Secure private renting.

All I did was tell you both the things that you were not allowed to do. Yours could have resulted in a crimanal record if you had continued and I thought these  were friendly warnings as it helped you both. Don't worry, I won't warn you again.

Again, this is false. You've told us we're not allowed to do things that we weren't doing that you've taken out of context (and even in this thread as well as the originals in question have not actually addressed). The things you are claiming that we've done that would result in a criminal record we have not done and would not be doing

Should we not be looking to implement positive changes that will help eliminate BOTH bad tenants and bad landlords?

I definitely think so. 

Also, where do you get this figure about bad landlords outweighing bad tenants? I'm sure they exist and I know that you participate in landlord forums so would be interested (genuinely) on reading up on this.

Do you really think all these law changes have needed to be brought in because there are only a few bad landlords? The law changes have helped the bad tenants, but they had to come in. The Labour party have said they support the end of Section 21, which as I said in the openeing post, has always been the key part of landlords and private lets, that they can alwasy get their property back with a no fault Section 21.

Again, this is false. You've told us we're not allowed to do things that we weren't doing that you've taken out of context (and even in this thread as well as the originals in question have not actually addressed). The things you are claiming that we've done that would result in a criminal record we have not done and would not be doing

You saying about deciding how much to take from a tenant deposit  was not criminal, but you don't get to decide. Doing that would have only affected you, as I have already said before and have said again on this thread.

Criminal is when  you bother a tenant as they have a right of quiet enjoyment of their home. There is no right for a landlord to visit their  property when landlord signs a contract for it to be the home of somebody else. It's why landlords appear on forums upset when the police pay them a visit or they receive a lettter form the council. It really isn't all in the landlords favour as some landlords seem to think.

I definitely think so.

My thought process is that they should look to write the rules in such a way that it cracks down on both bad landlords and bad tenants (or at least makes it extremely difficult for them both). There is no reason that this cannot be done that I can think of.

Do you really think all these law changes have needed to be brought in because there are only a few bad landlords? The law changes have helped the bad tenants, but they had to come in. The Labour party have said they support the end of Section 21, which as I said in the openeing post, has always been the key part of landlords and private lets, that they can alwasy get their property back with a no fault Section 21.

I did not say that by any means (you've taken that out of context). You said abuse triggers change/laws. There are a LOT of bad landlords and a LOT of bad tenants. You have said that there are more bad landlords than bad tenants so that is why there's change in the landlord space. I asked you why there being *more* should mean that we're unable to fix BOTH spaces and asked for some type of stat to show that there is this massive gap in figures between bad landlords and bad tenants which has brought us to here.

Could you please now show me where I stated that there were only a few bad landlords?

You saying about deciding how much to take from a tenant deposit  was not criminal, but you don't get to decide. Doing that would have only affected you, as I have already said before and have said again on this thread.

We can keep doing this distance of you giving fake news. This is NOT the conversation that happened. I did not suggest I was going to take any number I saw fit. I said that I COULD make a claim on the carpets that they destroyed. You kept saying that it was "wear and tear" that should be accounted for and I argued that it wasn't. It was proven that we had a claim to keep SOME of the deposit for the destruction to the property (you keep ignoring this) that is not just decided by me sticking my finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

Where do you get that I said I would be deciding ON MY OWN how much I could legally take from a deposit for destroyed property? I know you often choose not to answer questions, but could you PLEASE answer this one for me because I'm struggling to understand where you're getting this from over and over again?

Are you purposefully not reading what I've said? Because you keep making statements that aren't correct of the discussion that happened and misquoting what was said and I'm trying to figure out if you truly are just wilfully ignoring the truth?

Just re-reading the thread here https://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=93490.15 and am struggling to find where I said I just keep whatever I want. I said we keep (I did not list out step by step of "we make a claim...etc.") deposits up to the value of what is required to get the property back to where the signed contract agreed it would be returned - Meaning if you leave holes in a 1 year old carpet, we are going to get a quote to replace said carpet and we will make a claim on the deposit to be reviewed.  I specifically said that we look at "wear and tear" when it goes above and beyond what is expected within the length of the tenancy and becomes damaged property. my argument was and has remainder that holes in a carpet that was brand new upon a tenant moving in after a 1 year period is not normal wear and tear and should not be ignored. It is very much something that you can make a claim against (as those holding our deposit in the scheme informed us - if they are incorrect, perhaps they need to hire more knowledgeable employees to inform their landlords how their process actually works and what is/isn't allowed).

