|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 16:38:39 GMT
That insight always seems to protect landlords and go against tenant protection though, funny that.  Given that I believe landlord/tenant law is already weighted heavily in favour of tenants, that doesn't necessarily strike me as a bad thing. Yet it clearly is a bad thing As a landlord I can see that - and as anyone acting in good faith can see - and as the Tories put in their own manifesto and which has cross party support What it proves is that despite those MPs who are landlords having direct experience of the system and having an insight that the man on the street doesn't have, they actually operate in a self interested way rather than what is best for those renting Indeed I'd go so far as to say that they probably don't really understand the system otherwise they would do what was right |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 16:43:47 GMT
Yet it clearly is a bad thing As a landlord I can see that - and as anyone acting in good faith can see - and as the Tories put in their own manifesto and which has cross party support What it proves is that despite those MPs who are landlords having direct experience of the system and having an insight that the man on the street doesn't have, they actually operate in a self interested way rather than what is best for those renting Indeed I'd go so far as to say that they probably don't really understand the system otherwise they would do what was right That isn't an argument, Lord E – it's a variation on the "all right-thinkers agree…" logical fallacy. And doing what is best for those renting doesn't necessarily involve giving renters' pressure groups what they want. If the rules become even more heavily weighted against landlords, the supply of properties could dry up, leading to even greater rent increases as demand outraces supply. One has to look at the bigger, longer-term picture. But you're right that the Tories inserted a ban on no-fault evictions in their last manifesto and have backtracked on it. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 16:59:47 GMT
I think there would be much greater clarity of action and interests if there were specific benefits and laws separating those who rent out 1 or at most 3 properties and those who have vested interests by having larger scale property portfolios.
Often those renting out 1 property only, often as an investment to fill pension gaps etc can fall foul of problem tenants and so need greater protection whilst those with a large portfolio just use the loopholes in laws to their own financial gain.
There also needs more protection for renters who claim to need the property for themselves or family to live in but then carry on renting shortly thereafter.
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 17:03:50 GMT
I think there would be much greater clarity of action and interests if there were specific benefits and laws separating those who rent out 1 or at most 3 properties and those who have vested interests by having larger scale property portfolios. That's an interesting proposal, and has some merit. I might set the figure a little higher than three, but there certainly comes the point where the "amateur" landlord (who relies on his letting agent for advice on the latest legal changes) becomes an institutional landlord with an in-house compliance team. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 17:16:25 GMT
No disagreement on problem tenants
BUT
since Theresa May was PM, successive Tory governments have pledged to end the right of landlords to reclaim possession of their property without rent arrears or bad behaviour by tenants
No fault evictions are something that the vast majority agree needs reform - you don't agree with it but that is pure self interest on your part unless you have can come up with a valid reason for these incessant delays? Or indeed a compelling argument to explain why it is something that the vast majority of MPs support but you don't
If a party makes a manifesto commitment that should be honoured without unnecessary delays
Ministry of Justice figures show use of section 21 notices has jumped 38% in a year as the promised ban has been delayed. The number of no fault evictions taken to court in England rose to 8,399 from July to September. The court threat alone is usually enough for tenants to quit, but bailiffs executed 2,307 section 21 evictions in that period – the most since before the pandemic. As the vast majority of renters will not fight an eviction notice in court the real numbers will be far higher
It's cynicism, pure and simple and should be sorted ASAP, as should the time it takes to evict problem tenants, which is the only reason for the continuation of section 21 notices
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 17:37:22 GMT
Or indeed a compelling argument to explain why it is something that the vast majority of MPs support but you don't Yes, I can. This is a further deviation from normal contract law to give tenants greater powers and landlords even fewer. In every other form of contract law, people can be sued if they fail to comply with a contract they have signed – quite correctly. In no other form of contract (unless I've missed something quite specific) can a party be compelled to renew an expired contract against their wishes, unless they can obtain a court order. It's also potentially bad news for tenants. Which sounds better when applying for another flat: "my landlord chose not to renew the lease because he wanted to go in a different direction with the property" (which may or may not be true) or "the landlord got a court order against me because I did x, y, z"? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 18:13:18 GMT
In every other form of contract law, people can be sued if they fail to comply with a contract they have signed – quite correctly. Exactly as they can in a tenancy agreement In no other form of contract (unless I've missed something quite specific) can a party be compelled to renew an expired contract against their wishes I don't know and the missus isnt around to ask But why does it matter? Why do you as a landlord need to have a series of short term tenancy agreements rather than make a long term commitment? Indeed surely it's better to have long term relationships? It's also potentially bad news for tenants. Which sounds better when applying for another flat: "my landlord chose not to renew the lease because he wanted to go in a different direction with the property" (which may or may not be true) or "the landlord got a court order against me because I did x, y, z"? If a Tenant got thrown out because of some misdemeanour whilst they were living in a rented property then that's their own fault. Any landlord should do their due diligence and get references from previous landlords, employers etc. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 23, 2023 13:25:13 GMT
In no other form of contract (unless I've missed something quite specific) can a party be compelled to renew an expired contract against their wishes I don't know and the missus isnt around to ask But why does it matter? Why do you as a landlord need to have a series of short term tenancy agreements rather than make a long term commitment? Indeed surely it's better to have long term relationships? It matters because it's unfair. In contract law, people are obliged to comply with the commitments they've made. However, they're not compelled to renew contracts if they choose not to. Why should a landlord be compelled to continue doing business with a tenant who is rude, unpleasant or persistently slightly late in paying the rent (without any of the breaches being so serious that a court order would choose to evict the tenant)? As for long-term landlord/tenant relationships, they're only binding one way. The landlord cannot evict the tenant early without obtaining a court order or committing a criminal offence. The tenant can simply say they want to leave and that they won't pay any further rent if the landlord fails to agree, challenging the landlord to sue them if they don't like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 23, 2023 14:26:18 GMT
What's not fair is the fact that the UK has amongst the highest rental costs in the world and renters live in constant fear of being evicted and so cannot plan ahead - thankfully MPs across all parties recognise this and will be doing something about it. If the Govt wasn't so pitifully wewak and inept it would have already happened
How many tenants have you had who are rude, unpleasant or persistently slightly late in paying the rent? And, if it has ever happened, how serious was it to you personally in the grand scheme of things?
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 23, 2023 15:03:48 GMT
How many tenants have you had who are rude, unpleasant or persistently slightly late in paying the rent? And, if it has ever happened, how serious was it to you personally in the grand scheme of things? As I said earlier, I've always been lucky with my tenants. Persistently slightly late in paying the rent? Never. Difficult tenants? Has happened a couple of times, but they merely needed managing correctly and went on to rent for me for several more years (one of them is still with me and is up to 15 years now). |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 23, 2023 15:38:35 GMT
So there you go
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 23, 2023 16:03:22 GMT
I don't know and the missus isnt around to ask But why does it matter? Why do you as a landlord need to have a series of short term tenancy agreements rather than make a long term commitment? Indeed surely it's better to have long term relationships? It matters because it's unfair. In contract law, people are obliged to comply with the commitments they've made. However, they're not compelled to renew contracts if they choose not to. Why should a landlord be compelled to continue doing business with a tenant who is rude, unpleasant or persistently slightly late in paying the rent (without any of the breaches being so serious that a court order would choose to evict the tenant)? As for long-term landlord/tenant relationships, they're only binding one way. The landlord cannot evict the tenant early without obtaining a court order or committing a criminal offence. The tenant can simply say they want to leave and that they won't pay any further rent if the landlord fails to agree, challenging the landlord to sue them if they don't like it. Then have a contract with 3 or whatever months notice which gives plenty of time to find another tenant. Seems easy enough unless I am missing something. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 23, 2023 16:13:14 GMT
No Doug. Once Section 21 is abolished a landlord will need to provide their tenants with a reason for ending a tenancy, for example: a breach of contract or wanting to sell the property
The tenant can stay in the property indefinitely but does have to give the Landlord two months notice before moving out
Clearly this means other parts of the law will need to be beefed up. Section 8 is the part of the law that lists the circumstances that Landlords can recover their property. The white paper last year said the legal changes aim to be comprehensive, fair, and efficient, and strike a balance between protecting tenants’ security and landlords’ right to manage their property
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 24, 2023 14:57:11 GMT
No Doug. Once Section 21 is abolished a landlord will need to provide their tenants with a reason for ending a tenancy, for example: a breach of contract or wanting to sell the property The tenant can stay in the property indefinitely but does have to give the Landlord two months notice before moving out Clearly this means other parts of the law will need to be beefed up. Section 8 is the part of the law that lists the circumstances that Landlords can recover their property. The white paper last year said the legal changes aim to be comprehensive, fair, and efficient, and strike a balance between protecting tenants’ security and landlords’ right to manage their property The claim of wanting the property back for themselves or family to live in will prove the loophole the Landlords require. Just stick a relative in it for a month and then re let it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 27, 2023 15:42:26 GMT
Interesting but not surprising article... UK spends more financing inequality in favour of rich than rest of Europe, report finds
Inequalities of income, wealth and power cost UK £106.2bn a year compared with average developed OECD countryBritain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Sahni-Nicholas said: “There is a direct financial cost to inequality: the consequences of structuring society to allow for massive profiteering for the richest at the expense of the rest of us have been enormous.”
Overreliance on financial systems that allow for massive profits and wealth-hoarding has hollowed out our infrastructure, she added, encouraging massive regional disparities and leaving the UK vulnerable to shocks and recessions.www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/nov/27/uk-spends-more-financing-inequality-in-favour-of-rich-than-rest-of-europe-report-finds |
|
