The joy of being a landlord

chrcoluk said:
Depends how long the tenancy is.

The biggest weakness of S8 as I understand it is getting people out for anti social behaviour (which is going to be buffed up when they drop S21), so usually S21 gets used instead, but S21 date cannot be during a tenancy period.

If you lucky it might just be a 6 month tenancy or rolling tenancy, if its the latter S21 2 months notice can be given.

Couple of years back I had a real messy tenant move in to the flat behind mine at back of house, constant uber eats at my door for them, several bags of rubbish left on pavement all week, after a few weeks of that, someone from council turned up, and issued a fine, I explained which property it was and it went to the LL, suffice to say that pretty much assured they were not getting renewed so gone within a year thankfully.

Just noticed the post about sub letting might be used as a reason for S8, agree with that as well.
Click to expand...
Landlords are aware there is subletting going on, so not sure whether that's also grounds for renewal they may use along with the ASBO.

Is subletting usually an additional clause in agreements? I wouldn't presume it comes as a standard allowance in your general letting agreement right?
 
Kanpai said:
Landlords are aware there is subletting going on, so not sure whether that's also grounds for renewal they may use along with the ASBO.

Is subletting usually an additional clause in agreements? I wouldn't presume it comes as a standard allowance in your general letting agreement right?
Click to expand...
I cant remember if its in my agreement, but its typically frowned upon, so I be surprised if it isnt in there. Of course not every LL will be using the same contract. So I guess only the LL and the tenants know if its in there or not.
 
Resident said:
Personally I'd like to see a licencing system, with the penalty of losing it being you forfeit all your properties, excluding your own home, to social housing.
Click to expand...
Liverpool Council ran a licensing system a few years back. All it was was a cash grab on legitimate landlords while the dodgy ones just ignored it. I didn't get anything worthwhile for paying it, no one even checked the property.
 
Quartz said:
Why? As a landlord I employ an agent to handle most of the work. I periodically check that they do it, of course.
Click to expand...
It may come in for England - in Wales, you have to have a licence irrespective of whether you use an agent. Ultimately, the agent can't force the landlord to act in a proper manner. Hence the requirement for registration.
Street said:
Liverpool Council ran a licensing system a few years back. All it was was a cash grab on legitimate landlords while the dodgy ones just ignored it. I didn't get anything worthwhile for paying it, no one even checked the property.
Click to expand...
This is largely how the Rent Smart Wales registration process is seen here. You have to renew every 5 years. It is considered a bit of a cash grab.

However, if you do not sign up, you will come into all sorts of problems - particularly when the landlord doesn't act when required or when the landlord requires posession.
 
Quartz said:
Sorry but I'm not seeing the need for registration. Laws can be enacted such that if a landlord fails to maintain their property they can be prosecuted. No need for registration and no need for more civil servants
Click to expand...
The process for a tenant to complain is via the rent smart Wales website. There are no additional civil servants required. You'll need "state" employees prosecuting errant landlords.

You may not see the need but I would be very surprised if Labour didn't introduce this system to the rest of the UK. It was Welsh Labour that brought in the current system here.
 
So a bit more detail has come out about the removal of section 21 and the adding of family members or selling as a carve out; the house only has to be unavailable to rent (e.g. family live in it or on sale) for 3 months, then they are proposing it would be fine to put it back on rent

As you already get probly a 1-2 month void using section 21 I'm really struggling to see how 1 more month is supposed to act as any sort of a deterrent
 
andybird123 said:
So a bit more detail has come out about the removal of section 21 and the adding of family members or selling as a carve out; the house only has to be unavailable to rent (e.g. family live in it or on sale) for 3 months, then they are proposing it would be fine to put it back on rent

As you already get probly a 1-2 month void using section 21 I'm really struggling to see how 1 more month is supposed to act as any sort of a deterrent
Click to expand...
If that is true then yeah it would be a bit of a joke, do you have any link to where you read this?
 
chrcoluk said:
If that is true then yeah it would be a bit of a joke, do you have any link to where you read this?
Click to expand...
It was in the NRLA magazine

Edit; a quick Google and its also referred to in the previous renters reform bill amendments;

Renters’ Reform Bill, Second Reading, House of Lords, 15 May 2024

We have argued for the Bill to go further in supporting tenants’ rights and providing stronger regulatory and enforcement powers, and for government to ensure sufficient funding councils to enforce these measures and fully realise our shared ambition for a fairer, more secure, and higher quality...
www.local.gov.uk www.local.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
fez said:
in wor
Click to expand...
fez said:
Thats a huge problem. Unfortunately, far too many people on benefits are not good tenants. There are houses on my road with a very high turnover of tenants and they are far too often the absolute dregs of society. I know its not fair or correct but as a landlord I would much rather rent to someone in work than on benefits because a bad tenant can cost you tens of thousands of pounds.
Click to expand...
Just like many working people who rent would much prefer to be able to buy. Genuinely transient workers are also just as likely to not take care of your property.
 
