Private landlords and Tenants

[Vicki Vixen]

People should try and build careers outside of London!

Houses can be purchased and rents are lower. As I said the government is London centric and has killed industry/business everywhere else. If they decentralised business then people would be better able to afford houses. £40k is absolutely nothing for a 3bed house is it?

You make it sound like the Landlord just happened to get the cash to buy the house. Most of them worked hard for it. That's what you have to do and then if you let your house you'd find it's not quite the unregulated sector nor easy earner you think it is. But I agree with you private rented accommodation is good for both landlord and tenant.

Many ambitious young people want to live and work in London. Who are you to tell them to go and build their career somewhere else?

Many of those younger people living in the capital accept they have to rent, but what they don't accept is being treated like second class citizens by their landlords and their agents.

[Guest]

Many ambitious young people want to live and work in London. Who are you to tell them to go and build their career somewhere else?

Many of those younger people living in the capital accept they have to rent, but what they don't accept is being treated like second class citizens by their landlords and their agents.

 

I'm not telling them to, calm down Vicki! If they can build it there do it, if they can't go somewhere else.Just don't complain about the disadvantages when reaping the advantages.

 

London has always been the same 40 years ago rents were too high too. You choose London you choose high rents.

 

Another who completely missed the point though - It's for the government to create jobs in other areas of the wonderful UK where people who want to work can AND pay lower rent/afford to buy a house. You vote for a government that perpetuates the same problem because they are London-centric too.

[Guest]

p.s. the "ambitious" addition was a bit uncool. I'd have thought you could be an ambitious young person wanting to live and work in any area of the country/world.

[Vicki Vixen]

p.s. the "ambitious" addition was a bit uncool. I'd have thought you could be an ambitious young person wanting to live and work in any area of the country/world.

I'm not sure that's true. Ambitious people (in a UK context) don't generally aspire to build their careers in Grimsby, or Somalia, for instance. Though granted there are exceptions.

[Guest]

I'm not sure that's true. Ambitious people (in a UK context) don't generally aspire to build their careers in Grimsby, or Somalia, for instance. Though granted there are exceptions.

 

I would have thought you'd have to be a lot more ambitious to build a career in Grimsby or Somalia. From a personal point of view I'd prefer to live in Grimsby or Somalia than I would in London.

 

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

[Vicki Vixen]

I'm not telling them to, calm down Vicki! If they can build it there do it, if they can't go somewhere else.Just don't complain about the disadvantages when reaping the advantages.

London has always been the same 40 years ago rents were too high too. You choose London you choose high rents.

Another who completely missed the point though - It's for the government to create jobs in other areas of the wonderful UK where people who want to work can AND pay lower rent/afford to buy a house. You vote for a government that perpetuates the same problem because they are London-centric too.

My point is not that rents in London are expensive, it's that there is way too much balance in favour of the landlord.

I've rented in London for 18 yrs now and have had so many landlords shirk their responsibilities to maintain the property during the tenancy and then try to screw me out of as much money as possible when I leave. There needs to be a shift in balance between landlord and tenant closer to what is in place in Switzerland an Germany where tenants have stronger rights including the right to treat the property as their home.

I would have thought you'd have to be a lot more ambitious to build a career in Grimsby or Somalia. From a personal point of view I'd prefer to live in Grimsby or Somalia than I would in London.

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

London

[Guest]

My point is not that rents in London are expensive, it's that there is way too much balance in favour of the landlord.

I've rented in London for 18 yrs now and have had so many landlords shirk their responsibilities to maintain the property during the tenancy and then try to screw me out of as much money as possible when I leave. There needs to be a shift in balance between landlord and tenant closer to what is in place in Switzerland an Germany where tenants have stronger rights including the right to treat the property as their home.

London

 

I think that there is a higher percentage of "rogue" landlords in London. I think most other areas have a very low level of "bad" landlords. I think London brings its own set of problems because of its own set of advantages. My sister lived there for many years and I know a couple of areas pretty well.

 

I think if you compare house prices in London to rental prices in London there is not a balance in favour of the landlord. As I'm sure you're aware you couldn't pay a mortgage for a house bought in many areas of London for the price of the rent. If you know differently then I apologise for my knowledge being out of date.

