but the tenant had never troubled me in all those years only to then demand the full 13+ years worth of repairs from the ground up to the roof. i would have carried out repairs throughout those years had i been aware, but myself and the tenant rarely had any contact and rent was always payed direct to my bank. i believe the demands were only made to prolong the tenancy as there were no demands prior to the rent increase.

aznon
30-10-2009, 08:21 AM
:mad:You cannot leave your tenants 'to their own devices' for the best part of fourteen years, doing no repairs/maintenance to the property yourself, then expect them cheerfully to pay an increased rent so that you can improve your own home!

Like jta, I am wondering whether this is a real, or a trollish post.

i can assure you this is not "a trollish post".
and the tenant had never declared any problems until the rent inreased.

aznon
30-10-2009, 08:29 AM
Are you real? You have the rent for fourteen years and do no work to the property in all that time, and then have the cheek to say your tenants are being awkward because they want the place bringing up to date. Join the real world.

i have attended to some of their concerns since the gentleman from the local authority contacted me, but no concerns were ever raised until the rent increase. the list is almost endless. it would seem that nothing was amiss with the property until i increased the rent.

havensRus
30-10-2009, 08:56 AM
i have attended to some of their concerns since the gentleman from the local authority contacted me, but no concerns were ever raised until the rent increase. the list is almost endless. it would seem that nothing was amiss with the property until i increased the rent.

A house does not maintain itself.... The fact that you didn't do any inspection or didn't know about the repairs/maitenance issues is no excuse. Some Ts will just get on with it and not want to be a bother (like yours), and others will call you even when a light bulb fails.

Bottom line is the T was happy to carry out whatever repairs were needed or live with the issues, as the rent was probably quite reasonable ... no rent increase in 13 years. But once you woke up to the fact that you could increase the rent, the T ofcourse wanted value for money.

You have responsibilities as a landlord, so do get on with it, make the repairs/update the house and perhaps update your knowledge on the responsibilities of LLs in today's world.

aznon
30-10-2009, 09:08 AM
You raised the rent to improve your own home then winge that the tenants who are paying you for a service want their property bringing up to date... and by the sounds of it if the EHO have been involved and issued a request for things to be done then it must be pretty bad.

In answer to your question though, yes you could evict them... BUT if you want to evict perfectly good tenants then I hope Karma comes and bites your butt with some of the tenants you read about on here. Its LL's like you that give the goods ones a bad name

it is not the EHO who are involved, it was a gentleman from "strategic housing from my local authority" invited to intervene by my tenant who was recieving housing benefit topups. this gentleman has cost me a small fortune.

johnjw
30-10-2009, 09:15 AM
Its difficult to pass judgement on your situation without knowledge of whether the rent you have charged over the past 15 years, has been reasonable.
On the face of it, if the initial rent was reasonable and if you have never increased it over a 14 year period, then you have probably charged too little over a period of at least several years. Clearly, you have to take responsibility for that mistake.
It is always very bad policy in my view, to allow or require tenants to carry out their own repairs. It is your responsibility as LL, to carry out structural repairs and especially, it's your responsibility to make any changes concerned with safety. You should regularly review the rent so as to ensure that you receive an adequate return on your investment.
If at the end of 14 years you suddenly increased the rent to a level reflecting current rates (perhaps double?), you can expect some annoyance on the part of the tenant who probably believed that the low rent was recompense for the work he was doing to maintain the property.
It appears that you want the tenant to leave, so that you can either occupy the property yourself or sell it. No doubt you will be able to do this; but if you have required the tenant to pay for any recent repairs, alterations or installation of safety equipment, you should certainly reimburse him the cost involved.

havensRus
30-10-2009, 09:19 AM
it is not the EHO who are involved, it was a gentleman from "strategic housing from my local authority" invited to intervene by my tenant who was recieving housing benefit topups. this gentleman has cost me a small fortune.

The OP just doesn't get it does he!! :eek:

It doesn't matter if its the EHO or strategic housing or man from the moon. It seems you have failed your responsibilities as a landlord, have been given the chance to put things right, but are now whinging about it. Get real!!

I'm out!!

aznon
30-10-2009, 09:29 AM
A house does not maintain itself.... The fact that you didn't do any inspection or didn't know about the repairs/maitenance issues is no excuse. Some Ts will just get on with it and not want to be a bother (like yours), and others will call you even when a light bulb fails.

Bottom line is the T was happy to carry out whatever repairs were needed or live with the issues, as the rent was probably quite reasonable ... no rent increase in 13 years. But once you woke up to the fact that you could increase the rent, the T ofcourse wanted value for money.

You have responsibilities as a landlord, so do get on with it, make the repairs/update the house and perhaps update your knowledge on the responsibilities of LLs in today's world.

i had increased the rent several times before with no objections, only on this occasion i had raised it by a reasonably higher amount due to personal cicumstances. the rent for the property was below the usual market value and would still be considered reasonable in comparison to local properties in the area. we have no tenancy agreement & i had no reason to meet any responsibilities as non were relayed to me from the tenant. but
now they are increasingly costing me to a point that far outways the rent increase and i have the oppertunity to cut those losses by reclaiming possesion. this was and still is my original question. would i have any problems if i declare my rented property as my principal home under these circumstances?

Poppy
30-10-2009, 09:32 AM
OK, let’s explore the eviction route.

What is the commencement date of the current tenancy agreement (written or not)?

mind the gap
30-10-2009, 09:34 AM
i had increased the rent several times before with no objections, only on this occasion i had raised it by a reasonably higher amount due to personal cicumstances. the rent for the property was below the usual market value and would still be considered reasonable in comparison to local properties in the area. we have no tenancy agreement & i had no reason to meet any responsibilities as non were relayed to me from the tenant. but
now they are increasingly costing me to a point that far outways the rent increase and i have the oppertunity to cut those losses by reclaiming possesion. this was and still is my original question. would i have any problems if i declare my rented property as my principal home under these circumstances?

If you ever decide to let property again, please find out first how to do it properly and professionally.

It is not up to the tenant to tell you what your responsibilities are nor to ask you to carry them out.

The answer to your last question is no, you cannot, since it would not be the truth and it would be inadvisable to compound your irresponsible behaviour by perjuring yourself in the court hearing which you will almot certainly need to attend to gain a possession order.

You will have to follow the appropriate legal processes to regain possession of your property but given the length of the tenancy, the absence of paperwork and the disrepair, you may have a long wait.

If the property has gas, and your lack of interest has extended to not getting a gas saftey certificate (CP12) annually, you may also be looking at a criminal prosecution.

aznon
30-10-2009, 09:36 AM
OK, let’s explore the eviction route.

What is the commencement date of the current tenancy agreement (written or not)?

this would be 1st october. although we have no written agreement as my tenant refused to sign, stating that they would only sign up to a long agreement with conditions.

Localgovworker
30-10-2009, 09:42 AM
it is not the EHO who are involved, it was a gentleman from "strategic housing from my local authority" invited to intervene by my tenant who was recieving housing benefit topups. this gentleman has cost me a small fortune.


This is probably an EHO as my Authority dept has lumped the person responsible for Housing health and safety and licensing of HMOs in with our Strategic Housing dept, not Environmental Health.

You should be liaising with both them and your tenants about the rest of the repairs they listed.

The fire safety advice regarding replacing doors sounds right to me but your Council should be able to give you advice about this.

Mars Mug
30-10-2009, 10:00 AM
the local fire service apparently suggested that the property should have smoke alarms fitted and that due to the layout of the property, an internal door needed to be replaced from the main living room seperating the stairway and hallway because the staircase was the only point of exit in the event of a fire, although i have only the tenants word for this.

You might want to check on your own legal liabilities. I wonder if you have ever in all the years organised any gas safety checks?

aznon
30-10-2009, 10:11 AM
You might want to check on your own legal liabilities. I wonder if you have ever in all the years organised any gas safety checks?

yes. i did organise these checks last year as this was one of their demands, although incidentally and to add further proof to my theory that the tenant is only showing concern since the rent increase, they had never brought it to my attention that the gas fire was setting off their carbon poison tester four to five years previously and they had only been able to use the fire when it was extremely cold.

Mars Mug
30-10-2009, 10:45 AM
yes. i did organise these checks last year as this was one of their demands, although incidentally and to add further proof to my theory that the tenant is only showing concern since the rent increase, they had never brought it to my attention that the gas fire was setting off their carbon poison tester four to five years previously and they had only been able to use the fire when it was extremely cold.

So your tenants are lucky to be alive, and you’re lucky not to be in prison, I think that’s what you are basically saying.

jta
30-10-2009, 10:56 AM
yes. i did organise these checks last year as this was one of their demands, although incidentally and to add further proof to my theory that the tenant is only showing concern since the rent increase, they had never brought it to my attention that the gas fire was setting off their carbon poison tester four to five years previously and they had only been able to use the fire when it was extremely cold.

Was the fire changed/repaired/disconnected? By whom?

aznon
30-10-2009, 11:00 AM
This is probably an EHO as my Authority dept has lumped the person responsible for Housing health and safety and licensing of HMOs in with our Strategic Housing dept, not Environmental Health.

You should be liaising with both them and your tenants about the rest of the repairs they listed.

The fire safety advice regarding replacing doors sounds right to me but your Council should be able to give you advice about this.

thankyou for the constructive response. i have carried out some of the work but the costs are forever increasing. i have not heard from the strategic housing gentleman for some time now and i expect my tenant is happy to return to the situation wheras we leave one another to our own devices, but some expensive work is still outstanding and i would rather repossess the property, than be subjected to further demands. i would not wish to contact the gentleman for fear of further burden, although i realise that as time passes i may be held accountable for not fulfilling the initial instructions as of mid 2008.

aznon
30-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Was the fire changed/repaired/disconnected? By whom?

the fire was removed by a local corgi registered gas company engineer who allegedly told my tenants that they were lucky to be alive. this engineer was in the process of updating the fire from my own home so i was able to delay my tenants until the engineer could arrange for my old one to replace their old one. they nw have it proffesionally fitted however the tenant is now demanding that their new (my old) fire should be attached to the wall. their demands are endless.

Snorkerz
30-10-2009, 11:14 AM
Okay, I'll get drawn into this one too.

If you regain the property, would you intend to sell / re-let / occupy?
Whichever case you go for, the property needs to be safe and legal - yes?
It may currently be neither and while your tenants are still there (wether you want them there or not), you are responsible for their safety in your property.

If you intend to sell - remember T has no obligation to let Estate Agents / Prospective purchasers view the property.

