Housing market

[Southeastern]

Maybe not allow my overseas tenant folk in as they’re taking up housing? Sure, I’m in for the long haul so short term market fluctuations don’t bother me, particularly with govt driving out landlords, means less supply. Look at the current situation in Scotland (see post above), a total mess through govt meddling. Bottom line is there’s too much demand and not enough supply in places where people want to live. Always been the case, always will be the case.

You failed to address my point, instead you attempted to spin it into an immigration debate. Very poor and comically obvious.

As I said, it tips the (iffy at best) balance of the rental market heavily into the privileged, so while the high demand/low supply is a fundamental element of the crisis, creating a system that then caters for those who can afford over a more balanced system of whoever gets there first etc is prejudice, however you try to spin it. That's what you are supporting by accepting advance rent.

 

[stevec67]

It isn't true that there's no risk for the owner of the property when a tenant pays 6 months in advance, because at the end of the six months you may have an unreliable payer to deal with.


Another consideration is where the cash came from. If the tenant uses the property to grow cannabis, then that has serious insurance consequences for the owner of the house. If it came from the sale of drugs, or from prostitution, it can upset the neighbours, and the owner may want to avoid that.

(People from the council sweeping leaves in the snow outside my house at the moment -- it reminds me of a scene in Rocco and His Brothers. I'm suddenly in an Italian realist filmset!)

Isn't the risk part of the equation? Regardless of who moves in, they could turn out to be crims, or fronting it up. I know that when I moved into my last rented place (2009)I learned that it had been empty for a while because there had been a rent arrears and no new tenant. I did have a couple of rent collectors come round asking for a Polish woman. Is she in? No. Does she live here? No. Did I know where she was? No, have you tried Warsaw? I was there 5 1/2 years, paid the bills, didn't trash the place, when I moved out (2014) it was let again and there was a good deal of antisocial behaviour and non-payment of rent, so much so that the landlord sold up. But them's the breaks. If you want guaranteed returns get an ISA.

 

[mandryka]

Isn't the risk part of the equation? Regardless of who moves in, they could turn out to be crims, or fronting it up. I know that when I moved into my last rented place (2009)I learned that it had been empty for a while because there had been a rent arrears and no new tenant. I did have a couple of rent collectors come round asking for a Polish woman. Is she in? No. Does she live here? No. Did I know where she was? No, have you tried Warsaw? I was there 5 1/2 years, paid the bills, didn't trash the place, when I moved out (2014) it was let again and there was a good deal of antisocial behaviour and non-payment of rent, so much so that the landlord sold up. But them's the breaks. If you want guaranteed returns get an ISA.

Nobody's talking about guaranteed returns!

What you have to take on board is that the cost of an eviction is very high. Even a rapid s21 eviction can take much more than 6 months if T decides to dig his heals in, and there's a financial cost too -- bailiffs and hearings and possibly lawyers have to be paid for, and you probably won't be getting any income from your property while it's going on. s21 is may not be possible, and soon will never be possible. With s8 it's an extremely long and expensive process for the claimant to gain possession, because it's discretionary and because of the time to get a hearing scheduled.

 

[Ponty]

You failed to address my point, instead you attempted to spin it into an immigration debate. Very poor and comically obvious.

As I said, it tips the (iffy at best) balance of the rental market heavily into the privileged, so while the high demand/low supply is a fundamental element of the crisis, creating a system that then caters for those who can afford over a more balanced system of whoever gets there first etc is prejudice, however you try to spin it. That's what you are supporting by accepting advance rent.

Forcing landlords to accept the first offer, that’s pretty far out, extremist stuff, which would presumably also apply when buying. I don’t allow kids or pets, guess you’d force me to do that as well. Yet if someone doesn’t stick to their side of the contract, plays the game and lives in my property without paying, that’s my problem, for which my hands are very much tied when it comes to resolving. Hence I have to ensure I do everything I can to prevent that situation. The more draconian the govt become, the more focussed I need to be on managing risk.

 

[gustavm]

There are significant numbers of both exploitative landlords and appallingly bad tenants. Its pretty obvious that there should be a speedy and effective means to discourage either. A healthy rental market is vital, and both good tenants and good landlords have a common interest in seeing a well-regulated rental market with fair balance for speedy remedy when one party behaves badly. But that requires a coherent policy from the government and the financing of the appropriate justice system - so not a hope from the current lot. Simply removing S21 doesn't achieve that, and you can't blame landlords for moving away in droves as the risk of defaults increases.

 

[stevec67]

Nobody's talking about guaranteed returns!
.

Yes, that's why I said "Isn't the risk part of the equation? "
It's a business. Business has risk. That's why my daily rate pays better than a salary, nobody on a salary has had a company go bankrupt and miss out on several thousand pounds. If I want guaranteed income I'll get a PAYE job.

 

[stevec67]

There are significant numbers of both exploitative landlords and appallingly bad tenants. Its pretty obvious that there should be a speedy and effective means to discourage either. A healthy rental market is vital, and both good tenants and good landlords have a common interest in seeing a well-regulated rental market with fair balance for speedy remedy when one party behaves badly. But that requires a coherent policy from the government and the financing of the appropriate justice system - so not a hope from the current lot. Simply removing S21 doesn't achieve that, and you can't blame landlords for moving away in droves as the risk of defaults increases.

The difficulty is that there are people out there who will never get a mortgage because they have no intention of paying anything back. Some of these people are the worst kind of tenants. If you evict them, and there are innocent bystanders such as children, where do you put them? We all know what *should* happen, but the practicalities of the situation make any decision making more complex.

 

[mandryka]

Yes, that's why I said "Isn't the risk part of the equation? "
It's a business. Business has risk. That's why my daily rate pays better than a salary, nobody on a salary has had a company go bankrupt and miss out on several thousand pounds. If I want guaranteed income I'll get a PAYE job.