[Vicki Vixen]

I think that there is a higher percentage of "rogue" landlords in London. I think most other areas have a very low level of "bad" landlords. I think London brings its own set of problems because of its own set of advantages. My sister lived there for many years and I know a couple of areas pretty well.

I think if you compare house prices in London to rental prices in London there is not a balance in favour of the landlord. As I'm sure you're aware you couldn't pay a mortgage for a house bought in many areas of London for the price of the rent. If you know differently then I apologise for my knowledge being out of date.

Fair response, you've summed it up well. The London perspective explains a lot of political policy that otherwise seems bizarre and out of touch to the rest of the country. Id guess that Labour's proposed intervention in the private rental market is framed primarily with the London market in mind.

[ADK]

It appeared that you were jealous of baby boomers - if you're not then it just came over that way. I don't know you at all so only working off what you write as you are with me.

 

It seems you are the one unable to read or trolling.

 

Nobody is entitled to own a house and no-one is entitled to have a job. You have to work, learn, train and work some more. There is nothing to stop you buying a house in Stoke and then finding a job there. There are jobs but maybe not the ones you want. Of course you could just buy a cheap house there and then let it at a very low rent if you are so blinded that you think private landlords are renting at extortionate prices. It seems looking at the market that Rent prices are lower than repayment prices in many cases. How that can be extortionate is beyond me.

 

I'm sure that you are an intelligent, reasonable person but your posts here come across as someone who is jealous of what others have worked for yet unwilling to put in the effort to get to where you want to be.

 

As you said mortgages are more difficult than a few years ago but so many other things are so much easier - you are whinging about the more difficult ones and ignoring the massive advantages you have over every generation that has ever preceeded you. Again you come over as feeling entitled. 

 

Those baby boomers lived through the 70's. the previous generation lived through WW2 and the very difficult times of rationing that continued long after, the generation before that lived through the great depression of the 30's and WW1. You've lived through relatively easy times with the wealthiest childhood ever known in Britain and you have new technologies that allow you to learn anything anywhere as well as work anywhere in the world. Yet you complain that you can't get a mortgage in London or some other expensive hot spot.

 

You should be complaining to your government (local and national) and getting them to do something about it but most of the UK population won't even vote, they'll complain about foreigners coming over here and taking their jobs (probably because they don't feel entitled and are willing to do whatever they need to do to get on the bottom rung of the ladder). Most of the Asains came to Leicester/UK with only the shirts on their backs in the 60's and they worked damn hard and within less than a generation put themselves into the decent position they are now.

 

I think you sum up how I imagine the stereotypical elitist. 

 

You really aren't left wing.

[Guest]

I think you sum up how I imagine the stereotypical elitist. 

 

You really aren't left wing.

 

Thanks. No hard feelings.

[Rob1742]

Unbelievable if this happens, and unsure whether this could be legally enforced. Surely a human rights issue here.

One of my properties has a market price of £650 a month, but I have never put it up as the tenant is decent and so they are paying just £550 and have done for years.

But if I decided next time to do what I should and add £50 to the rent, this would not be unreasonable, but the Labour say I couldn't do it.

It would mean I am stuck at a rent below the market, and would never be able to put it right. The only option would be for me not to renew the lease, kick the tenant out and start again on £650 a month.

[Guest]

It is a ridiculous idea meant to appeal to those who don't pay their rent, are jealous of people who have worked to buy their own houses or who are anti-landlord. It is a simple Headline catcher which will not improve the situation but make housing more difficult for people to find. And of course the few bad landlords would continue to be bad.

 

All parties are short-sighted vote catchers. It's getting more pathetic day after day.

[Captain...]

Black or white views on foxestalk shocker.

 

Some landlords and letting agencies (which I would say is a bigger problem) are unscrupulous money grabbing cnuts.

Some tenants are just as bad.

 

Tenants need protecting from cnut landlords, and landlords need protecting from shitty tenants, which I believe they are with landlord insurance and they have the legal right in most cases.

 

For years some landlords and agencies have been ripping off tenants and withholding deposits, this has been resolved with the deposit protection scheme, now agencies make a fortune on ridiculous agency fees, which they are also going to tackle, along with rent hikes over and above inflation knowing that families will be too settled to want to move and just pay the increase.