If you intend to re-let, it will have to be brought up to scratch so you may as well not re-let, just renegotiate with current 'known good' Ts and bring the place up to standard ~ you may need to borrow to do this.

If you intend to occupy - would you be happy living in the property as it is now? If so, great, if not - why do you expect Ts to be happy?

Although it is not exhaustive, you may like to look at this, which outlines some of your responsibilities as Landlord...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880050_en_1

Snorkerz
30-10-2009, 11:17 AM
the fire was removed by a local corgi registered gas company engineer who allegedly told my tenants that they were lucky to be alive. this engineer was in the process of updating the fire from my own home so i was able to delay my tenants until the engineer could arrange for my old one to replace their old one. they nw have it proffesionally fitted however the tenant is now demanding that their new (my old) fire should be attached to the wall. their demands are endless. Does this fire have a Valid CP12 gas safety certificate? I suspect being fastened to the wall is an integral safety issue and would cause a fail. Any gas work must be done by a "Gas Safe Registered" fitter (NOT Corgi in E&W). I believe the fine for failing to have a CP12 every year is up to £20k:eek:

aznon
30-10-2009, 11:27 AM
Okay, I'll get drawn into this one too.

If you regain the property, would you intend to sell / re-let / occupy?
Whichever case you go for, the property needs to be safe and legal - yes?
It may currently be neither and while your tenants are still there (wether you want them there or not), you are responsible for their safety in your property.

If you intend to sell - remember T has no obligation to let Estate Agents / Prospective purchasers view the property.

If you intend to re-let, it will have to be brought up to scratch so you may as well not re-let, just renegotiate with current 'known good' Ts and bring the place up to standard ~ you may need to borrow to do this.

If you intend to occupy - would you be happy living in the property as it is now? If so, great, if not - why do you expect Ts to be happy?

Although it is not exhaustive, you may like to look at this, which outlines some of your responsibilities as Landlord...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880050_en_1

thankyou for your reply. i do intend to occupy and either sell my own home or pass ownership to my children.

i have had sight of the document as this was presented to me by my tenant. we have no official written agreement and i have already convinced my tenant in writing that i have no responsibility to adhere that and will only respond to any concerns that are brought to my attention by the tenant.
this was when my tenant started with the demands.

aznon
30-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Does this fire have a Valid CP12 gas safety certificate? I suspect being fastened to the wall is an integral safety issue and would cause a fail. Any gas work must be done by a "Gas Safe Registered" fitter (NOT Corgi in E&W). I believe the fine for failing to have a CP12 every year is up to £20k:eek:

yes i have now obtained a CP12 as i realised there were unavoidable consequences for myself as my tenant had found out and was eager to tell me. i do not know anything about what is necessary regarding fastening the fire to the wall, but i now have my certificate to say it is appropriate.
my tenant now says the fire, and gas cooker, need to be fastened to the wall with a host of other checks needing to be done, but i am suitably happy that while i have the certificate, i have met my obligation and suggested they take a second opinion using their own independant engineer and at their own expense should they wish too. i can only prosume they have either done this or accepted the situation as is, as they no longer ask to see the certificate or complain about the appliances.

aznon
30-10-2009, 15:39 PM
as landlord of a single property i have refrained from disturbing my tenant while they have always ensured that the rent is payed on time. it would seem that i have taken an alternative approach to the usual responsibilities as landlord and neglected some responsibilities that might otherwise be of my concern. my tenant has rented the property for more than a decade. during this time i have written to him to explain that my responsibilities would only become apparent if he would alert me to any problems.

my questions are, can i still rely on the housing act in order to regain possession of my property?

i have no formal written contract therfore would i qualify for landlords rights under any unwritten agreement, or could my unusual approach cause problems?

i have no experience of evicting a tenant and would appreciate any estimation regarding the proceedure, including costs and timescales that i am likely to face should i serve a notice to quit?

jta
30-10-2009, 17:04 PM
as landlord of a single property i have refrained from disturbing my tenant while they have always ensured that the rent is payed on time. it would seem that i have taken an alternative approach to the usual responsibilities as landlord and neglected some responsibilities that might otherwise be of my concern.

Your alternative approach being to ignore the tenant so long as the rent is paid.




my tenant has rented the property for more than a decade. during this time i have written to him to explain that my responsibilities would only become apparent if he would alert me to any problems.

No. You should have been regularly inspecting the property in order to catch problems before they escalated to major catastrophes.



my questions are, can i still rely on the housing act in order to regain possession of my property?

Yes. Read up on S21 procedures




i have no formal written contract therfore would i qualify for landlords rights under any unwritten agreement, or could my unusual approach cause problems?

There is an AST albeit an oral one.




i have no experience of evicting a tenant and would appreciate any estimation regarding the proceedure, including costs and timescales that i am likely to face should i serve a notice to quit?

If you are reasonable with your tenant, there may be no costs involved. Why not speak to them and find a timescale that they would need to find alternative accommodation?
If you have to drag it through the courts it could cost you several hundred quid, especially if you have put their backs up.

TenantsLuvMe
30-10-2009, 17:05 PM
There's a lot of tosh and nonsense being thrown up in this thread and the chants of the village lynch mob with pitch forks and flaming torches held up, etc. in outrage of this posting.

Clearly, the tenant and landlord were happy for many years and they have both benefited from the arrangement, otherwise, one or the other would have said/done something before they did.

Both parties share the responsibility on the issue or any repairs during the past 14 years, but only those which are required by the law for health and/or safety reasons, etc.

If there was anything that was urgent or important, why did the tenant say anything before the rent was increased?

And with the tenant being on benefits (for how long I didn't read), they will have had access to help, if they needed it, to guide them through what minimum housing standards they were entitled to receive.

No doubt, the tenant accepted some non-urgent/important shortcomings in the property in view of the cheap rent they were paying.

For the LL's side, it is unwise to leave any property for so long without any kind of inspection (I do 6 monthly checks on mine) but it is not unlawful/negligent/offensive/unfair not to inspect a property and also since the tenant hasn't said a peep for so many years.

LL's should inspect their properties, if for nothing else, to ensure serious problems do not develop and that the tenant is using the property for the purposes for which it was let.

Now, there is a new arrangement (the LL increasing the rent) and so now, the equation has changed, hence the objections/demands by the tenant, who must think the deal no longer works for them.

I am not taking a view as to whether either side's position is valid or not.
Its a simple matter of whether the LL wants to meet the demands of the tenant and if not, the tenant is free to leave if they are unhappy with the LL's response.

I don't see why there is much more to this issue than that.

aznon
30-10-2009, 17:28 PM
There's a lot of tosh and nonsense being thrown up in this thread and the chants of the village lynch mob with pitch forks and flaming torches held up, etc. in outrage of this posting.

Clearly, the tenant and landlord were happy for many years and they have both benefited from the arrangement, otherwise, one or the other would have said/done something before they did.

Both parties share the responsibility on the issue or any repairs during the past 14 years, but only those which are required by the law for health and/or safety reasons, etc.

If there was anything that was urgent or important, why did the tenant say anything before the rent was increased?

And with the tenant being on benefits (for how long I didn't read), they will have had access to help, if they needed it, to guide them through what minimum housing standards they were entitled to receive.

No doubt, the tenant accepted some non-urgent/important shortcomings in the property in view of the cheap rent they were paying.

For the LL's side, it is unwise to leave any property for so long without any kind of inspection (I do 6 monthly checks on mine) but it is not unlawful/negligent/offensive/unfair not to inspect a property and also since the tenant hasn't said a peep for so many years.

LL's should inspect their properties, if for nothing else, to ensure serious problems do not develop and that the tenant is using the property for the purposes for which it was let.

Now, there is a new arrangement (the LL increasing the rent) and so now, the equation has changed, hence the objections/demands by the tenant, who must think the deal no longer works for them.

I am not taking a view as to whether either side's position is valid or not.
Its a simple matter of whether the LL wants to meet the demands of the tenant and if not, the tenant is free to leave if they are unhappy with the LL's response.

I don't see why there is much more to this issue than that.

thankyou TenantsLuvMe. this is exactly the point i was trying to make. the only concern i have is with the intervention from strategic housing. it is clear to me that my tenant is unwilling to go quietly and has got wind of the fact that i would rather re-occupy the property than meet their demands. they have refused to sign a tenancy agreement unless and until the property is brought to their standard and even then insisted that the agreement ranges from 2 to 5 years. i could'nt possibly afford to keep up with the demands for that amount of time if they decided to keep making them. i havnt completed original demands and refuse to continue trying. they seem to believe that i must oblige before i can proceed either way.

aznon
30-10-2009, 17:47 PM
i have spent the majority of today trying to follow information from this and other threads and found many useful facts. but i am finding more questions than answers along the way. i have to admit that the tenant has latched on to the fact that i am nieve on the issues where i had thought ignorence was bliss. i am continualy finding possible points that could present further problems along the way but i have not found much to confirm or deny my rights when confronted by my own lapsadasical actions. i am not just of the attitude that if rents okay im okay, but i let the property such a long time ago that the past two years have been nothing but hassle from which i want to find an innexpesive way out.

westminster
30-10-2009, 18:47 PM
Due to your inexperience, you may wish to consider using an eviction specialist to do it for you. The following company has been recommended by another forum user, but I haven't used them myself, so cannot personally recommend.

http://www.regencylaw.co.uk/

Snorkerz
30-10-2009, 22:35 PM
Why not sell it with sitting tenants? There are still some people buying to let (especially those with their own finance) and an established tenant could be seen as golddust to those people.

This way tenants don't have to leave (although new owner could evict them by following correct proceedure), they get a new landlord (which they may see as a good thing) and you get rid of the hassle AND avoid being arrested for Illegal Eviction! No - I know you wouldn't do it on purpose but the steep learning curve you are going through might mean you miss some vital obligation.

One final point - your comment about the Housing Act is totally wrong, a letter from your tenants does not excuse you from your obligations - the legislation would take precedent in any court of law. Just because you have 'persuaded' your tenants doesn't mean it's right.