Should we only limit improvements to punish the bad landlords and help the bad tenants just because this idea that you hold that the bad landlords outweigh the bad tenants? Should we not be looking to implement positive changes that will help eliminate BOTH bad tenants and bad landlords?

As I have said,  each time a law has to come in to stamp down on the bad landlords in England, it gives the tenants more rights; which is good; but it also gives the bad tenants more rights. Anybody who has read the Housing laws;: as all landlords are required to know; can see that the tenants have more rights than landlords.

I do support the end of the Section 21, as this seems to have become a weapon used by the ever rising bad landlords, to avoid the laws they must comply with.

The government should just get it over with and bring in Registration of all landlords and Letting Agents in England. That way the bad landlords would not be able to let anything adn HMRC would have access to those records too.

It was interesting to read the last law, that states that Trading Standards can either fine the landlord or let the courts do it, where they will get a criminal record with their fine. One of the reasons they can decide if it should go to court, is the attitude of the landlord. 

I wonder how many of these landlords you claim use letting agents that actually only use them for minimal tasks? For example, we have a letting agent but we used them only to find the tenant and to take care of when we either re-sign a contract or the tenant moves out (and they deal with refunding the deposit - for example) but they don't take care of any of the other queries/issues.

Does that mean that the tenant pays you directly and not to the lettiing agent?

As I have said,  each time a law has to come in to stamp down on the bad landlords in England, it gives the tenants more rights; which is good; but it also gives the bad tenants more rights. Anybody who has read the Housing laws;: as all landlords are required to know; can see that the tenants have more rights than landlords. I just wish the goveernment would bring in Registration of all landlords and Letting Agents in England.

Does thaat mean that the tenant pays you directly and not the lettiing agent?

And maybe that is where we disagree as you keep repeating that laws affect landlords and I keep saying I acknowledge that and hope that someday soon they put in rules to help prevent bad tenants *as well*.

We can stop flogging that dead horse now though as we can only keep repeating ourselves so many times.

I can’t say for sure if our payment goes through a letting agent or a different way as that is something my SIL who’s an accountant deals with. All I can say is our letting agent we had paid for the lowest level of management. (I want to say they don’t take our payments but I’m not going to be firm with that as I could be wrong).

I know your just voicing your concern for me as you previously stated but I promise we (my in-laws/husband/me) have looked into all the laws, rules, and regs around being a landlord (i will be honest, my in laws have more of a handle on it than I do as they have far more responsibility of the admin legal stuff. We - husband and myself - just worry about sorting out the calls/repairs/certification)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, it does go into a bank account in case that’s what you’re wondering. It’s not “cash in hand” or anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t say for sure if our payment goes through a letting agent or a different way as that is something my SIL who’s an accountant deals with.

So she uses her office/address in England for any notice to be served on you by the tenant?

 I am asking as you said before that you didn't like the idea of your tenant having your address, which they are allowed to have anyway and it would be a criminal offence for your Letting Agent not to give this to tenant within 21 days when requested, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Which is why all tenants in England and Wales should request this address when they are the tenant as it might be harder to get when you are no longer the tenant and you might want to sue that landlord, or report them to an organisation for them to take action against that landlord e.g Council, Trading Standards, HMRC fraud etc

Or tenant can just pay £3 to Land Registy to find your address from the deeds of your let and details of charges against that property. Then they could pay another £3 for your home address deeds and details too.
https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land/search-the-register

If you are not using the address of your SIL for any notice to be served by tenant, how are you complying with Section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987? Rent doesn't have to be paid by tenant until that Section 48 is complied with; lthough tenant cannot spend that money as they do then have to pay all the rent when landlord gives that address in England for notices to be served.

Also, it does go into a bank account in case that’s what you’re wondering. It’s not “cash in hand” or anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that, but landlord requirement under civil law, with Section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/48

Notification by landlord of address for service of notices.

(1)A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice furnish the tenant with an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by the tenant.

(2)Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with subsection (1), any rent [F1, service charge or administration charge] otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall (subject to subsection (3)) be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with that subsection.

(3)Any such rent [F2, service charge or administration charge] shall not be so treated in relation to any time when, by virtue of an order of any court [F3or tribunal], there is in force an appointment of a receiver or manager whose functions include the receiving of rent [F4, service charges or (as the case may be) administration charges] from the tenant.

