[Closed] Tenants not paid rent.............

Yes just read all of this, I am both tenant and landlady myself so can see both sides !

If you get a good agent they are worth having, but hard to find.

I pay an extra £10 a month to the agency to be part of the rent guarantee thing, sounded like a cheap way to cut any potential losses and thought it might keep the agency a bit more honest if they know they take the hit on any unpaid rent.

Might be worth looking into in future ?

Mugboo
But neither is it right that a non paying tenant takes so long to be removed.

relativly quick and easy to do

In this kind of case, the law prevents the tenant from being evicted.

the scales are firmly balanced in favour of the landlords

Speaking as a landlord (reluctant one) what TJ says is true in that I could evict tenants at 2 months notice, given that they have been in the property for over two years and are effectively on a rolling contract. I think that is wrong unless breaches of contract become obvious (that is where this thread started after all).

The reality is somewhat different as a sane landlord would never want to evict a decent tenant. When trying to evict a problem tenant there are far too many hoops to jump through to re-gain the property. Idiot tenants cause good landlords problems and idiot landlords cause good tenants problems. I blame the idiots!

Shame we sold off so many LA properties back in the day...

Just so you know, the tenant can legally deny you access even if you do give 24 hours notice. Should you attempt to force your way in, you will be committing a criminal offence (insane, isn't it?).

No it's not. Why should they want a stranger coming into the place they live? I personally haven't seen or spoken to my landlord in nearly 2 years and if they gave me 24 hours notice I'd tell them to piss off, politely of course, and arrange a time that was suitable for me.

My landlord is ace, and I am ace in return!

But then, we are good mates... But, after 10 1/2 years I must get a medal for never being late with a payment, let alone missing one!

Just wish he would buy me a house (to rent!) with an extra bathroom.... 2 teenage girls don't leave much time for anyone else in the morning 😈

i dont understand why you wouldn't let your landlord in when they want to visit? (gribs this isnt directed at you specifically, its just unfortunate timing that your post is above this one)

our landlord has only ever visited when he's wanted to check on work that's been done (few visits around time the boiler was being ripped out and new one put in, and now he's popping round to check on the decorating that was needed as a result of the old system being ripped out) we would never dream of denying him, or the letting agent's access, letting agents do 2 visits a year as per tenancy agreement, landlord's only been to the house about 4 times in 3 years and as mentioned, that's only to check on work he's paying for.

yes we pay rent, but its his house and part of being a considerate tenant is remembering that he's been kind enough to let us rent his house and trusts us to look after it as if it were our own for the rental period. we don't break the rules of the tenancy so have nothing that we'd need to hide or cover up in advance of him popping over.

despite official line of contact being through the letting agent, the landlord and i exchange texts and calls to each others personal mobile when it comes to coordinating any work that needs to be done. he's a nice chap and always comments that we're ideal tenants, as a result the rent has only gone up £25 per month in 4 years despite rental values in the area going much much higher.

respect is the key i think, respect the tenancy agreement, respect the property, respect the payments, respect the other parties in the agreement 🙂

when we leave the property it will be cleaner and better decorated than when we moved in, its only polite innit!

phil, what you are describing is the kind of relationship I like to have with my tenants too, but this experience of ours has no bearing on the right to refuse entry. If the landlord was an arse, then you need to be able to keep him out of [b]YOUR[/b] home.

Indeed - you might have a landlord who thinks its OK to enter 24hrs after posting a letter saying he will and who will then search your private correspondence

true... i can understand that point of view 🙂

mrsconsequence and i are pretty keen on keeping the rent as low as possible though so we'll always go out of our way to accommodate the landlord!

EDIT - searching through private correspondence? that's illegal innit?! the landlord can wander round the house, but if he tried to open a wardrobe, drawer or letter i'd nipple cripple him.

i dont understand why you wouldn't let your landlord in when they want to visit? (gribs this isnt directed at you specifically, its just unfortunate timing that your post is above this one)

It's not that I wouldn't let them in, it's more that it'll be at a time of my choice, rather than 24 hours notice, as I'd want to be in and could have other things planned.