Snorkerz
30-10-2009, 22:54 PM
Be warned, if they for council accomodation then the council is likely to suggest they stay put as long a possible. In practical terms this is:

a) serve notice
b) wait 2 months (s21)
c) apply for court order
d) wait around a month for hearing/decision
e) wait 14-28 days (up to judge)
f) Tenant ignores order - request bailiffs
g) wait 14-28 days bailiffs attend and regain posession for you

Times above are very approximate. C & F both cost money, I can't remember how much, but don't expect much change (if any) from £250.

aznon
31-10-2009, 00:29 AM
Be warned, if they for council accomodation then the council is likely to suggest they stay put as long a possible. In practical terms this is:

a) serve notice
b) wait 2 months (s21)
c) apply for court order
d) wait around a month for hearing/decision
e) wait 14-28 days (up to judge)
f) Tenant ignores order - request bailiffs
g) wait 14-28 days bailiffs attend and regain posession for you

Times above are very approximate. C & F both cost money, I can't remember how much, but don't expect much change (if any) from £250.

i have read some information about the (s21) option and (section 8) route but according to the information available, i am not sure that i would adequately qualify to submit either. and it is almost innevitable that an appeal will be launched by the tenant if given an oppertunity.

aznon
01-11-2009, 14:09 PM
as landlord of a single property, (3 bed house & tenant is family of four), do i have an obligation to install heating in any room other than living area.
any help and advice would be appreciated.

mind the gap
01-11-2009, 14:44 PM
What is there in the way of heating equipment/appliances already?

theartfullodger
01-11-2009, 14:58 PM
Without heating your HHSRS risk score would be even more unattractive & you might find the local authority becoming keen to get you to fix things...
#

IMHO a LL who doesn't want to provide heating may well be scrimping & avoiding other obligations the man on the clapham omnibus would expect...

If you don't know what a HHSRS risk score is, get help...

Cheers!

Lodger

aznon
01-11-2009, 15:02 PM
What is there in the way of heating equipment/appliances already?

two gas fires. one in each half of double living room.

aznon
01-11-2009, 15:18 PM
Without heating your HHSRS risk score would be even more unattractive & you might find the local authority becoming keen to get you to fix things...
#

IMHO a LL who doesn't want to provide heating may well be scrimping & avoiding other obligations the man on the clapham omnibus would expect...

If you don't know what a HHSRS risk score is, get help...

Cheers!

Lodger

Local authority did contact me regarding this matter. i was advised that a grant could be obtained via an application from tenant to a specified organisation. the necessary arrangements were made and the organisation carried out a survey and reccomended installing central heating, loft insulation, draftproofing and energy bulbs. on reading the consent form, i fount that i would have to comit to allowing the tenants to occupy the premises for a significant amount of time. this was not something i was not prepared to do, & i have ignored the consent form.

mind the gap
01-11-2009, 15:41 PM
In that case, you should instal it at your own expense, since these days no family in their right mind would sign up for a property without adequate heating. There are also regulations concerning the minimum temperature which residential rented property should be able to heated to; logically, unless the property is super-well-insulated (which seems unlikely, given what you have told us already about your laissez-faire approach to repairs), the unheated rooms will be only slightly warmer than the outside temperature and the EHO could order you to do something about it.

In any case, putting central heating in (preferably with a new energy efficient gas combi boiler) will add value to your property for when you finally sell it, as well as making it a more attractive prospect for tenants.

Get some quotes! Break out of Scrooge mode! Make it your tenants' best Christmas in 14 years.!

westminster
01-11-2009, 17:09 PM
I am really curious to know how much rent the tenants have been paying (before and after the rent increase) and how it compares to the average for similar properties in the area.

I also wonder whether you yourself would be willing to live in a house without central heating?

aznon
01-11-2009, 17:33 PM
I am really curious to know how much rent the tenants have been paying (before and after the rent increase) and how it compares to the average for similar properties in the area.

I also wonder whether you yourself would be willing to live in a house without central heating?

rent recieved falls short of average market value. similar properties in same area acheive over £25/wk more. over the total period since the tenancy commenced, the rent has at times been accuratly assessed and at other times slightly lower than average.

my own home has central heating but i am prepared to move in to my let property regardless of its current condition and make improvemnts according to my own preferance.

westminster
01-11-2009, 18:47 PM
rent recieved falls short of average market value. similar properties in same area acheive over £25/wk more. over the total period since the tenancy commenced, the rent has at times been accuratly assessed and at other times slightly lower than average.
£25/wk more for properties with central heating perhaps? And redecorated more recently than 14 years ago?


my own home has central heating but i am prepared to move in to my let property regardless of its current condition and make improvemnts according to my own preferance.

Fair enough, but what's the problem with installing central heating now, when you will have to install it eventually - it is the 21st century, after all? (Ironically, if you'd been more concerned for your tenant's wellbeing, you'd have encouraged the T to apply for the Warmfront grant years ago and saved ££££s).

BTW, you need to get professional advice on eviction - this means paying money for it. From your other thread, it sounds like it's an Assured Tenancy not an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. It's less easy to evict the former.

jeffrey
01-11-2009, 22:51 PM
i have read some information about the (s21) option and (section 8) route but according to the information available, i am not sure that i would adequately qualify to submit either. and it is almost innevitable that an appeal will be launched by the tenant if given an oppertunity.
No. If you serve a correct s.21 Notice (or a s.8 Notice on mandatory grounds), you can expect to obtain a Possession Order.

aznon
02-11-2009, 08:36 AM
i have let a 3 bed property to a tenant for 14 years. i had no proper experience of letting and i am now on a very steep learning curve.

i have (& quite stupidly) denied my tenant some mandatory demands. when the tenant decided to insist on gas checks, and suggested that i was responsible & compromising their safety, (in writing) i out right refuted the suggestion, refused to impliment any of their demands, and denied that i was contractually obliged. i went on to say that they would be denied every demand unless they met my conditions, which were, to sign an agreement which i had borrowed from a friend.
i have now realised that i had no right to do so, and the borrowed agreement could never have applied to our situation. (the tenant would not sign and allowed me to deprive them for some time)

i do now have 1 cp12 which is current, but, i only arranged for the checks under threat that rental payments would stop. it is the only cp12 i have, despite 14 years letting the property.

i would now like to use the same law/act that i chose to opt-out of, to serve s.8 under assured tenancy rules. have i shot my self in the foot and lost my entitlement by rewriting to rules to convenience my own interests? any advice would be much appreciated.

aznon
02-11-2009, 09:13 AM
genuine question. have i lost the foot then lodger? i know i was nieve to the point of irresponsible. i had no idea that i was so irresponsible until recently. but i would like to make as many enquiries as possible.i will either stop letting or deal in a more proffesional way if i ever re-let in the future.

Pepzofio
02-11-2009, 11:29 AM
i have let a 3 bed property to a tenant for 14 years. i had no proper experience of letting and i am now on a very steep learning curve.

i have (& quite stupidly) denied my tenant some mandatory demands. when the tenant decided to insist on gas checks, and suggested that i was responsible & compromising their safety, (in writing) i out right refuted the suggestion, refused to impliment any of their demands, and denied that i was contractually obliged. i went on to say that they would be denied every demand unless they met my conditions, which were, to sign an agreement which i had borrowed from a friend.
i have now realised that i had no right to do so, and the borrowed agreement could never have applied to our situation. (the tenant would not sign and allowed me to deprive them for some time)

i do now have 1 cp12 which is current, but, i only arranged for the checks under threat that rental payments would stop. it is the only cp12 i have, despite 14 years letting the property.

i would now like to use the same law/act that i chose to opt-out of, to serve s.8 under assured tenancy rules. have i shot my self in the foot and lost my entitlement by rewriting to rules to convenience my own interests? any advice would be much appreciated.

IIRC, for tenancies granted on or after 15th January 1989 but before 28 February 1997 the default position was an assured tenancy unless a specific document (s20 notice?) was served prior to tenancy commencing which made it an AST. In which case, if you don't have a signed TA then tenants could very well have an assured tenancy, as 14 years puts them firmly in the period mentioned.

I may be wrong, but I think this would exclude the option of a s21 NTQ. As for a s8 g1, which you have mentioned, did you actually use the property as your main residence prior to letting it? As if not then you won't be eligible to use this ground.

jeffrey
02-11-2009, 11:43 AM
I may be wrong, but I think this would exclude the option of a s21 NTQ. As for a s8 g1, which you have mentioned, did you actually use the property as your main residence prior to letting it? As if not then you won't be eligible to use this ground.
1. Yes. Section 21 applies only to ASTs, not to SATs. However, a s.21 Notice is not a Notice To Quit.
2. A s.8 Notice can be served on any of eighteen grounds (1-17 + 14A). Ground 1 is just one of the array.
3. And, yes, s.8 applies equally to ASTs and SATs.

Pepzofio
02-11-2009, 12:05 PM
2. A s.8 Notice can be served on any of eighteen grounds (1-17 + 14A). Ground 1 is just one of the array.


Yes, but I can't see that any of the other grounds are applicable here - OP has stated that he has never had any problems with tenants before and that they have always paid their rent on time, so that rules out g8, 10, 11, 12 & 14. I doubt there'd be much success with g13 or 15 either, as how you could prove any deterioration of property was down to tenant's neglect after 14 years with no history of LL inspections or maintenance?

All other grounds just seem inapplicable from what OP has stated so far.

aznon
02-11-2009, 12:08 PM
did you actually use the property as your main residence prior to letting it? As if not then you won't be eligible to use this ground.

i did. but but few years prior. was let a few times to various other tenants.
would this matter?

Pepzofio
02-11-2009, 12:15 PM
did you actually use the property as your main residence prior to letting it? As if not then you won't be eligible to use this ground.

i did. but but few years prior. was let a few times to various other tenants.
would this matter?

I don't think so. But I'd expect tnts to dig their heels in and ramp up the disrepair complaints to the council etc.

jeffrey
02-11-2009, 12:34 PM
did you actually use the property as your main residence prior to letting it? As if not then you won't be eligible to use this ground.

I did. but but few years prior. was let a few times to various other tenants. Would this matter?
Before the current letting was granted, did you serve a g1 Notice?

aznon
02-11-2009, 13:09 PM
Before the current letting was granted, did you serve a g1 Notice?

i bet you could guess my answer already.
no. no paperwork at all. nothing. not even a reciept for the bond.

Pepzofio
02-11-2009, 13:49 PM
i bet you could guess my answer already.
no. no paperwork at all. nothing. not even a reciept for the bond.

Ouch. I'd get cracking on the rest of those repairs then...

The tenants might be more amenable to it taking longer if you drop the rent back down a bit until all of the repair issues are sorted out. Then either properly research all your responsibilities as a LL or employ a LA to manage the property for you.

It sounds like the tenants have got some legal advice following the steep rent hike and are now aware of what are their obligations and what yours are. If they are on an assured tenancy rather than an AST it's going to be next to impossible to evict them if they keep their noses clean.

aznon
02-11-2009, 19:03 PM
having read lots of information from this site and others, i have a further question if anyone would be prepared to offer advice.

if i were to remorgage the let property to finance bringing the property up to date and pay for legal expenses.

do i have to:

a: alert the tenant and provide any documentation?

b: detail my inconcistent approach for the duration as landlord of the property, to a morgage provider?

c: will my full-disclosure prevent me from obtaining insurance or affect any contents insurance that the tenant might have?

mind the gap
02-11-2009, 21:18 PM
having read lots of information from this site and others, i have a further question if anyone would be prepared to offer advice.

if i were to remorgage the let property to finance bringing the property up to date and pay for legal expenses.

do i have to:

a: alert the tenant and provide any documentation?

b: detail my inconcistent approach for the duration as landlord of the property, to a morgage provider?

c: will my full-disclosure prevent me from obtaining insurance or affect any contents insurance that the tenant might have?

I don't know, but what is certain is that you will need to inform T of the repairs to be done and negotiate about alternative accommodation for them (at your expense) whilst the repairs are carried out. You cannot expect a family to live in a house whilst central heating and electrical repairs are being sorted out.

HairyLandlord
03-11-2009, 10:04 AM
You cannot expect a family to live in a house whilst central heating and electrical repairs are being sorted out.


I don't see why the tenants can't continue to live in the property while work is carried out.

These works can easily be done with tenants in situ, as I have had done several times with minimal disturbance.
Workmen can easily leave things in a way that tenants have facilities.

If they are at home during the day, there will be some inconvenience but not, in my view, such that they cannot live in the property.

We do not know if there are any other works that may be required and so these are unknown.

jeffrey
03-11-2009, 10:28 AM
if i were to remorgage the let property to finance bringing the property up to date and pay for legal expenses.

do i have to:

a: alert the tenant and provide any documentation?

b: detail my inconcistent approach for the duration as landlord of the property, to a morgage provider?

c: will my full-disclosure prevent me from obtaining insurance or affect any contents insurance that the tenant might have?
a. No, but your mortgagee may demand that each T sign a Postponement form.
b. No, as long as you answer all its questions truthfully.
c. Probably no, but that depends on the insurer. WARNING: insurance contracts are uberrimae fidei [= 'of the utmost good faith'] so you have to disclose whatever might be relevant even if not asked- or else risk having insurance claims rejected.

Telometer
03-11-2009, 12:20 PM
There's a lot of tosh and nonsense being thrown up in this thread and the chants of the village lynch mob with pitch forks and flaming torches held up, etc. in outrage of this posting.


I am not taking a view as to whether either side's position is valid or not.
Its a simple matter of whether the LL wants to meet the demands of the tenant and if not, the tenant is free to leave if they are unhappy with the LL's response.

Absolutely not. Housing Law exists to protect vulnerable tenants like these from bad Landlords like this who put their health and lives at risk.

Normally I think the Housing Acts are an unwarranted interference in a sensible business relationship between two parties; in this case they seem very sensible.


if i were to remorgage the let property to finance bringing the property up to date and pay for legal expenses.

b: detail my inconcistent approach for the duration as landlord of the property, to a morgage provider?

Anything that has happened previously is irrelevant. Worry not.

However, the amount of money you can borrow will be greatly limited by the tenants' status as assured tenants. When the bank asks for a copy of the tenancy agreement, you will have to tell them the position (and woe betide you should you fail to tell the truth). I guess (this is a guess) that you will be limited to borrowing about 25-30% of the value of the property; that the interest rate will be 7-8%; that you will need 125% rental cover. If you own a home of your own it will be cheaper to get a residential mortgage against that.

mind the gap
03-11-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't see why the tenants can't continue to live in the property while work is carried out.

These works can easily be done with tenants in situ, as I have had done several times with minimal disturbance.
Workmen can easily leave things in a way that tenants have facilities.

If they are at home during the day, there will be some inconvenience but not, in my view, such that they cannot live in the property.

We do not know if there are any other works that may be required and so these are unknown.

I think you are being wildly optimistic, both in terms of how much disruption/danger will be caused, and how likely/able workmen are to leave things working each night when they pack up. The property OP has descibed lacks central heating and by his own admission no maintenance has been done there for at least 14 years.

The installation of central heating involves taking up floors, often for days at a time. It sounds as though there may need to be major upgrading of the electrical installation too.

It is not reasonable to expect a family to live with the floors up and no electricity.

I agree with Telometer's comments about TenantsLuvMe, too. His?her TenantsWouldn'tLuvHim/Her for long if he/she did no repairs/maintenance and it is fanciful to think they would.

westminster
03-11-2009, 13:07 PM
I don't see why the tenants can't continue to live in the property while work is carried out.

These works can easily be done with tenants in situ, as I have had done several times with minimal disturbance.
Workmen can easily leave things in a way that tenants have facilities.

If they are at home during the day, there will be some inconvenience but not, in my view, such that they cannot live in the property.


I agree. We've all had to live amidst building work from time to time, and the tenants can't expect to get central heating installed with zero inconvenience to them. It'd probably be just as inconvenient to live in a B&B while the work was going on.

mind the gap
03-11-2009, 13:13 PM
I agree. We've all had to live amidst building work from time to time, and the tenants can't expect to get central heating installed with zero inconvenience to them. It'd probably be just as inconvenient to live in a B&B while the work was going on.

Normally I'd agree, if it were a case of routine repairs/maintenance.

I supsect, however, from what OP has told us, that this property is like something from The Addams Family already and would not be safe to live in during the works which seem to be necessary. It sounds as though it needs a complete refurb.

And workmen don't always tidy up after themselves!

westminster
03-11-2009, 13:30 PM
Normally I'd agree, if it were a case of routine repairs/maintenance.

I supsect, however, from what OP has told us, that this property is like something from The Addams Family already and would not be safe to live in during the works which seem to be necessary. It sounds as though it needs a complete refurb.

Quite possibly. If I were LL I'd be investigating the scope of the redevelopment ground for eviction.

westminster
03-11-2009, 16:32 PM
If I were LL I'd be investigating the scope of the redevelopment ground for eviction.

From http://www.bilberrybloom.com/citizens-advice/11/11050612.htm

"If the landlord wants to demolish or reconstruct all or part of the property the tenant lives in, s/he may be able to get a possession order from the court. The court will only grant the landlord possession under Ground 6 if the landlord can show that:-


s/he intends to demolish or reconstruct the property; and
the tenant was not in the accommodation when the landlord bought it; and
the tenant is not a successor to a protected tenancy; and either
the tenant is not willing to allow adequate access for the work to be carried out; or
the work cannot practicably be carried out while the tenant is there; or
the tenant is not willing to occupy, as an assured tenant, a part of her/his present accommodation, thus enabling the landlord to carry out the work; or
it would not be practical for the tenant to occupy a part of her/his present accommodation.


The landlord does not have to offer the tenant suitable alternative accommodation.

It will be for the court to decide whether the planned works are 'substantial'. Points that the court may take into consideration when deciding if the work is substantial could include whether the work requires planning permission, whether the landlord has architects' plans or a firm of builders. It will not be sufficient for the landlord just to say that s/he is intending at sometime in the future to do the work.

In addition, the court will have to decide whether for the works to be done, access needs to be given to the landlord's contractors, or whether the works are so substantial that the landlord will need vacant possession to carry them out. The tenant will therefore need technical assistance in addition to the normal legal assistance, to check the landlord's plans to see whether the landlord's stated requirements are in fact necessary. For example, it might be possible to show that the building work could be done without access to the tenant's accommodation or without vacant possession of the property. The tenant may be referred to a surveyor under the Chartered Surveyor's Voluntary Scheme for a professional assessment of the landlord's proposal. Alternatively, s/he may request the assistance of a qualified surveyor through her/his solicitor."

mind the gap
03-11-2009, 16:38 PM
s/he intends to demolish or reconstruct the property; and
the tenant was not in the accommodation when the landlord bought it; and
the tenant is not a successor to a protected tenancy; and either
the tenant is not willing to allow adequate access for the work to be carried out; or
the work cannot practicably be carried out while the tenant is there; or
the tenant is not willing to occupy, as an assured tenant, a part of her/his present accommodation, thus enabling the landlord to carry out the work; or
it would not be practical for the tenant to occupy a part of her/his present accommodation.



:confused:Must all these pertain, or just some of them?

jeffrey
03-11-2009, 16:47 PM
Must all these pertain, or just some of them?
Yes, the first three of them plus any one of the rest. Here's ground 6 in full:

The landlord who is seeking possession or, if that landlord is a registered social landlord or charitable housing trust, a superior landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of the dwelling-house or to carry out substantial works on the dwelling-house or any part thereof or any building of which it forms part and the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because:
(i) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(ii) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or
(iii) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as “the reduced part”) as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(iv) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable; and

(b) either the landlord seeking possession acquired his interest in the dwelling-house before the grant of the tenancy or that interest was in existence at the time of that grant and neither that landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any of them) nor any other person who, alone or jointly with others, has acquired that interest since that time acquired it for money or money’s worth; and

(c) the assured tenancy on which the dwelling-house is let did not come into being by virtue of any provision of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977, as amended by Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act or, as the case may be, section 4 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, as amended by Part II of that Schedule.

For the purposes of this ground, if, immediately before the grant of the tenancy, the tenant to whom it was granted or, if it was granted to joint tenants, any of them was the tenant or one of the joint tenantsof the dwelling-house concerned under an earlier assured tenancy or, as the case may be, under a tenancy to which Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 applied, any reference in paragraph (b) above to the grant of the tenancy is a reference to the grant of that earlier assured tenancy or, as the case may be, to the grant of the tenancy to which the said Schedule 10 applied.

For the purposes of this ground “registered social landlord” has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985 (see section 5(4) and (5) of that Act) and “charitable housing trust” means a housing trust, within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is a charity, within the meaning ofthe Charities Act 1993.

TenantsLuvMe
03-11-2009, 17:10 PM
Absolutely not. Housing Law exists to protect vulnerable tenants like these from bad Landlords like this who put their health and lives at risk.

Yet more tosh I'm afraid

I haven't read anything that indicates that these tenants were/are "vulnerable".

Vulnerable to what?

What health risks?
What lives were at risk and to what?
When, exactly, was the tenant at risk - day 1, day 579, day 2709...the day the rent was raised?

The tenants haven't complained about anything in 14 years, so what have they been vulnerable to?
If the tenants were afraid of their lives and their health, why did they not say something to the LL and/or the local authority, etc, for all those years, as they have done now?

The tenants did not go to the local authority, etc, before the LL raised the rent and this is significant.