 

Most landlords who are just letting out a single property will not be affected by these changes, and will know that they can't increase their rent for 3 years and will set their rent accordingly.

 

Landlords are not being demonised, only those that are exploiting tenants are being targeted.

[Guest]

Black or white views on foxestalk shocker.

 

Some landlords and letting agencies (which I would say is a bigger problem) are unscrupulous money grabbing cnuts.

Some tenants are just as bad.

 

Tenants need protecting from cnut landlords, and landlords need protecting from shitty tenants, which I believe they are with landlord insurance and they have the legal right in most cases.

 

For years some landlords and agencies have been ripping off tenants and withholding deposits, this has been resolved with the deposit protection scheme, now agencies make a fortune on ridiculous agency fees, which they are also going to tackle, along with rent hikes over and above inflation knowing that families will be too settled to want to move and just pay the increase.

 

Most landlords who are just letting out a single property will not be affected by these changes, and will know that they can't increase their rent for 3 years and will set their rent accordingly.

 

Landlords are not being demonised, only those that are exploiting tenants are being targeted.

 

Mostly I'm in agreement with you.

 

However in reality Tenants are protected far more than landlords by the law of the land. I've pointed out the relevant laws to both reduce rents and get properties that don't meet cleanliness standards improved.

 

Nobody, including Owners are in favour of the few unscrupulous landlords. They need to be imprisoned.

 

Letting agencies are a completely different animal and nothing I've said has referred to them. 

 

Their fees are regulated but it doesn't seem that they are held accountable and that is probably because prospective tenants are willing to be ripped off to get into a property that they want knowing that they can then easily not pay or get the landlord on the wrong side of the council if they wish.

 

As regards to whomever said they dislike the term landlord. I do too - it sounds feudal and is outdated now when so many middle class working people are letting a single property but it's the general term used. It's the same for a pub after all! 

 

Finally I don't know how you can say that Landlords are not demonised when in the same comment you are calling them "unscrupulous money grabbing cnuts"

 

The landlord/owner landscape has changed considerably over the last 40 years - and again that was greatly down to the Thatcher government and it's "privatisation" bonanza.

[Captain...]

Mostly I'm in agreement with you.

 

However in reality Tenants are protected far more than landlords by the law of the land. I've pointed out the relevant laws to both reduce rents and get properties that don't meet cleanliness standards improved.

 

Nobody, including Owners are in favour of the few unscrupulous landlords. They need to be imprisoned.

 

Letting agencies are a completely different animal and nothing I've said has referred to them. 

 

Their fees are regulated but it doesn't seem that they are held accountable and that is probably because prospective tenants are willing to be ripped off to get into a property that they want knowing that they can then easily not pay or get the landlord on the wrong side of the council if they wish.

 

As regards to whomever said they dislike the term landlord. I do too - it sounds feudal and is outdated now when so many middle class working people are letting a single property but it's the general term used. It's the same for a pub after all! 

 

Finally I don't know how you can say that Landlords are not demonised when in the same comment you are calling them "unscrupulous money grabbing cnuts"

 

The landlord/owner landscape has changed considerably over the last 40 years - and again that was greatly down to the Thatcher government and it's "privatisation" bonanza.

 

I said some, I know this because I have dealt with many, and some are shameless, and if it wasn't for these cvnts then there wouldn't be any need for this legislation.

[Guest]

I said some, I know this because I have dealt with many, and some are shameless, and if it wasn't for these cvnts then there wouldn't be any need for this legislation.

 

There are "bad" people in every walk of life.

 

The need to prevent rent rises from exceeding the rate of inflation as a "manifesto" pledge has very little to do with law breakers.

 

When you have dealt with these "shameless cvnts" who have you reported them to and what follow up have you done?

[Captain...]

There are "bad" people in every walk of life.

 

The need to prevent rent rises from exceeding the rate of inflation as a "manifesto" pledge has very little to do with law breakers.

 

When you have dealt with these "shameless cvnts" who have you reported them to and what follow up have you done?