I also don't feel like they're doing me a favour renting me the house as the number of buy to lets round here has pushed the prices high enough that I can't afford to buy a small house in a reasonable area so have to rent.

to the landlords:

is there a 'blacklist' of tenants, a secret list of names of people who you really shouldn't rent to? maybe tattooed onto the back of a french singers head like in rush hour 3?

if so i can happily reccommend a couple of names for it that i've had the misfortune of sharing a property with. 👿

EDIT - makes sense completely gribs! and i share your frustration at the buy-to-let crowd pricing me out of being able to get on the property ladder.

being able to get on the property ladder

it's not really a ladder these days, more of a kick-step

Why is it wrong that on a rolling contract a landlord only has to give 2 months notice, after the initial period and if no 6 month extention is signed? After all, the tennant only has to give a month usually and thus both parties retain a degree of flexibility.

Scamper, the issue is that there are many Landlords who will serve notice on a whim for no real reason.
So you could have great tenants and turn there world upside down just because you can.
Its also not really fair as tenants are forced into a position where they know if they complain/report anything to the landlord they face the risk of eviction and all the hassle of finding another property. Its totally biased in the landlords favour.
If we(the UK) adopted some of the legal constraints as in some parts of Europe tenants would have much stronger rights and we would remove the ease with which landlords could evict for no reason.

From the tenants point of view it might be 'on a whim', but I suspect in most cases there's a good reason for it. Few landlords will want to get rid of good tenants!

I was letting out my maisonette for a while. It wasn't in tip top state, but the rent was probably a little lower than the state it was in justified still, so they didn't have a bad deal.
One of the tenants worked for a letting agent.

I got a call regarding the boiler and it being dangerous from the letting agent.
He told me I could be sent to prison, etc.

I requested he immediately send me the report as this was contradictory to previous reports.
No report ever arrived despite further hassling etc.
He also tried to get me to rent through his company.

Of course when he then called me to explain that the tenants would really like to stay when it was found out I wasn't renewing the lease, I didn't directly say "Yea, like you think I'm going to let people threatening to send me to prison over nothing live in my house."
My circumstances had changed then anyway, so I moved back in.
The tenants probably told everyone they were being kicked out for "no reason", when in reality they had got an aggressive and rude person to represent them in a threatening manner.

Scamper, are you going to pay my moving costs? are you going to give me the £1500 i need upfront to move when you decide you want to kick me out?

And you wonder why i think landlords are scum.

The conditions of renting a property are fairly clear - you don't own it and it's not a permanent residence. If your landlord and you had signed a 99 year lease mrmo I could see your point. But you haven't.

If you want a more permanent home and have faith in your ability to pay the rent long term and are grown up enough to take personal responsbibility for doing so, than negotiate a longer lease.

hels, my experience of trying for longer leases is they may give you a year but that is about it. Some agents seem to work by driving our tenants every 6 to 12 months as they make money on fees. I have also come across mortgage clauses that prohibit longer leases.

hels, my experience of trying for longer leases is they may give you a year but that is about it. Some agents seem to work by driving our tenants every 6 to 12 months as they make money on fees. I have also come across mortgage clauses that prohibit longer leases.

Exactly agents driving cost bases.
My BTL mortgage companies will only allow me to use AST's, I'm not sure if there is length limit though.

But both Teej and SA are misrepresenting the market, there are other types of tenancies, the problem is that landlords don't know about them or won't offer them because of the mortgage co limitations and the fear of "sitting tenants" (I don't know much about this). I only rent to students and they AST suits this perfectly as neither of us want to continue the tenancy, but in the past I have considered the idea of longer tenancies with families etc. Also after the fixed period tenants only have to give one months notice so it kind of cuts both ways..

to answer above a contract is a contract but if you awarded an [i]unreasonable[/i] contract i.e. 10 years it could surely be argued that 10 years is too long? Shorthold isn't 10 years! A local housing authority uses a totally different agreement to a commercial landlord who needs the flexibility to take possession back in case they need to sell up, move back in if it was their main residence or in many cases put a tenant in who is willing to pay more rent. It's easier to do that than enforce a rent rise.