The local authority has not taken actual action against the LL for terrible/unsafe/illegal/squalid conditions" etc, so...?

If the LL were to put the rent back to what it was, I dare say that the tenants would become surprisingly quiet, once again.

I deplore poor treatment of anyone, tenants or otherwise, and I have already stated my views about this LL's lackadaisical approach to his property, but if I've read this issue correctly, this case does not seem to be about deplorable or unsafe/illegal conditions,

HairyLandlord
03-11-2009, 17:21 PM
I think you are being wildly optimistic, both in terms of how much disruption/danger will be caused, and how likely/able workmen are to leave things working each night when they pack up. The property OP has descibed lacks central heating and by his own admission no maintenance has been done there for at least 14 years..

I think you are wildly inexperienced in property works if you feel that way.

In my time, I have managed more than 25 property works of one kind or another, both as the owner and a manager and can attest to the minimal distruption that laying central heating causes.

The most disruption involves moving possessions/furniture and usually, the fitters do this.
My tenants have always accepted this provided they can live/use the property after the workmen have left for the day, which I have ensured.

These days, there aren't any properties that I get involved with that don't have CH and those that don't are almost always properties that have been purchased and refurbished before tenants move in.

As to your comment about the OP's property - you have no idea what state it was in 14 years ago and you can't assume that the LL not carrying out maintenance means the property must be in a dreadful state. It does not automatically follow.

aznon
03-11-2009, 17:50 PM
i dont think the condition of the property is drastic enough for any of the above to apply. yet.

the tenant seems to have had help and advice and learned some rights in recent months. i had mistakingly announced that they had none.

the increased rent and the fact that i was wrong in denying them rights is what seems to have provoked them to act.

things are quiet at the moment but i have fallen short of fulfilling the complete list of jobs because i cant deal with the tenant since the new found rights have surfaced and would rather have them gone.

westminster
03-11-2009, 18:06 PM
i dont think the condition of the property is drastic enough for any of the above to apply. yet.
It's not about "drastic" conditions, it's about you perhaps deciding to carry out significant and disruptive improvements such as installing C/H, new kitchen/bathrooms, rewiring etc, or deciding to convert the house into two flats, or build a big extension.


things are quiet at the moment but i have fallen short of fulfilling the complete list of jobs because i cant deal with the tenant since the new found rights have surfaced and would rather have them gone.
Ignore at your peril. If the tenants investigate their rights further they may discover they are entitled to Legal Aid and sue you for the disrepair. And you can't ignore legal action. I strongly recommend you find a specialist landlord & tenant solicitor and explore the options for eviction. I realize that you are inclined both to inaction and to not spending money, but this approach could have serious and costly consequences for you.

westminster
03-11-2009, 18:24 PM
I think this is spot on. In fact, the tendency you identify verges on an impulse to (financial) self-destruction, I'd say.

He doesn't understand the potential consequences, though. And why should he, when his MO has worked for 14 years without a hitch? This forum has been a very rude awakening and it'll probably take some time for it to fully sink in (if it ever does).

Edit: I'm assuming aznon's a 'he' - don't know why....

Mars Mug
03-11-2009, 20:16 PM
this case does not seem to be about deplorable or unsafe/illegal conditions,

Apart from the time when the tenant was in danger of carbon monoxide poisoning from the un-serviced gas fire perhaps?

Subway
07-11-2009, 20:40 PM
Aznon your more recent posts give me more cheer that you are capable of joining the ranks of the reasonable Landlords!

Could you perhaps clarify the work that is being demanded and whether each is a tentant request or is additionally required by EH? Unless I missed it I don't think you've stated that central heating and new electrics is required and I suspect the extent of the work with affect your eviction possibilities from what has already been said.

Your tenants would appear to have (fairly?) retaliated for your (I'm assuming) large rent increase to cover years of no increases by giving you a list of demands for maintenance which as you appreciated covers years of no maintenance.

One thing that comes over is that perhaps your tenants like a quite life too and may be happy to swap a slight reduction in rent (not necessarily back to where it was) for a delay (open-ended?) on a start time for some of the more disruptive and expensive works. Completing some of the smaller items might then be cheaper than evicition processes and you'd retain tenants who do seem settled and would continue to pay rent.

aznon
07-11-2009, 21:57 PM
work demanded is endless, from floor to roof. front to back.
roof leaks and effecting electric. tiles hanging from gutters. gutters leak. water dripping from lights. ceiling collapsed. lead water pipes and leaking. gas never checked. then second hand gas fire no instructions and not fixed to wall. double glazed window units failed and hold water. damp in rooms and black mould. no smoke alarms. no heating other than main room. door wont close because frame is loose, supposed to be escape route. 1 bedroom unusable until i investigate crack in wall. electrics never checked. electric boiler never checked. no handrail on stairs.
it goes on and on.

tenant demanded the above EH confirmed.
fire service confirmed fire related but only to tenant not me personally.

i think they retaliated because i waived the carrot before the stick and let on that i was going to install central heating when i was actually just trying to increase the rent more than the usual (the rent had always increased). tenant realised that i had no intention of doing central heating when i said i had no money left because i was doing my own home up. tenant was annoyed and demanded that i should have money available for repairs, then came the list. i wrongly told the tenant that they had no rights unless they sign an agreement so they went for advice refused to sign and the demands got worse until the rent stopped and EH contacted me. they are quiet now and i have stayed away. i send a friend to get the rent so i dont have to deal with the hassle anymore.

Subway
08-11-2009, 02:58 AM
OK I'll try and refrain from gratuitous use of :eek: Overall house does sound like a health hazard and it must be horrible to live in.


work demanded is endless, from floor to roof. front to back.
roof leaks and effecting electric. This sounds like it should be sorted urgently to stop further damage to your property. If you have lost a tile or some this could be fairly easily fixed and would relatively I think be a job worth spending money on. You could at least quickly get a quote to see what the problem is and how expensive it might be.

tiles hanging from gutters. Cover at same time as roof check

gutters leak. Again cover with roof check. If blocked it is not that expensive to clear.

water dripping from lights. Could be due to the leaking roof and may resolve once roof is sorted. From tenant description is this dripping only in torrential rain, light rain or all the time?

ceiling collapsed. Which room, are we talking whole ceiling, have you a quote to fix - this one sounds non-negotiable and you may have more trouble in other rooms if you don't fix the leaking roof which I assume is the cause.

lead water pipes and leaking. No need to replace lead pipes necessarily but the leak is more important especially if linked to any of the other problems.

gas never checked. then second hand gas fire no instructions and not fixed to wall. OK this check is sorted now isn't it? It doesn't sound too expensive to do the final fixing and something you should do. Check internet to get a copy of instructions or type some up yourself and get laminated to give them.

double glazed window units failed and hold water. Not sure if this is urgent and sounds expensive to sort out. Have you been told directly that you must sort this out?

damp in rooms and black mould. Not surprising I guess given the various water related problems. Hopefully if roof issue is sorted this should resolve. May need clean off of mould and repaint of rooms once all dry. Could you do this or get some help to keep costs down for this? Mould is not good for either morale or health of tenants.

no smoke alarms. As a tenant I thought this was my responsibility but really this is really a no brainer as should be less than £20 to buy a couple of battery operated ones and fix up and is something you can do that will really protect your tenants. Have you been told you need battery opertated ones?

no heating other than main room. If the tenants took the house in this state then I'm not sure this is your responsibility to sort out. Other opinions? Although its not fun to have no central heating there are still houses like this and other electric heaters / oil filled radiators can be used. I would have thoughts this is tenants responsibility to sort out.

door wont close because frame is loose, supposed to be escape route. This sounds bad but is this internal or external door? On the face of it a door which won't close and is an escape route sounds better than one which won't open...

1 bedroom unusable until i investigate crack in wall. Again this sounds bad - are we talking huge crack or hairline. Can you get person collecting rent to take photos of this and get some advice on whther this means the whole house is coming down?

electrics never checked. How much are we talking for a check / quote from leccy for anything that needs doing?
electric boiler never checked. Can you combine this with above.

no handrail on stairs. Have you been told this is specifically necessary by EH? Get a quote for this and consider. Although not too expensive or difficult to do I would not prioritize if money is really tight but if you have to do it is not likely to be that expensive.
it goes on and on.

tenant demanded the above EH confirmed. Did EH confirm each individual request?
fire service confirmed fire related but only to tenant not me personally. You need to ask for a copy of this report and then sort out any issues which are mandatory and serious consider any recommendations.


I think you need to know where you stand with regard to the jobs you have to do and what they will cost. Then you can take stock and make plans. It seems from first glance as though a number of problems stem from leaks at roof level and so I would say this is urgent to sort out first along with the gas fire fixing / instructions and smoke detectors as they are fairly cheap but safety related issues. Some of the other jobs may not add up to being that expensive compared to costs of eviction and not necessarily escapable either.

I'm not a landlord aware of what legally you must do and what you don't need to do so others may be able to advise on those issues.

westminster
08-11-2009, 10:50 AM
i send a friend to get the rent so i dont have to deal with the hassle anymore.

Plan A: Do nothing. Wait for roof to cave in, or tenant to suffer death or injury due to disrepair. Be surprised when the council prosecutes you for breach of your legal obligations, and tenant serves court claim for compensation. Discover how much litigation costs.

(See link for example of landlord being prosecuted for similar disrepair to yours, and fined £7,500 http://www.newham.gov.uk/news/2009/april/landlordfinedforneglectingrentalproperty.htm)

Plan B: Comply with your legal obligation to carry out repairs. Realize that it's actually rather a good idea because 1) the disrepair is affecting the value of the property, and 2) ultimately, you're planning to live there yourself and you prefer not to live with black mould, dodgy electrics and a leaking roof. Consult a specialist solicitor regarding legally evicting the tenants.

Both plans cost money.

mind the gap
08-11-2009, 11:40 AM
Both plans cost money.

...and both will involve some stress.

Just think of it as fourteen years' worth of normal landlord-type stress which, instead of being spread out in a manageable fashion (as it could have been) over fourteen years, will be concentrated over few months.

:)Good news : The more money you have put aside, the more you'll be able to delegate some of the stress to others.