McGraw said:
Genuinely transient workers are also just as likely to not take care of your property.
Click to expand...
Definition required --- I've rented for 6 years in total and I took care of every house I lived in to the extent of keeping it clean and tidy. I never did a single repair on any of them though.
 
andybird123 said:
It was in the NRLA magazine

Edit; a quick Google and its also referred to in the previous renters reform bill amendments;

Renters’ Reform Bill, Second Reading, House of Lords, 15 May 2024

We have argued for the Bill to go further in supporting tenants’ rights and providing stronger regulatory and enforcement powers, and for government to ensure sufficient funding councils to enforce these measures and fully realise our shared ambition for a fairer, more secure, and higher quality...
www.local.gov.uk www.local.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Yeah I see the reference to it, wow it feels like typical tax laws where there is built in holes.

This as I understand it though is the Tories reform plan, its possible Labour will make it more robust than this in their own implementation.

Similar weak law was introduced regarding when councils do an enforcement order for repairs, it gives the tenant immunity to revenge S21 notices, but is only for a very small 3 month period, which is almost meaningless, just an extra 3 months to find somewhere else to live.
 
Last edited:
chrcoluk said:
Yeah I see the reference to it, wow it feels like typical tax laws where there is built in holes.

This as I understand it though is the Tories reform plan, its possible Labour will make it more robust than this in their own implementation.

Similar weak law was introduced regarding when councils do an enforcement order for repairs, it gives the tenant immunity to revenge S21 notices, but is only for a very small 3 month period, which is almost meaningless, just an extra 3 months to find somewhere else to live.
Click to expand...
Labour are continuing the renters reform bill so far
 
andybird123 said:
So a bit more detail has come out about the removal of section 21 and the adding of family members or selling as a carve out; the house only has to be unavailable to rent (e.g. family live in it or on sale) for 3 months, then they are proposing it would be fine to put it back on rent

As you already get probly a 1-2 month void using section 21 I'm really struggling to see how 1 more month is supposed to act as any sort of a deterrent
Click to expand...

I rented a house a while ago (whilst still saving for a deposit). Whilst in the property the roof began leaking quite severely into the room my infant daughter was using (don't worry, we stopped using the room) we informed the landlord and her response was a S21 and she stated that she couldn't afford the repair so was selling up.

3 weeks after we moved out, our former neighbour bumped into us and stated that the house had a new tenant.

I spoke to the council who looked into in and the landlord ended up with a huge fine. The house was deemed unfit for habitation due to the roof damage.

ColdAsIce said:
Previous LL I had would have lost his **** if I attempted any repairs myself. Guy was a control freak but I just left him to it.
Click to expand...

When I was in my early twenties and living at home, my parents rented. The toilet flush broke (syphon unit) so it was just flushing constantly.

I rang the landlord and he said he'd send a plumber but it'd be 2 days as it was the weekend. Told him I could buy the part and fit it that day (I know basic plumbing). He said fine, send him a photo of the reciepts and he'll work out a discount on the rent.

Come the end of the month he called my mum and told her the rent was covered for the next month, which was nice. Goes to show there are some good LLs out there
 
Resident said:
spoke to the council who looked into in and the landlord ended up with a huge fine. The house was deemed unfit for habitation due to the roof damage.
Click to expand...
Good on you. If more people made use of the current rules and councils actually followed through on bad landlords it would actually help much more than just arbitrarily altering the rules without having enforcement to back it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fez
Resident said:
I spoke to the council who looked into in and the landlord ended up with a huge fine. The house was deemed unfit for habitation due to the roof damage.
Click to expand...

An excellent outcome. Should be the norm. If you don't get issues fixed within a reasonable amount of time then the fine should make the cost of fixing the issue seem trivial. If you can't afford to be a landlord then you shouldn't be one (risk vs reward) and if you are incapable of providing safe houses then you shouldn't be providing them at all.
 
fez said:
An excellent outcome. Should be the norm. If you don't get issues fixed within a reasonable amount of time then the fine should make the cost of fixing the issue seem trivial. If you can't afford to be a landlord then you shouldn't be one (risk vs reward) and if you are incapable of providing safe houses then you shouldn't be providing them at all.
Click to expand...

BTL mortgages are, imo, the biggest problem with the rental markets & should never have been a thing. They're a ticking timebomb worthy of the 2008 bank crash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom