Renters would get longer tenancies under government plans

Good news for tenants and the professional landords.

Hot on heels of stopping the bad landlords from issuing a retailatory Section 21 (no fault notice to quit) if the tenant complains to the council about the repairs the landlord is not doing, or because they have not raised the standard of the property as fit to let (higher than to sell/buy) comes the 3 year tenancy. Like Germany already has, tenants will have a fixed term/rent contract, but they will be be able to leave earlier if they want to. Abuse always gets shut down. Although not quite the 5 years fixed tenancy that Germany has and that the professional landlords were expecting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44671094


The next one the professional landlords expect, to push out the bad landlords, is registration for all those who would like to let a property. Where it makes it easier for tenants' to report bad landlords who are not keeping to the laws and get them struck off the register. Wales already has this.

So this is for England ony?

Meh. When you've chopped someone's arm off, you don't hand them a band-aid. Rents are still too high, there are too few opportunities for first-time buyers, too much buy-to-let, and house prices are still obscene. When the government deals with that, then I'll applaud. Measures like this do nothing real to redress the imbalance between homeowners and renters.

Yup, landlords get away with murder here.  The slum lords won’t care about this and the government doesn’t have the resources to enforce it.

On the other hand, how do you deal with the problem tenants? My husband’s grandmother let her home to a retired couple when she moved to America 7 years ago, because that’s where her only daughter/child (husband’s mom) lives. Grandmother is 92. She basically pays more in repairs than she’s getting in rental income. Granted it’s a 200+ year old house and may require more maintenance, some requests just seem excessive.

2 years ago, my husband and I stopped by the house because he wanted to show me where he spent his childhood summers. The tenants were nice enough to oblige our visit and this is where we discovered how much they changed the house to suit themselves. Like they covered up the pond in the garden (for the safety of their grandchildren), changed the layout (knocked down a wall), plastered over a brick wall (this was one of the home’s features), converted a store/stock room into a bedroom for their unemployed son, etc. Changes grandmother weren’t aware of until after the fact. But she put up with them because it was the better option than leaving the house looking abandoned and prone to vandalism, being it’s in the middle of nowhere in Scotland.

Now that we’re here, grandmother suggested asking the tenants to leave. The tenants didn’t even sign a long term lease and they were the ones who wanted to keep it to a month-to-month agreement. But the rental agency said it was near impossible to make them leave because the tenants are always protected by the law. Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the other hand, how do you deal with the problem tenants? My husband’s grandmother let her home to a retired couple when she moved to America 7 years ago, because that’s where her only daughter/child (husband’s mom) lives. Grandmother is 92. She basically pays more in repairs than she’s getting in rental income. Granted it’s a 200+ year old house and may require more maintenance, some requests just seem excessive.

2 years ago, my husband and I stopped by the house because he wanted to show me where he spent his childhood summers. The tenants were nice enough to oblige our visit and this is where we discovered how much they changed the house to suit themselves. Like they covered up the pond in the garden (for the safety of their grandchildren), changed the layout (knocked down a wall), plastered over a brick wall (this was one of the home’s features), converted a store/stock room into a bedroom for their unemployed son, etc. Changes grandmother weren’t aware of until after the fact. But she put up with them because it was the better option than leaving the house looking abandoned and prone to vandalism, being it’s in the middle of nowhere in Scotland.

Now that we’re here, grandmother suggested asking the tenants to leave. The tenants didn’t even sign a long term lease and they were the ones who wanted to keep it to a month-to-month agreement. But the rental agency said it was near impossible to make them leave because the tenants are always protected by the law. Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can appreciate them asking if they can put a fence or something around a pond for safety of little ones or something....or even *asking* if they can cover over the pond.....but it's absolutely SHOCKING to me that they decided to knock down a wall/plaster a feature wall without actually getting consent from the landlord. Yes, adding a new room could arguably add value but this would be something that I would have assumed would need approval from the homeowner prior to just cracking on and doing it. I'm hoping that these aren't things they were asking compensation for in the form of "repairs"? I could understand expecting to get a break if they plastered a damaged wall or something, but even then, I would assume that there would be a discussion with the landlord RE the work that will be done and if it's okay with the actual homeowner to make these changes.....that's bold as brass. I guess they just kept figuring it was okay the more they did things and it seemed like your husband's grandmother was okay with what they had done (because I imagine the distance made it difficult for her to keep up with).

So this is for England ony?

Yes.

On the other hand, how do you deal with the problem tenants? My husband’s grandmother let her home to a retired couple when she moved to America 7 years ago, because that’s where her only daughter/child (husband’s mom) lives. Grandmother is 92. She basically pays more in repairs than she’s getting in rental income. Granted it’s a 200+ year old house and may require more maintenance, some requests just seem excessive.

2 years ago, my husband and I stopped by the house because he wanted to show me where he spent his childhood summers. The tenants were nice enough to oblige our visit and this is where we discovered how much they changed the house to suit themselves. Like they covered up the pond in the garden (for the safety of their grandchildren), changed the layout (knocked down a wall), plastered over a brick wall (this was one of the home’s features), converted a store/stock room into a bedroom for their unemployed son, etc. Changes grandmother weren’t aware of until after the fact. But she put up with them because it was the better option than leaving the house looking abandoned and prone to vandalism, being it’s in the middle of nowhere in Scotland.

Now that we’re here, grandmother suggested asking the tenants to leave. The tenants didn’t even sign a long term lease and they were the ones who wanted to keep it to a month-to-month agreement. But the rental agency said it was near impossible to make them leave because the tenants are always protected by the law. Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scotland have their own laws and I only know the English laws.

On the other hand, how do you deal with the problem tenants? My husband’s grandmother let her home to a retired couple when she moved to America 7 years ago, because that’s where her only daughter/child (husband’s mom) lives. Grandmother is 92. She basically pays more in repairs than she’s getting in rental income. Granted it’s a 200+ year old house and may require more maintenance, some requests just seem excessive.

2 years ago, my husband and I stopped by the house because he wanted to show me where he spent his childhood summers. The tenants were nice enough to oblige our visit and this is where we discovered how much they changed the house to suit themselves. Like they covered up the pond in the garden (for the safety of their grandchildren), changed the layout (knocked down a wall), plastered over a brick wall (this was one of the home’s features), converted a store/stock room into a bedroom for their unemployed son, etc. Changes grandmother weren’t aware of until after the fact. But she put up with them because it was the better option than leaving the house looking abandoned and prone to vandalism, being it’s in the middle of nowhere in Scotland.

Now that we’re here, grandmother suggested asking the tenants to leave. The tenants didn’t even sign a long term lease and they were the ones who wanted to keep it to a month-to-month agreement. But the rental agency said it was near impossible to make them leave because the tenants are always protected by the law. Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with KOD, that's absolutely shocking behaviour. I mean they need to feel at home but knocking down a wall? That's outrageous!

Here are a link which may help.

https://rentingscotland.org/landlords/eviction-grounds-for-the-private-residential-tenancy/

I can appreciate them asking if they can put a fence or something around a pond for safety of little ones or something....or even *asking* if they can cover over the pond....

Asking if they can cover a pond?  Not in England.

Under the Housing laws in England, it may be the landlords' property but it is the tenanats home. When they leave they must return the property to the same state they were given it  in, less fair wear and tear. The deposit scheme have rules about how much can be decucted and what is fair wear and tear.

Putting some things in a contract is useless as you can't take take aways a tenants legal right in a contracts. e.g.  "no animals" in a contract isn't worth the paper it is written on. I didn't want cats in my lets as the smell is difficult to remove for the next tenants who might not have cats,  but all I could do was ask around to see if a prospective tenants had cats. If they got one, or lots, after the contract was signed by both parties, then there was little I could do until the contract ended, unless it had a break clause.

Asking if they can cover a pond?  Not in England.

Under the Housing laws in England, it may be the landlords' property but it is the tenanats home. When they leave they must return the property to the same state they were given it  in, less fair wear and tear. The deposit scheme have rules about how much can be decucted and what is fair wear and tear.

Putting "no animals" in a contract isn't worth the paper it is written on. I didn't want cats in my lets as the smell is difficult to remove for the next tenants who might not have cats,  but all I could do was ask around to see if a prospective tenants had cats. If they got one, or lots, after the contract was signed by both parties, then there was little I could do until the contract ended, unless it had a break clause.

I guess I'm a bit confused about how this relates to what I said...? If you actually properly fill in a pond so it's covered, you're going to spend a fair bit getting it back to the way it was.. But that's on them. That still doesn't actually cover the fact that they plastered a brick wall, knocked down another, and converted a cupboard to a room....How will they be returning that back to how it was and how does that even qualify as wear and tear? I am aware of the deposit scheme as we are currently dealing with a claim as our tenant's have just moved out and have managed to cause some considerable damage in less than 2 years but, again, I'm not sure how that's even relevant to my comments as I said that it's shocking they did all that without Landlord's consent (can you even un-plaster a wall to get the exposed brick back???) and didn't mention anything about deposit. That sounds like they were just taking the absolute piss and being bold as brass.

I didn't even mention pets, so, again, I'm confused on how that bit is relevant?

 I didn't want cats in my lets as the smell is difficult to remove for the next tenants who might not have cats,  but all I could do was ask around to see if a prospective tenants had cats. If they got one, or lots, after the contract was signed by both parties, then there was little I could do until the contract ended, unless it had a break clause.

My cats don't smell! 

Yup, landlords get away with murder here. 

I think you would be shocked at how easy it is for professional tenants, to rip off landlords who doesn't know the laws of their business.
It happens all the time.

I forget to say before, when you said that a tenant got inspected often,  I gave you the English law. That it's the property that can be inspected for any repairs, not the tenant (as you can't tell them how to live)  but that they don't have to let you in if they choose not to as every tenant has the right of "quiet enjoyment"  of their home. To demand to be let in, is harassement and that is a criminal  offence, not civil. What I should have said before is that these are the laws in England,  but if your BTL is in Scotland or Wales,  then they will have their own laws that will have to follow.

The slum lords won’t care about this and the government doesn’t have the resources to enforce it.

The councils deal with all these who don't keep to the laws.. They often have 2 or 3 staff to take these to court or to warn/take the letting agents to court if they haven't bothered to read the housing laws either. Registraion to be able to let, would be a big help to the councils as these bad landlords could just be removed from the list and would have to pay their own mortgage and move out of the letting business.

It's these bad landlords who drive in the law changes. e.g. In England, the deposist scheme to to stop the bad landlords who wanted to help themselves to a tenants deposit. An amendment of the law brought in this and  stiupulated that 3 times the deposit to be paid to theiir tenant and all the deposit to be paid back (even of they had destroyed the house). if LL failed to use the deposit scheme Unable to isssue a Section 21 if deposit not protected in one of the three schemes. Not allowed to take an deposit any more now if their various tenants' have to keep raising a dispute with the depost scheme.

My cats don't smell! 

I have animals myself, but we just can't smell them. While the dog smell will clear quickly, the smell of cats will linger. Those that don't have cats, do not want to rent a property that smells. Hence our, no smokers and no cats policy, which we could not enforce anyway. Even us putting that in a contract, could be seen as an "unfair term" in a contract, as a LL cannot tell a T how to live in their home.

I always remember Jonathon Ross talking about when he moved to the country but was unable to sell their London property and he didn't know why. He went to check on the empty London property and said that was when he could smell what every viewer could smell, his cats.

I guess I'm a bit confused about how this relates to what I said...? If you actually properly fill in a pond so it's covered, you're going to spend a fair bit getting it back to the way it was.. But that's on them. That still doesn't actually cover the fact that they plastered a brick wall, knocked down another, and converted a cupboard to a room....

I wasn't taking about the brick walls. The part of your post that I quoted, was about tenants asking to cover a pond. Under the laws in England, they don't have to ask to be able to do that..