 

Nobody, from a legal point of view they technically had a case, such as charging £100 for disposal of an empty cardboard box, this was when I was a student and before the DPS was introduced, so any attempt to do anything about it would have been costly and probably fruitless. The general feeling as a tenant is that you don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view, especially if facing up to a landlord or agency with a lot more financial clout than you, you should just be grateful that they let you live there.

[Guest]

Nobody, from a legal point of view they technically had a case, such as charging £100 for disposal of an empty cardboard box, this was when I was a student and before the DPS was introduced, so any attempt to do anything about it would have been costly and probably fruitless. The general feeling as a tenant is that you don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view, especially if facing up to a landlord or agency with a lot more financial clout than you, you should just be grateful that they let you live there.

 

All you have to do as a tenant - especially in a labour local council - is go and see the environmental Health dept (or a nimber of others) - they will then look into the case and prosecute if necessary without any cost (other than a little time) to the tenant. I have helped on both sides of these cases and they cost nothing.

[Jon the Hat]

Unbelievable if this happens, and unsure whether this could be legally enforced. Surely a human rights issue here.

One of my properties has a market price of £650 a month, but I have never put it up as the tenant is decent and so they are paying just £550 and have done for years.

But if I decided next time to do what I should and add £50 to the rent, this would not be unreasonable, but the Labour say I couldn't do it.

It would mean I am stuck at a rent below the market, and would never be able to put it right. The only option would be for me not to renew the lease, kick the tenant out and start again on £650 a month.

 

Which is exactly what happens were there are rent controls.

[ADK]

Personally I feel the majority of civil law favours the arsehole. I suppose it comes down to how willing and able you are to argue and enforce your rights.

[Captain...]

Personally I feel the majority of civil law favours the arsehole. I suppose it comes down to how willing and able you are to argue and enforce your rights.

 

I agree with that, most normal people don't want the hassle, so the bigger the arsehole you are the more likely you are to get your own way. If it is tenant vs Landlord then it is not so much of an issue, but if you are dealing with an agency/letting company, there is normally someone in the organisation that is a bigger arsehole than you.

[Guest]

Nobody, from a legal point of view they technically had a case, such as charging £100 for disposal of an empty cardboard box, this was when I was a student and before the DPS was introduced, so any attempt to do anything about it would have been costly and probably fruitless. The general feeling as a tenant is that you don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view, especially if facing up to a landlord or agency with a lot more financial clout than you, you should just be grateful that they let you live there.

 

I wasn't going to ask about this but being as you've replied I will.

 

Was the "empty cardboard box" a charge from your deposit when you left?

[Strokes]

I agree with that, most normal people don't want the hassle, so the bigger the arsehole you are the more likely you are to get your own way. If it is tenant vs Landlord then it is not so much of an issue, but if you are dealing with an agency/letting company, there is normally someone in the organisation that is a bigger arsehole than you.

Don't put yourself down mate, I still think you are a big arsehole

[Vicki Vixen]

The DPS has rooted out my last two landlords.

We've taken them both to arbitration and the ruling in both cases was that the amount of deposit to be returned to us tenants should be significantly less (over £1000 in each case) than the landlord was demanding.

Pre-DPS, I would have simply had to meet the landlord's unreasonable demands and lost this money as I did many times with previous tenancies.

I fully support any policy that shifts rights further in the favour of tenants.

[Vicki Vixen]

Unbelievable if this happens, and unsure whether this could be legally enforced. Surely a human rights issue here.

One of my properties has a market price of £650 a month, but I have never put it up as the tenant is decent and so they are paying just £550 and have done for years.

But if I decided next time to do what I should and add £50 to the rent, this would not be unreasonable, but the Labour say I couldn't do it.

It would mean I am stuck at a rent below the market, and would never be able to put it right. The only option would be for me not to renew the lease, kick the tenant out and start again on £650 a month.

This is exactly the issue though. Currently you have the option as a landlord, on a whim, to significantly jack up your tenant's rent and potentially disrupt their lives and financial stability in the process. You sound like a decent and reasonable landlord but unfortunately most tenants can't pick and choose who they rent from.

With increases tied to inflation, the extra stability of knowing my rental outgo for the next 3 years would personally take a lot of stress away for myself and my family.