(Bad news : building work always takes longer and costs more than builders say it will, especially if your builder is called Kevin).

aznon
13-11-2009, 23:43 PM
i have now seen my solicitor and was advised to serve a s8 on mandatory grounds. i served notice to quit on tuesday and today i have recieved a letter from the gentleman from EH, insisting that i complete all work within 1 week. i then spoke directly to my T and they deny recieving any notice and say that conditions have worsened.
i will undertake the work detailed from EH but will my notice still apply if i refuse to redecorate or fix problems that my T has mentioned but EH hasnt?

tom999
14-11-2009, 00:54 AM
When issuing an s.8 for unpaid rent (g8 = mandatory ground), ensure that:
(1) Property is not in poor condition or that there have been occasions where you've failed to carry out repairs as requested by T, and
(2) You have given an address in England or Wales for service of documents on LL (otherwise rent will not be lawfully due - section 48 of Landlord and Tenant Act).

As (1) seems to almost certainly apply in your case, then T may use property's disrepair as a defence or counterclaim.

HairyLandlord
14-11-2009, 03:35 AM
Aznon - This might sound strange, but is it at all feasable that you could consider living elsewhere and letting your home to the tenants (if there is any goodwill left?) while you carry out the laundry list of repairs and works to the rental home?

Most, if not all of these works sound like they can't be done while the tenants are in situ and several projects would be done simultaneously, meaning significant disruption and the loss of livable conditions for the tenants.

It does sound like the property is in a disastrous condition and I am staggered that anyone would put up with all that you have listed, at a rent that is a little less than market rent, especially given the glut of property available for the past couple of years, a lot of which is at least in good condition.

I suppose it depends what your end game is in all this and what your attitude is to renting and to tenants, generally, that will determine your actions.

quarterday
14-11-2009, 05:17 AM
It seems to me that your conduct is exactly what gives landlords a bad name!!

The present Government is looking into establishing a cumbersome compulsory registration scheme for all landlords because a few irresponsible landlords fail in their duties to tenants.

I hope we hear from your tenant and if so we shall in this forum advise how he or she can go about securing substantial and exemplary damages against you!

The Tenants demand that the house is kept in reasonable order and they have every right so to do. If you cant handle that, might I respectfully suggest that you stick the property in auction! Barnard Marcus have a large residential auction on December 4th that is still open for entries ....let the next man take care of it

quarterday
14-11-2009, 07:38 AM
Not anything to do with wanting to make sure everybody pays their taxes on the rent they take then?

That's certainly not the sole purpose of the scheme : it is suggested that if there are too many complaints by tenants against any particular landlord, then the landlord will be forced to sell his holdings and exit the industry. I have to say that the scheme as currently proposed is very open to abuse by tenants blackmailing landlords but hope that it is either scrapped by a new administration coming in or a mechanism put in place such that vexatious or frivolous complaints by tenants are disregarded; unless verified by, say the EHO. It is proposed that there will be a compulsory registration fee.

The scheme as proposed does not appear thought through. I am all for raising standards in our industry so that we don't hear of the horror stories posted from time to time by desperate tenants here... Responsible landlords get tarred with the same brush by the media and to some extent by the public at large because of the failure by a minority to behave as they should

aznon
14-11-2009, 09:57 AM
When issuing an s.8 for unpaid rent (g8 = mandatory ground), ensure that:
(1) Property is not in poor condition or that there have been occasions where you've failed to carry out repairs as requested by T, and
(2) You have given an address in England or Wales for service of documents on LL (otherwise rent will not be lawfully due - section 48 of Landlord and Tenant Act).

As (1) seems to almost certainly apply in your case, then T may use property's disrepair as a defence or counterclaim.

thanks tom999. the grounds are not for rent arrears as rent is up to date.
i have used the mandatory reason of re-occupying the property that i once lived in. could T still use same defence or counterclaim?
or could T use same defence or counterclaim due to my conduct from the previous years?

tom999
14-11-2009, 11:31 AM
(1) What grounds?

"i have used the mandatory reason of re-occupying the property that i once lived in. could T still use same defence or counterclaim?"
Is this s.8 g1?
If so, you mentioned in post 57 (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=168117&postcount=57), that g1 had not been served prior to tenancy commencing. Is this true?

(2) Tenant may still take action, e.g. claim under s.11 of L&T Act 1985 - and you may risk prosecution (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2007/01/03/major-landlord-to-be-prosecuted-on-gas-fire-charges-50142-18371199/2/) from the Council as well.

(3) Start getting quotes for repair works now and begin ASAP.

aznon
14-11-2009, 23:20 PM
thanks tom999 i am arranging for the work to be done in-line with the EH demands. the notice i have given means that it wont actually go to court until 2 months so into early next year and i believe that the lack of any paperwork from the T moving in can be overlooked in some circumstances.

latest development is that today i received a letter from my T demanding that i provide certificates for various things. one of those was for proof that i have insurance. T went on to say i have to provide the documents requested by law. is this true? if so, what documents do i have to provide. T has asked for the entire amount of documentation to cover every year of tenancy, but T does know that i do not have the majority. is this something i can ignore?

tom999
15-11-2009, 07:51 AM
i am arranging for the work to be done in-line with the EH demands.Good.

the notice i have given means that it wont actually go to court until 2 months so into early next year and i believe that the lack of any paperwork from the T moving in can be overlooked in some circumstances.Yes, but which notice was served (as mentioned in post #99)?


i received a letter from my T demanding that i provide certificates for various things. one of those was for proof that i have insurance. T went on to say i have to provide the documents requested by law. is this true? if so, what documents do i have to provide.Certificates you will need to provide to T are:

An annual Gas Safety Certificate (CP12). Last year's (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=167567&postcount=21) seems to have been done, and this years (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=167595&postcount=33)?
From October 2008, any new lettings require an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate).

However, as a LL, you also have other statutory obligations, some of which have been mentioned on this thread. For example, an electrical safety test would be a good idea, to ensure the electrical system is safe for the T. Instead of receiving advice from internet forum(s) - some of which may not be correct, you can get accurate, legally compliant advice on all 'landlording' matters by joining a landlord's assocation (NLA, RLA).

aznon
17-11-2009, 16:01 PM
are there any credentials that an electrical engineer needs to have that would equate to the gas safe engineers? or can i use any high street electrician to do electrical repairs?

aznon
17-11-2009, 16:05 PM
tom999 in reply to your question (Yes, but which notice was served (as mentioned in post #99) s8 g1 as i intend to reoccupy the property.

gas certificate has expired (only a few weeks) but have arranged gas fitter to visit the property and i will have a new and current CP12 by the end of this week.

aznon
18-11-2009, 18:55 PM
today i visited my property after allowing 24 hours written notice. on my arrival, T refused my entry and said they had written to explain the refusal.
i returned home to find a letter delivered by RM post from T stating that "I (LL) had inspected the property last year, only to ignore the list of outstanding repairs and that i would not be welcome to attend my property until invited, however i can arrange for the necessary experts to attend the property to carry out the list of repairs as of 2008.

can my T do this or can I gain access without T's consent?

westminster
18-11-2009, 19:01 PM
today i visited my property after allowing 24 hours written notice. on my arrival, T refused my entry and said they had written to explain the refusal.
i returned home to find a letter delivered by RM post from T stating that "I (LL) had inspected the property last year, only to ignore the list of outstanding repairs and that i would not be welcome to attend my property until invited, however i can arrange for the necessary experts to attend the property to carry out the list of repairs as of 2008.

can my T do this or can I gain access without T's consent?

You need T's consent OR a court order for access. But it's not going to count in the T's favour if they complain of disrepair but won't allow access to inspect - personally I would immediately advise the EHO of T's non-cooperation. It's not reasonable to refuse access to view the disrepair - you're the one paying the contractors to carry out the work and you need to see it in order to instruct contractors.

aznon
18-11-2009, 20:05 PM
You need T's consent OR a court order for access. But it's not going to count in the T's favour if they complain of disrepair but won't allow access to inspect - personally I would immediately advise the EHO of T's non-cooperation. It's not reasonable to refuse access to view the disrepair - you're the one paying the contractors to carry out the work and you need to see it in order to instruct contractors.

i did visit the property last year and took photos. the repairs are the ones remaining from that time. T has stated that contracters will be permitted to carry out observations and repairs but states that i have had my full oppertunity to inspect and have gone on to neglect my findings.

T will argue that co-operation was offered only to be rejected. is the favour with myself or my T in this situation?

tom999
18-11-2009, 20:13 PM
Agree with westminster in post #105.

(1) Send letter to T (keep copy & proof of postage) requesting access for urgent property maintenance works within XX days.
(2) If no response, repeat (1), except stating that T's refusal of access is denying LL to perform statutory obligations.

This way you have proof that you attempted to carry out repairs, but T's refusal preventing you doing so; in case council/EHO contact you regarding repairs.

aznon
18-11-2009, 20:26 PM
Agree with westminster in post #105.

(1) Send letter to T (keep copy & proof of postage) requesting access for urgent property maintenance works within XX days.
(2) If no response, repeat (1), except stating that T's refusal of access is denying LL to perform statutory obligations.

This way you have proof that you attempted to carry out repairs, but T's refusal preventing you doing so; in case council/EHO contact you regarding repairs.

i have already written to T insisting that i have no statutory obligations to perform!

i have no idea about electricty, gas, or plumming matters. i am not too experienced at landlording and my T knows this and has suggested that the expertise should be adequate and appropriate to the tasks in hand.
are my T's reasons for excluding myself, adequately addressed or acceptable under the circumstances as EHO are re-visiting old requests that have been left undone by myself?

tom999
18-11-2009, 20:27 PM
are there any credentials that an electrical engineer needs to have that would equate to the gas safe engineers? or can i use any high street electrician to do electrical repairs?Electricians who are NAPIT or NICEIC (http://www.niceic.com/en/specifier/section.asp?SECTION=47) registered. I've satisfactorily used both types.


are my T's reasons for excluding myself, adequately addressed or acceptable under the circumstances as EHO are re-visiting old requests that have been left undone by myself?If you're happy with getting quotes from tradespeople without viewing property, then go ahead; but, personally I would want to assess property with handymen/contractors myself - this is not an unreasonable request as a LL, as you're paying for works to be done.

aznon
18-11-2009, 21:05 PM
Electricians who are NAPIT or NICEIC (http://www.niceic.com/en/specifier/section.asp?SECTION=47) registered. I've satisfactorily used both types.

If you're happy with getting quotes from tradespeople without viewing property, then go ahead; but, personally I would want to assess property with handymen/contractors myself - this is not an unreasonable request as a LL, as you're paying for works to be done.

thanks tom999.
with the absence of an agreement or rent book, could i still proceed to obtain a court order & can i obtain one speadily due to serving notice for T to quit the property?

tom999
18-11-2009, 21:30 PM
with the absence of an agreement or rent book, could i still proceed to obtain a court order & can i obtain one speadily due to serving notice for T to quit the property?