So she uses her office/address in England for any notice to be served on you by the tenant?

Nope, she does not (and I'm not sure where I said that was the case). Believe that is likely to be one of our home addresses (the flat is joint ownership). Again, I couldn't say though as that is NOT the area that I have been involved with.

I am asking as you said before that you didn't like the idea of your tenant having your address, which they are allowed to have anyway and it would be a criminal offence for your Letting Agent not to give this to tenant within 21 days when requested, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Which is why all tenants in England and Wales should request this address when they are the tenant as it might be harder to get when you are no longer the tenant and they might want to sue the landlord, or report the landlord to somebody e.g Council, Trading Standards, HMRC fraud etc

I'm not sure why you are mentioning this as, again, it's not really relevant to the conversation but I stand by the fact that I find that uncomfortable that they can just look me up. I have no issue with them being allowed to be given the address by a Letting Agent, Council, or anybody else because it's documented that they have requested the address. I don't like that they'd be able to just look me up without anybody being aware of this as you strongly suggested would be the case. Again I will state (not that it matters or is relevant) that a bad tenant can look me up and move home where I could never find them again but I would have to move home for them to not find me.

Could you please explain why this was relevant to the conversation?

Or tenant can just pay £3 to Land Registy to find your address from the deeds of your let and details of charges against that property. Then they could pay another £3 for your home address deeds and details too.
https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land/search-the-register

In my opinion, there should be more tracking around who is requesting your address (and there might be), but the way you had phrased it before was that they'd have easier and quicker access to look you up on the Land Registry (for free) and that made me uncomfortable. I am not saying that I'm hoping that would change or that everybody should feel uncomfortable with it, but I'm entitled to my own opinion and how it makes me feel. It's totally fine that we don't share that opinion.

If you are not using the address of your SIL for any notice to be served by tenant, how are you complying with Section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987? Rent doesn't have to be paid by tenant until that Section 48 is complied with, although they do then have to pay all the back rent when landlord gives that address in England.

As mentioned, we do use one of our home addresses to the best of my knowledge but, again, what's that got to do with the price fish? This has literally nothing to do with the previous conversation and you've juts plucked this new topic out of thin air where it wasn't previously being discussed (and isn't relevant because we comply). I'm sure you have a reason for asking this but would be appreciated if you could at least explain your thought process on how you got to this topic to me?

Not that, but landlord requirement under civil law, with Section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/48

Notification by landlord of address for service of notices.

(1)A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice furnish the tenant with an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by the tenant.

(2)Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with subsection (1), any rent [F1, service charge or administration charge] otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall (subject to subsection (3)) be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with that subsection.

(3)Any such rent [F2, service charge or administration charge] shall not be so treated in relation to any time when, by virtue of an order of any court [F3or tribunal], there is in force an appointment of a receiver or manager whose functions include the receiving of rent [F4, service charges or (as the case may be) administration charges] from the tenant.

Again, just to confirm, we've got that covered Thanks for double checking though.

All I did was tell you both the things that you were not allowed to do. Yours could have resulted in a crimanal record if you had continued with your statements and I thought these  were friendly warnings as it helped you both. Don't worry, I won't warn you again.

All I did was tell you both the things that you were not allowed to do. Yours could have resulted in a crimanal record if you had continued with your statements and I thought these  were friendly warnings as it helped you both. Don't worry, I won't warn you again.

But I haven't done any of these things you claim I have done?  So yeah, no need to warn me on illegal sh*t I don't plan on doing.

Kind of like warning me to not smoke crack.  You are welcome to warn me.... but I wasn't going to smoke crack anyways.   

Q: How do I safely cross the Road?

A: Press the button on the crosstalk, wait for traffic to stop and walk across the road.

Typical answer from Sirius :  Many people don't cross the road at all, they jump the fence and attempt to have sex with the sheep in a nearby field.  If you bothered to read the Sexual Offences Act of 2004 you would know this is an offence. 
It's always abuse that gets the law changed.

Q: How do I safely cross the Road?

A: Press the button on the crosstalk, wait for traffic to stop and walk across the road.

Typical answer from Sirius :  Many people don't cross the road at all, they jump the fence and attempt to have sex with the sheep in a nearby field.  If you bothered to read the Sexual Offences Act of 2004 you would know this is an offence. 
It's always abuse that gets the law changed.

SoS:  13

Jimbo:  2,008,462