Most agents are unwilling to offer more than 6 months because once tenancy has been granted the LL can't serve notice so giving a tenant 12 months contract is potentially an expensive mistake. I gave a few out but only if they paid 6 months up front but they normally got a discount on the monthly rent too.

I presume Mrmo would pay the landlords re-letting costs if he left after a contractual 6 months because on a whim he fancied a larger sitting room 😉

commercial landlord who needs the flexibility to take possession back in case they need to sell up,

I think this is a myth, in my locality a rental house with tenants in on an AST is worth more than an empty rental house. Yet every estate agent or letting agent I have spoken to will always say that you have to get rid of tenants before you put it on the market.. Fools.

Fatman's got something to sell
To the capitol's homeless
At the Crossroads Hotel
For the no-fixed-abodeless
Where you can live life in style
You can sleep in a closet
And if you flash him a smile
He'll take your teeth as a deposit

There's bats in the belfry
The windows are jammed
The toilets ain't healthy
And he don't give a damn

He just chuckles and smiles
And laughs like a madman
A born again Rachman

Here comes Sheriff Fatman 😯

Had tenants once, they burnt my house down!

I think this is a myth, in my locality a rental house with tenants in on an AST is worth more than an empty rental house. Yet every estate agent or letting agent I have spoken to will always say that you have to get rid of tenants before you put it on the market.. Fools.

Wholeheartedly agree Toys but that only works if they are looking for a commercial buyer to take the tenant on too. A domestic buyer won't go through with a purchase on a house with tenants in case they don't move out or delay the sale, especially with a chain.

I sold quite a few in-between 2005-07 where tenants were served notice to sell up because the houses were in demand, but as Hels has pointed out tenants should know that they are not guaranteed a home.

In the current climate a landlord would be a fool to do that

I think this is a myth, in my locality a rental house with tenants in on an AST is worth more than an empty rental house. Yet every estate agent or letting agent I have spoken to will always say that you have to get rid of tenants before you put it on the market.. Fools.

My landlord has gone bust and the neighbouring three houses he also owned are now vacant,tenants evicted by mortgage holder, and have been for a couple of months, they have for sale signs just very little interest. So rather than making some money they are costing money. I guess the houses will go to auction soon?

I did have a look at one and i might be able to get the mortgage but the flat roof on the one i looked at was on the point of failure something i wouldn't be able to cover. There was also the minor issue of scrapping the deposit together. So will sit and wait a little longer. I might make an offer once my circumstances have stabilized for the house i am in as i guess the mortgage company will eventually give me notice as well.

scamper, i just want somewhere to live and not have to move on evey 6-12 months because the landlord has gone bust, decided to repaint the flat, decided to evict when you point out they have breached the contract, etc.

I know it is hard to believe that someone might want to live somewhere for a few years, get comfy, save some money for deposit, savings, old age etc etc. As for covering a landlords costs, it is a business you know teh tenant will move on, so make sure your business plan covers it. From the tenants point of view you need somewhere to live it needs to be near where you work etc.

As for covering a landlords costs, it is a business you know teh tenant will move on, so make sure your business plan covers it

Nice comedy comment that.

Show me someone who can foresee the unforeseen and I'll show a business plan that would see it coming, but a £500 monthly rent would rise to about £1500 a month to account for all eventuality.

decided to repaint the flat

I understand your position, I have two mates who both have the same issue, always worried that the LL will move them on, they just want somewhere permanent. Have you considered housing assocs? Before you apply your prejudice they often have some v nice places and want long term security.

Nice comedy comment that.

Show me someone who can foresee the unforeseen and I'll show a business plan that would see it coming, but a £500 monthly rent would rise to about £1500 a month to account for all eventuality.

No it isn't - without wishing to diss you or your experience, but your comment reflects what is wrong with the rental market, too many idiot "investors" getting in at low yields (and idiot banks for lending against it) and then complaining when they miss 2 months rent or have to spend 5k on fixing the roof. You have to have enough slack to be able to cope with this.