This has been discussed to an extent earlier in this thread, as in post #103, you mention that s8 g1 has been served.

However, in post #57 (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=168117&postcount=57):

Before the current letting was granted, did you serve a g1 Notice?

i bet you could guess my answer already.
no. no paperwork at all. nothing. not even a reciept for the bond.

The legal experts on this forum may correct me, but for a valid s.8 g1, it must have been served before the tenancy started.

post #92
(http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=170964&postcount=92)
i have now seen my solicitor and was advised to serve a s8 on mandatory grounds.
Is serving s.8 g1 what your solicitor advised?
Were any other grounds mentioned?

aznon
18-11-2009, 21:57 PM
This has been discussed to an extent earlier in this thread, as in post #103, you mention that s8 g1 has been served.

However, in post #57 (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=168117&postcount=57):



The legal experts on this forum may correct me, but for a valid s.8 g1, it must have been served before the tenancy started.

post #92
(http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=170964&postcount=92)
Is serving s.8 g1 what your solicitor advised?
Were any other grounds mentioned?

some routes were explored but seem to be unobtainable, including the introduction of a modern agreement wheras both parties would sign but would inevitably become a pathway to securing an end to the tenancy within a period of time. this route seemed to be the favourable conclusion but it was not without potential complications and by no means certain to succeed as i have already undermined the potential that this approach might have otherwise had.

westminster
18-11-2009, 23:00 PM
i have already written to T insisting that i have no statutory obligations to perform!
But it has surely since dawned on you that you do....?


i have no idea about electricty, gas, or plumming matters. i am not too experienced at landlording and my T knows this and has suggested that the expertise should be adequate and appropriate to the tasks in hand.
are my T's reasons for excluding myself, adequately addressed or acceptable under the circumstances as EHO are re-visiting old requests that have been left undone by myself?
As you are going to be paying contractors to do work for you, regardless of your ignorance you need to be there when they inspect, so that they can discuss/explain their reasoning and approach to you. It's not acceptable for the tenant to expect the contractor to visit without you, their client, present. I repeat - report tenant's non-cooperation to the EHO.

aznon
19-11-2009, 20:53 PM
today i recieved phone call from gas safe engineer who had arived at my let property. i promptly arrived and was greeted by my T who said that i could not enter the property. i asked to speak to my engineer who was in the property preparing to start his checks. my gas engineer did come out of the property to speak to me and i asked him to leave the inspection undone as T would not let me in.

bearing in mind that the last gas safety certificate expired during october, am i within my rights to have done this as i now intend to provide 24 hours notice and accompany the gas fitter on his return.

Snorkerz
19-11-2009, 21:07 PM
Dodgy... T has right to not allow you in. Gas safety inspection is a legal requirement and T did not prevent engineer carrying out his tasks - you did. There is a difference between this, where your presence is not really needed, and an inspection for works where you will be paying and therefore have a 'moral' right to make sure the works are legitimate - and afterwards - have been carried out correctly.

Subway
19-11-2009, 23:24 PM
today i recieved phone call from gas safe engineer who had arived at my let property. i promptly arrived and was greeted by my T who said that i could not enter the property. i asked to speak to my engineer who was in the property preparing to start his checks. my gas engineer did come out of the property to speak to me and i asked him to leave the inspection undone as T would not let me in.

bearing in mind that the last gas safety certificate expired during october, am i within my rights to have done this as i now intend to provide 24 hours notice and accompany the gas fitter on his return.

I think you are just going to go round in circles on this one as the tenant will refuse to let you in again and you will be in the same position as today. The gas check is already late - I wouldn't push this further given your history on gas checks. Why would gas engineer need to call you?

Pick your battles and use lack of access to delay the more serious works, if you must, as previously advised. You can't just barge your way into someone elses home - with or without 24 hours notice. Much as you must hate these tenants you must work within the rules.

BTW have you sorted out inspection / quote for roof related works? With current rain leaving this unattended will only be causing you more damage and thus money in the long run. You can be present to get this sorted out as external to house.

tom999
20-11-2009, 06:45 AM
Get the Gas Safety Check (GSC) done ASAP, especially when this concerns T's safety; most GSC's are done without LL present any way; at least this proves to anyone that you are serious about getting the other problems fixed.

aznon
16-12-2009, 10:52 AM
my tenant paid 1 month rent in advance plus deposit equal to that amount of 1 months rent, in 1996. my question is, do i need to place the original amount into the deposit scheme and should i have done this already?

as the amount was equivelant to another months rent, as of then, could i treat the payment as rent rather than a deposit?

Poppy
16-12-2009, 10:55 AM
If you have not agreed nor signed any new tenancy agreements on or after 6 April 2007, then the deposit does not need to be protected.

tom999
16-12-2009, 11:14 AM
...Additionally, deposit does not require protection, if:

tenancy is not an AST; or
tenancy is not in England or Wales; or
annual rate of rent > £25k.


aznon: Is this the tenancy you are refering to?:
Once-quiet T making expensive demands: have I messed-up? (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23492)

Poppy
16-12-2009, 11:14 AM
I remember you, you're the member that makes other members spit tea at their monitors.

Three years on, please do not think up ways to renege on your agreement to take a deposit, which the tenant duly paid and you now want to see if you can miraculously treat it as rent.

I’d like to ask are you writing this from prison having killed a tenant through some disastrous event, but I won’t.

aznon
16-12-2009, 11:33 AM
...Additionally, deposit does not require protection, if:

tenancy is not an AST; or
tenancy is not in England or Wales; or
annual rate of rent > £25k.


aznon: Is this the tenancy you are refering to?:
Once-quiet T making expensive demands: have I messed-up? (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23492)
yes tom999 precisely the one. my
tenant has contacted regarding this and insisted that i had an obligation to protect the deposit as and when i tryed to "impose the agreement" on them. incidently i had scribbled out the section in that agreement that covered the tds and signed it off as not applicable. tenant refused to sign anyway although i had signed and had my witness sign accordingly.

Poppy
16-12-2009, 11:39 AM
Please tell us whether there is a new tenancy agreement in place since 6 April 2007, whether written or not?

aznon
16-12-2009, 11:42 AM
Please tell us whether there is a new tenancy agreement in place since 6 April 2007, whether written or not?
NO. no new agreement as both parties did not sign. see post #5

Poppy
16-12-2009, 11:46 AM
Then the deposit does not need to be protected in a scheme.

aznon
16-12-2009, 11:55 AM
thankyou poppy.
you may be pleased to hear that the tenants are alive and well, but still a nuisance.
statements from the tenant report that they remain "cold" and "harrassed" but unwilling to leave the property despite their "ordeal"

aznon
22-12-2009, 21:17 PM
would anyone know a definitive answer to this?

my T has been paying rent on a monthly (4 weekly) basis.
several weeks ago, due to the tenancy nearing an end, i decided to have the rent collected for me, on a fortnightly basis.

i realised that this would cause some inconvenience to my T as it now meant that they must wait in on the said day until my appointed friend was able to attend and collect the cash.

today i recieved a letter from my T which says that this constitutes harassement, they go on to say that they feel intimidated by my friend whom they describe as menacing and that they refuse to deal with him further.

my question is:
can T's refusal to deal with my appointed friend, be used to my advantage?

aznon
22-12-2009, 21:45 PM
Although it is in order for you to nominate your friend as your agent (did you notify the tenants of this in advance in writing?) it seems inappropriate to change the collection arrangements against the wishes of your tenant.

I do not think it constitutes harassment, but I can understand your Ts' frustration. It is unreasonable to expect them to wait in fortnightly when up to now they have only been inconvenienced monthly.

The simple solution is for them to pay the cash into your bank themselves every month, but unless they are happy to do that, you would be advised to revert to your previous arrangement for the last part of their tenancy and collect it yourself, monthly, if they find your mate too scary to contemplate. Otherwise they may use the disruption to their routine as an excuse for not paying it at all. Don't rock the boat!

i didnt notify in writing but did verbally tell my T assertively that they should now pay rent fortnightly, in cash, direct to my friend. my T did agree at the time thanks to a nudge in the right direction from my friend. my T now wants the full name and address of my friend, which is something i would prefer not to provide. the payments were previously by made by cheque.

would it be to my benefit if i allowed my friend to contimue attending, but leave empty handed until the arrears reach a required amount to encourage my T to discredit themselves??

jeffrey
22-12-2009, 21:46 PM
aznon: what -exactly- does the Tenancy Agreement's wording state about rent frequency and payment arrangements?

aznon
22-12-2009, 21:49 PM
jeffrey - no Tenancy Agreement exists. the only reference to rent payments relate to a letter from myself and written to T of many months ago stating that rent was due on a four weekly basis.

jeffrey
22-12-2009, 21:53 PM
So how can such a vague arrangement be 'nearing its end', when there never was a fixed term?
And did you not think formality a good precaution? The apparently vague situation is self-induced.

aznon
22-12-2009, 22:17 PM
i am sorry you feel this way "mind the gap" i am attempting to be as honest as posiible to recieve as accurate as possible feedback. i have no desire to offend either yourself or poppy. it was infact my intention to relieve myself from the stress of landlordship as i do realise that i am unable to properly cope. when persons with no other intention than to poke fun and make accusations decide to continuely post irrelevant comments, this becomes somewot frustrating. i could have just lied and said i was the model landlord, but i would have recieved wholly innapropriate advice, much like that of a small amount of members intent on airing their insignificant views of myself.

again i am sorry to have caused you offence

Poppy
22-12-2009, 22:25 PM
Do you honestly think it is acceptable landlord behaviour to unilaterally change the rent payment frequency from four weeks to two? I certainly don't.

aznon
22-12-2009, 22:36 PM
would any other landlord or member of this forum, consider the oppertunity to inconvenience a tenant that they view as awkward? i think that the frequency of rent payments, where initially agreed verbally with T, do not become unacceptable only because poppy thinks that a troll exists here. seperating all relevent facts from any accusations of trolls, my T has top-ups provided by HB on a two weekly basis, the same frequency as discussed with my T and as maintained for several weeks prior to my recipt of their letter.

Moderator1
23-12-2009, 09:38 AM
Several separate threads by same member have been merged here. Do not cause problems by starting continuation threads; use the same one.

Paul Gibbs
23-12-2009, 09:57 AM
I think that you cannot just change the rent payment dates without agreement from the tenants.

