General Chat

When we were in Peckham, London 45-ish years ago, living in a rented flat (one of 14)owned by an old boy landlord, paying an affordable(just) rent, when it came for the old boy to sell up , the rent was almost doubled,(under the "fair rent" scheme)and made exclusive of rates.......

Bob

Of course landlords should be able to sell their property - but, if they have tenants, with a contract, that should be honoured, and the proper eviction process followed.

Why shouldn't a landlord sell if that is what he want to do? After all it is his property in the first place. However there are legal procedures for obtaining vacant possession and many landlords will follow them to the letter.

The problem with this type of reporting is that whilst is is not necessarily untrue, it does tent to paint a very one sided picture.

I would apportion blame on facets of all the examples you've given, DET :-D :-D

It did, it did. I saw it.

Maggie - with both low mortgage and savings interest rates, it would have seemed a good investment at the time. Unless the Landlord had previous experience, they wouldn't have realised the pit-falls.

Sharron - It might well have done. Who knows?

Were would you apportion blame, if any? Both high house prices/rents and a stagnant or depressed wage have played their part in recent years. You could probably include Zero Hours contracts.
Even though inflation is low, its still more than the previous year. Not much help if you haven't had a wage rise if you're working in the public sector.

If I were to put up about landlords and tenants, do you think somebody might see the way the Quick Quid advertisement reflects the life portrayed in the Victorian Slum series?

I'm sure landlords don't buy houses to rent out through the goodness of their heart.

If was such an apparently loss making venture, why did so many go into it?

Mind you, I use the word 'was', as, with tax changes afoot and houses at their most expensive, many landlords are selling up - causing tenants to be illegally evicted, and house prices even more out of reach of the 'average' wage earner.

...and we've come full circle!! :-D :-D :-D

Maggie, it was a I bed flat. If the other people living with them were related it might have been a bit different. This wasn't sofa-surfing; these were single, unrelated, adults who were contributing to the rent. If the landlord had knowingly tried to squash so many people into the space, they'd be the ones in trouble.

Based on the 2 bed rent the relative was paying, with the addition of housing & other benefits it should have been affordable. One rumour that went round was they wanted/needed a 2 bed which they couldn't afford on the private market.

Yes, rents are expensive. So are house prices. If a landlord has bought the property with a large mortgage, he needs to cover his repayment, have a contingency fund for repairs, and enough to cover 'void' periods. That's even before he garners a 'profit'.

'Accidental Landlords' such as those who have inherited the property might, in some years, not see a profit at all. Those would be the caring ones who want their property kept in good condition.

It's not all black and white, regardless of what the media tries to portray.

Not exactly a perfect scenario is it - though it appears the tenant was in the 'wrong' for having other people living there - but why?
Because the rent was unaffordable - an ever increasing problem!!

As it is they're in emergency accommodation - but that's only because they have a child. If they hadn't had a child - they'd have to fend for themselves, and there isn't even a Workhouse they could go to.

"As for 'sitting tight' until the Bailiffs come - really???"

Yes, really. Tenants living in a 1 bed flat next to a close relative couldn't afford the rent. They'd been stopped from flat-sharing with a number of unrelated individuals.

As they had a young child, they waited until they were given a Baliffs date and were then able to get emergency council accommodation.

From the Telegraph article re changing locks

"Landlords' groups said the rise was down to ignorance among some about the correct way to evict a tenant. "

Further down
"Many are "accidental landlords", those who did not buy a property specifically to let out but instead decided to their let their existing home and move to a new one. These in particular may be unaware of the regulatory and tax rules surrounding buy-to-let."

As for the failure to return the tenants deposits, there are legal avenues the (ex) tenant can take.

Since 6th April 2007 all security deposits must be protected in a security deposit or insurance scheme
If you're in dispute with your landlord over some, or all of your security deposit, you can use Alternative Dispute Resolution to help settle the matter
If you're unhappy after using the ADR scheme you can go court to resolve the dispute
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/my-landlord-wont-return-my-security-deposit-what-can-i-do

As I said before - yes there are bad tenants.

As for 'sitting tight' until the Bailiffs come - really???

Did you read the article? Landlords in many cases are just changing the locks.
The tenant is hardly likely to get their deposit back, and how are they meant to be able to afford to put a deposit on another rented property?

Imagine if the landlord actually gives 2 months notice and the Bailiffs are called in.
If they then go to the Council or Housing Association, don't you think they'll be asked what they have done to attempt to re-home themselves whilst waiting for the Bailiffs?
Yet again, deposit unlikely to be returned.

Tenants with eviction notices can then sit tight. They know they can get away with it for months until the Bailiffs appear with a Court Order.

Yes, there are irresponsible landlords. However there are also irresponsible or inept tenants. It's sometimes a two-way thing.

I'm not denying there are good private landlords out there, but statistics show a high percentage will just take the money and not bother about the state of the property.
There are also bad tenants, but they can be evicted and charged with criminal damage.

Yes, tenants can report their landlord, but they know they'll find themselves homeless - and possibly unable to rent in the same neighbourhood, as word will get around that they're 'troublemakers'.

Perhaps you haven't heard that, with the rise in house prices, many landlords want to sell their 'buy to rent' properties, preferably empty, and, with very little legal protection for tenants, they can, with no given reason, evict their tenants with 2 months notice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/complaints-of-illegal-evictions-rise-50pc-as-more-landlords-igno/

2087 people facing illegal eviction in one year is hardly a 'drop in the ocean'.

It is easy to assume that all landlords are rogues. We also have a lot of very good landlords who are continually getting shafted by unscrupulous tenants.

I never thought of that, Sharron.

Unfortunately we also still have rogue private landlords, who charge over the top rents for houses that don't meet the legal standards, and are a threat to the health of the tenants.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/17/private-landlords-rent-homes-dont-meet-legal-standards-report

There is a 19th c legal requirement for landlords to ensure properties are let- and kept- fit for human habitation, but it hasn't been updated since 1957, and is effective, only if the rent is less than £52 a year

One MP, (Karen Buck) in October 2015, tried to bring in a Bill - The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill to stop this abuse, but it was 'talked out' by Tory MP Philip Davies, who said it would "put a huge burden on landlords”.

Philip Davies just happens to be a landlord.

I have been watching Victorian Slum as, I am sure, have many on this site and have just seen that advertisement where the boiler breaks down. This time, as I watched it, I realized how similar they are to each other.

The family are all working to keep the roof over their heads because, should they default on the huge loan they have to buy their house, they will not have a place to live. They must go out and sell their labour for all the hours they can.

Their nutrition is poor and not conducive to doing a good days work, the man is taking a piece of toast with jam spread upon it to eat on his way to work.

Something they have come to rely upon , the boiler, is not working and they have no means of heating enough water for their daily requirements. Although this is a somewhat predictable situation, there is no contingency fund to pay for repair or replacement so the woman is obliged to take out a short term loan at a rate of nearly thirteen hundred per cent interest.

Victorian Slum in modern costume?