Toys i did look at HA, the area issue is the lesser problem and now that most new estates have to have social housing it could be worse.

The real problem is i don't qualify. i have a job, i don't have kids, i don't have any mental health issues, so i get no points, i end up at the end of a very long list.

yeah just get on it though and see what happens.

i am 10 years so far... so we shall see what happens.

Toys, you can an AST as long as you like although repair obligations change if is over 7 years in length.
The only real problem with really long leases is that a landlord then becomes bound by this contract and will only be able to end the tenancy if the the tenants breach one of the grounds of the tenancy that can result in the landlord being able to serve a valid notice. Much greater security for the tenant, although it can result in a tenant not being able to end the contract either.
Its an interesting conundrum.

Landlords do serve notice on a whim btw. No reason, no explanation. The way the law is currently as soon as the tenancy is in the periodic term a landlord can serve a S21 and will get possession. I don't know why but a lot of landlords do this.

I remeber when a secure tenancy was the norm before AST was invented. The landlord could only evict you if you had breached the contract. this made live much more secure for tenents.

Now the pendulum has swung far too far the other way with tenants haveing very little rights and the landlord avle to ewvict without any reason - this has led to insecure housing for many folk - its no wonder some don't repect it.

In most of Europe long secure leases are the norm.

Interesting thanks - What about other types of contract other than AST?

Landlords do serve notice on a whim btw. No reason, no explanation. The way the law is currently as soon as the tenancy is in the periodic term a landlord can serve a S21 and will get possession. I don't know why but a lot of landlords do this.

Yeah I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. Yes of course they can serve s21 without having to explain why, but they will have had a reason, they just didn't choose to justify it to you or your clients.
You earlier asserted that they do it out of bloody mindedness or for some kind of power trip, which is frankly untrue, a bit sensational and quite frankly unqualified, as unless you are a mind reader you actually have no idea why they may have served notice.

edit: teej is this a discussion or a place for you to tediously repeat yourself ad nauseam? Are you worried that people won't bother to read what you posted a page or so back? Perhaps you have a bit of dementia and have forgotten you made these posts?

The exact same point from page 2

Tenants have almost no rights in the UK. They can be evicted at any time for no reason - no security of tenure which we used to have and most of Europe has.

and again from page 3

That they get evicted on a whim. No security of tenure, that rent can be increased without reason given.

I remember before the law was changed under Thatcher - you could have secure tenancies - ie you could only be evicted for breach of contract not for the landlords convenience, when rents were controlled so the landlord could only charge a fair rent.

Really - the system is rigged so far in the landlords favour here. People rent long term in continental europe as they have security of tenure.

How many tenants have made an effort to find a 'long term' landlord. Tenants expect to be able to cut and run quickly, but don't like the landlord being able to do the same.

As someone has suggested - if you're willing to make a decent financial commitment, I'm sure you can find landlords willing to do the same too.

Teej - also your point about fair rent is not quite accurate - you cannot unilaterally increase rent on an existing tenant.

[url= http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?116868-Rent-Increase ]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?116868-Rent-Increase[/url]

How to solve the problem- end ASTs and go back to secure tenancies. You can unilaterally increase rent.

Edit - crossed posts - every tenancy agreement I have seen allows for rent increases but the common way to do it is at the end of the six months - if the tenant had secure tenancies this would not be possible. Its a gun to the head - accept the rent increase or move out - even the link you posted says

However, it should be borne in mind that a Shorthold tenant can be evicted very easily, so these rights are illusory, because most tenancies are Shorthold, where if the tenant opposes the rent increase the landlord can evict.

Fair rents were assessed by the council and were binding.

Yes might be a good idea. I don't know but I wonder if the advent of the AST was to pave the way for the BTL industry.

Read the link I can't be arsed to repeat it here, no you cannot increase the rent unilaterally. ( at least not in England)

From your link

Rent increase for a Fixed Term tenancy

The rent cannot be increased during the fixed term, unless:-
• the tenancy agreement allows for rent increases; or
• the tenant agrees to a rent increase.