The tenants would be entitled to pay by cheque, and for this to be sent to you (and therefore they avoid visits from you or your friend). I do not think you could properly refuse the rent, and if your friend continued to call round demanding rent when they have already sent cheques in my opinion that would constitute harassment.

aznon
23-12-2009, 10:33 AM
I think that you cannot just change the rent payment dates without agreement from the tenants.

The tenants would be entitled to pay by cheque, and for this to be sent to you (and therefore they avoid visits from you or your friend). I do not think you could properly refuse the rent, and if your friend continued to call round demanding rent when they have already sent cheques in my opinion that would constitute harassment.

thankyou Paul Gibbs.
there have been several payments already from T using the two week frequency. would this not in itself show T as willing to accept the new frequency from which they would now like to backtrack?
and as HB top-ups are provided to T on a two weekly schedule, would it be appropriate for the payments to relate directly to the frequency as paid from HB to T?

westminster
23-12-2009, 18:02 PM
@aznon, I don't think you are a troll, but clearly, several weeks after your spectacular debut on the forum, you continue to struggle with the idea of your liabilities and obligations as a landlord, having lived in ignorance for 14 years.


would anyone know a definitive answer to this?

my T has been paying rent on a monthly (4 weekly) basis.
several weeks ago, due to the tenancy nearing an end, i decided to have the rent collected for me, on a fortnightly basis.

i realised that this would cause some inconvenience to my T as it now meant that they must wait in on the said day until my appointed friend was able to attend and collect the cash.

today i recieved a letter from my T which says that this constitutes harassement, they go on to say that they feel intimidated by my friend whom they describe as menacing and that they refuse to deal with him further.

my question is:
can T's refusal to deal with my appointed friend, be used to my advantage?


i didnt notify in writing but did verbally tell my T assertively that they should now pay rent fortnightly, in cash, direct to my friend. my T did agree at the time thanks to a nudge in the right direction from my friend. my T now wants the full name and address of my friend, which is something i would prefer not to provide. the payments were previously by made by cheque.

would it be to my benefit if i allowed my friend to contimue attending, but leave empty handed until the arrears reach a required amount to encourage my T to discredit themselves??

I note you say the tenancy is "nearing its end", but IIRC this is an assured tenancy, the tenants have no plans to leave, and you are having difficulty finding any legal ground to evict, so in what way is the tenancy "nearing its end"?

Reading between the lines, you appear to be deliberately acting with the purpose of 'encouraging' T to fall into arrears (thereby giving you grounds to evict) by making it as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible to pay the rent. As such, you are already demonstrating the degree of calculated intent necessary to commit an act of criminal harassment, albeit I don't know whether what you have done actually constitutes harassment as I am not qualified to judge, nor do we know whether your friend has been menacing towards the T as alleged.

Given that the tenants have involved the EHO, and have generally woken up to their rights as tenants, it is highly likely that they are seeking advice as regards harassment. Note that there are serious consequences for harassment of tenants, such as heavy fines/damages and custodial sentences. You are already exposed to a claim for damages for the appalling disrepair, and now you have embarked on a 'plan' that could possibly end up in prosecution for harassment.

I strongly urge you to 1) find a specialist landlord and tenant solicitor to advise you, and 2) carry out the repairs demanded by the EHO, because everything you say suggests that you have no idea of where your dangerously naive approach to landlording could lead you.

p.s. PainSmith solicitors are specialist in landlord and tenant law. Although I have no personal experience of them, from what I have read, they are a highly respected firm.

http://www.painsmith.co.uk/

Subway
24-12-2009, 02:36 AM
Aznon you are like a slow car crash, but compulsive viewing.

You need to consider whether your tenants are giving you enough rope to hang yourself on each of these issues. You believe your tenants are devious, bent on revenge and trying to make your life hell so is it a possibility they are being devious enough to set you up for harrassment charges (helped obviously by your own actions and those of the nameless nudger)?

Think

long

and

hard

about

this...


Would they like to see you fined and possibly looking at a custodial term?

Would this make their day?

If so then take heed of the advice previously given. Consider running any further tactics you come up with which you think may help you inconvenience / get your own back / get rid of the tenants past the more experienced members here first. Play a slow and patient game. AND ABOVE ALL ACT LEGALLY.

If you think they are currently clueless and will also never relay their experiences to anyone else even once they have moved out who may know a bit about tenancy law then carry on. You may well get them out sooner. Sounds like they are starting to crack under the strain of the living conditions and your more recent masterful move with the menacing friend. I guess the snow may help your cause. And come on, fess up, have you a little Christmas surprise or two planned for them...?? An advance run through here may help fine tune any plans you have.

Regardless, updates appreciated.

Subway
24-12-2009, 02:50 AM
I remember you, you're the member that makes other members spit tea at their monitors.



Interesting that you remember this comment I made, as it strangely appears to have been deleted from the thread!

:eek:

sicon
24-12-2009, 07:08 AM
This Christmas I can't help but really feel for these tenants. They've lived in a house for 13 years paying a landlords mortgage that whole time having been no bother and always paying on time and now this landlord has turned out to be not just a Scrooge but a (insert vulgar four letter expletive here).

For nearly ten years I lived in a rented property. After 18 months of being there, the landlord reduced the rent as my housemate had moved out and I couldn't afford the whole amount. The rent has stayed at this reduced rate for nearly seven years.
Unlike this Erudite,Aznon, my landlord realised the value of a tenant who paid rent on time every time, looked after the house and caused no problems and despite the house being rented under Market value, his mortgage was completely covered and his property price was always rising.
In return, I got a great deal but never bothered him. When I had a leak, I called and paid for the plumber or when next door wanted a contribution to a new fence, I paid it.
So there's a deal that's not too dissimilar to this threads beginnings.
However this relationship worked on trust, respect and honour not on greed, selfishness and arrogance.
If my landlord had increased the rent to more like Market value, I would have then expected that the property be similarly brought up to the standard of similar rentals. It's obvious.
For those of you who are landlords here then at least you can draw solace in knowing that whatever mistakes you may make in your ownership of property, you never have to resort to the po faced ignorance of this lunatic.

Merry Xmas one and all. Spare a thought for these tenants.

aznon
31-12-2009, 01:52 AM
i am currently having some (limited) success in dealing with my T and have managed to negotiate a reasonable conclusion to some of their concerns.
i would still prefer to reoccupy the property as i am not particularly suited to being a landlord, i have expressed my intentions and T is aware that i still wish them to vacate the property soon.

T has made a suggestion that they would be prepared to accept a small rent increase on the condition that i undertake outstanding work with immediate effect.

having served an s21 which is probarbly doomed to failure, could i now increase the rent slightly and would a rent increase render the s21 completely useless or cause any other problems that i should have forseen?

any information would be appreciated.

westminster
31-12-2009, 10:58 AM
any information would be appreciated.

Appreciated in what way? You ignore almost all the advice you're given.

The s.21 notice is not valid because this is not an assured shorthold tenancy.

aznon
02-01-2010, 23:25 PM
thank you westminster for you response. in answer to your question, Appreciated in what way? since following advice from this forum, i have taken steps to re-build some bridges with my T in order to reach a compromise that will allow time for them to find alternative accomodation and enjoy a period in which they can enjoy my property according to their wishes.

myself & T are unlikely to become best of friends but most advice seems to suggest that i should attempt to reach a compromise. i accept that i am deaply suspicious about T's motives in offering to accept a small rent increase at this time, and wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind their suggestion.

J4L
03-01-2010, 00:35 AM
lol

"enjoy my property"

I've just spent an hour reading this thread and I'm not sure if I've fallen asleep and woken up in the sixties!!!

I have to say I'm expecting this thread to keep on till about April 1st :rolleyes:

mind the gap
28-03-2010, 18:54 PM
. i accept that i am deaply suspicious about T's motives in offering to accept a small rent increase at this time, and wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind their suggestion.

Perhaps they have gone mad.

( I would have, in their situation).

Mars Mug
28-03-2010, 19:14 PM
Perhaps they have gone mad.

( I would have, in their situation).

One of the side effects from carbon-monoxide poisoning perhaps? (post #19)

jeffrey
01-04-2010, 15:52 PM
No, it's a by-product of loonies' carbon footprints.

Snorkerz
01-04-2010, 19:32 PM
I'm expecting this thread to keep on till about April 1st :rolleyes:Ah, here we are - will it turn into something else at midnight?

mind the gap
01-04-2010, 19:34 PM
Ah, here we are - will it turn into something else at midnight?

Well, I'm all in suspen...








....se.

Snorkerz
01-04-2010, 19:39 PM
Well, I'm all in suspen...









....ders.




sorry MTG - obviously feeling a little silly tonight.

jeffrey
02-04-2010, 13:22 PM
....ders.




sorry MTG - obviously feeling a little silly tonight.
These comments assume you are in England/Wales, pay less than £2083 per month rent and that your last tenancy agreement was dated after 6th April 2007.
Yes, it is a bit daft to use a disclaimer in less-serious posts!

Snorkerz
02-04-2010, 15:26 PM
Yes, it is a bit daft to use a disclaimer in less-serious posts!If MTG pays more than £2083 per month rent in Yorkshire then she is obviously wealthy enough to be able to afford a heavy-weight legal team to sue me. In that case, my post wouldn't apply because the apology would be much more grovelling.

mind the gap
02-04-2010, 15:40 PM
If MTG pays more than £2083 per month rent in Yorkshire then she is obviously wealthy enough to be able to afford a heavy-weight legal team to sue me. In that case, my post wouldn't apply because the apology would be much more grovelling.

Well, I can tell thee that our cardboard box is bloody luxurious next to some folks' 'omes, but it costs nowt like that!

Snorkerz
02-04-2010, 16:17 PM
Well, I can tell thee that our cardboard box is bloody luxurious next to some folks' 'omes, but it costs nowt like that!

CARDBOARD BOX! You've got a bleedin cardboard box? When I was a lad you were lucky if you got the "Daily Mirror" to kip under because the grown-ups had the big 'Telegraph'. Eee, autumn leaves in an empty crisp paket made a grand 'Duvet' - but we were't wealthy enough to know that word.

P.S. I bet you got your cardboard box from Harvey Nicks didn't you?

mind the gap
02-04-2010, 16:22 PM
P.S. I bet you got your cardboard box from Harvey Nicks didn't you?
You're up the wrong tree there, lad. Nob'dy in Pontefract had even 'eard of Harvey Nicholls when I were a lass. Our first cardboard box were a solid respectable model from t' Yorkshire Co-op. We've gone up in the world a bit now and shop for us boxes at Debenhams.

jeffrey
04-04-2010, 13:51 PM
More posts re trees? Logical, because most posts were part of trees previously.