When the fixed term ends, a landlord will often ask an existing tenant to sign a new tenancy agreement, at a higher rent, as this is a common way for the landlord to increase the rent.

That does NOT violate the rule that the rent under a fixed term tenancy can't be increased, because: (a) the increase is taking effect only after the end of the fixed term, not during the fixed term; and (b) the tenant is agreeing to the increase.

Tenancy Agreement allows for rent increases

You must check the tenancy agreement to see what it says, if anything, about rent increases. This might be referred to as the landlord's right to vary the rent.

If the tenancy agreement allows rent increases, the tenant has to pay the increase, as often as the tenancy agreement says the rent can be increased, provided that:
• the clause in question is contractually enforceable, and
• the landlord complies with all the provisions of the clause.

So yes yo can unilaterally enforce a rent increase if you write it in the contract as most do and at the end of each six months

Yeah I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. Yes of course they can serve s21 without having to explain why, but they will have had a reason, they just didn't choose to justify it to you or your clients.
You earlier asserted that they do it out of bloody mindedness or for some kind of power trip, which is frankly untrue, a bit sensational and quite frankly unqualified, as unless you are a mind reader you actually have no idea why they may have served notice.

But do you think i may have contacted landlords and asked them why they have served notice? This would be normal practice when investigating homeless application to a local authority, and I have done this, a lot.
I have heard some very poor reasons for serving notice. I could explain further but I'm not going to.

I would like to invite you to make a more meaningful contribution, like how to solve the problem in an equitable way?

no.

Thats enough from me. If anyone reading this has a problem with their landlord or has any housing related questions, feel free to click my name and contact Shelter.

Yes teej I am aware of exactly that, but the point is that you don't have to sign a contract with a rent increase provision in it. In fact my contract from the RLA does not mention rent increases anywhere. I have emailed it to you. The RLA serves many landlords. I dunno how many different letting agreements you have been able to look at, but I can't imagine it is too many, you not being an agent or anything.

Anyway it is academic as the local market dictates rental prices, so unless you are on a frightfully good deal you are unlikely to get majorly shafted. 2nd, whilst it is theoretically possible to evict tenants because they wont accept a rent increase, I wonder how many tenants have actually resisted and then been evicted because of it.

EG if your rent increase is say 8% is a landlord going to ditch you and risk a void period of a month or more until he finds a decent tenant(8% of annual income) . As a landlord I wouldn't. People like Steve Austin need to be advising people to tell their landlords to go and take a running jump when they try to increase rent and see what actually happens. Nothing I expect.

You are banging a theoretical drum.

I think the real problem here lack of edumaction. People are too afraid of their landlord to challenge them, when in reality the rental market is saturated and its a bit of a tenants market, so when a tenant starts to play hardball the majority of LL's will back down..

Here in sunny Exeter the Uni has a shit hot accommodation office and SU who look over the landlords contracts and shenangians with a fine tooth comb, you find many students here bending over to a landlords intimidation. They are pretty well switched on.

This

I have heard some very poor reasons for serving notice. I could explain further but I'm not going to.

I do not believe esp as you have copped out. Anyway as they legally don't have to give a reason why should they to someone who is representing the "other side"? I probably wouldn't.

and this

Thats enough from me. If anyone reading this has a problem with their landlord or has any housing related questions, feel free to click my name and contact Shelter.

Is also a massive cop out. It's all right for you to come on here and play the expert, but when the questions get a bit tough you have decided to retire? Personally I don't think you have represented your employer in a good light, so I wonder how many might have considered coming to you and have now changed their minds.

t took me 3 days to get new tenants in last time I wanted them. Its standard practice up here to increase rents at the end of the six months. I have seen a few tenancy agreements as we run a rented flat and ours has the rent increase clause in it.

Toys - I think Steve has been shown in a very good light -reasonably and rationally answering questions and refusing to get drawn into debate. I think most folk would think likewise and some of the landlords on here have shown themselves in a very poor light

3 days void. Previous occasion 2 days void

I let at below market rent to enable me to have a choice of tenants and to ensure I have full occupancy.