The question is whether 6 or 12 months in advance from someone who doesn't pass credit checks counterbalances the risk sufficiently to make it worth the punt for the owner.

 

[mandryka]

The difficulty is that there are people out there who will never get a mortgage because they have no intention of paying anything back. Some of these people are the worst kind of tenants. If you evict them, and there are innocent bystanders such as children, where do you put them? We all know what *should* happen, but the practicalities of the situation make any decision making more complex.

Someone in the circumstances you describe, evicted through a no fault procedure, will be rehoused by the local authority. The authority has a duty to rehouse them because they have not made themselves voluntarily homeless. One of the most common "scams" is for the tenant to stop paying rent, hope that the owner uses s21, wait till they get notice from bailiffs, and then contact the council to be rehoused. I've had this happen to me, as owner, more than once.

If you look at the consultation document I posted yesterday, it's partly about how LA obligations should change if and when s21 is removed.

 

[Darth Vader]

The question is whether 6 or 12 months in advance from someone who doesn't pass credit checks counterbalances the risk sufficiently to make it worth the punt for the owner.

They sometimes fail and miserably so as today its a tick box on a computer screen by someone who is paid minimum or close wage so no deviation is possible

I have experienced this agro when my youngest needed a guarantor for a rental in London and I was turned down. After arguing the case for a long time I told them what I thought of their useless vetting system. Since then I have just loaned my daughter and her German flat mate the £6K each for their first 6 months rental (yes £24K pa for a 2 bed flat!). That was a few years ago. The vetting systems in use today are very basic and I guess that it covers maybe 90-95% of cases. It would appear that management couldn't care less about losing that other 5%-10% of business.

DV

 

[Southeastern]

Forcing landlords to accept the first offer, that’s pretty far out, extremist stuff, which would presumably also apply when buying. I don’t allow kids or pets, guess you’d force me to do that as well. Yet if someone doesn’t stick to their side of the contract, plays the game and lives in my property without paying, that’s my problem, for which my hands are very much tied when it comes to resolving. Hence I have to ensure I do everything I can to prevent that situation. The more draconian the govt become, the more focussed I need to be on managing risk.

Human rights are such, they don't include pets, and according to the below link, its illegal to refuse renters on the basis they have children.

https://www.redbrickpm.co.uk/blog/what-can-landlords-do-to-help-child-proof-their properties/#:~:text=While%20it%20is%20illegal%20for,property%20which%20cannot%20be%20fixed.

'While it is illegal for a landlord to refuse potential tenants on the grounds that they have children, you should warn any prospective tenants of any child-unfriendly elements of the property which cannot be fixed.'

https://www.landlordvision.co.uk/blog/landlords-letting-tenants-children/

This link mentions the legalities of it under The Equalities Act 2010 as you are discriminating against those with children.

So basically, you've shown your double whammy of prejudice on your posts today, lovely.

No one is forcing anything, as long as the playing field is fair, for example, the perspective tenants can afford the asking rent - and your whole phrasing of 'the first offer' is literally what is wrong with you, and your ilk.

You could have, for instance, thought, 'while I dont accept that being a landlord is unethical, I could of course, be an ethical landlord'. I work with quite a few of those. But you didn't and you don't, and you have opted to basically be unethical in a wholly unethical practice.

 

[Ponty]

Human rights are such, they don't include pets, and according to the below link, its illegal to refuse renters on the basis they have children.

https://www.redbrickpm.co.uk/blog/what-can-landlords-do-to-help-child-proof-their properties/#:~:text=While%20it%20is%20illegal%20for,property%20which%20cannot%20be%20fixed.

'While it is illegal for a landlord to refuse potential tenants on the grounds that they have children, you should warn any prospective tenants of any child-unfriendly elements of the property which cannot be fixed.'

https://www.landlordvision.co.uk/blog/landlords-letting-tenants-children/

This link mentions the legalities of it under The Equalities Act 2010 as you are discriminating against those with children.

So basically, you've shown your double whammy of prejudice on your posts today, lovely.

No one is forcing anything, as long as the playing field is fair, for example, the perspective tenants can afford the asking rent - and your whole phrasing of 'the first offer' is literally what is wrong with you, and your ilk.

You could have, for instance, thought, 'while I dont accept that being a landlord is unethical, I could of course, be an ethical landlord'. I work with quite a few of those. But you didn't and you don't, and you have opted to basically be unethical in a wholly unethical practice.

My properties are simply unsuitable for children (head leases don’t allow pets anyway). They are fully furnished with expensive furniture, fixtures and fittings, down to crockery and glasses which would all cost a fortune to replace. Think nice serviced apartments without the cleaner included for a long term let at a much reduced price. Hence the demand is from corporate type tenants. I pride myself on being an excellent landlord, providing superb accommodation at a fair price. I do everything to keep my tenants (customers) happy and that attitude has so far served me well. Christ, I even get sent nice wine at Christmas as a token of thanks.

 

[Southeastern]

My properties are simply unsuitable for children (head leases don’t allow pets anyway). They are fully furnished with expensive furniture, fixtures and fittings, down to crockery and glasses which would all cost a fortune to replace. Think nice serviced apartments without the cleaner included for a long term let at a much reduced price. Hence the demand is from corporate type tenants. I pride myself on being an excellent landlord, providing superb accommodation at a fair price. I do everything to keep my tenants (customers) happy and that attitude has so far served me well. Christ, I even get sent nice wine at Christmas as a token of thanks.

Unsuitable for children…sure. Prejudice and therefore would probably be in violation of The Equalities Act. I think the real definition of 'unsuitable for children' means more of a super busy road, or a HMO etc. However I am sure you utilise what is probably a subjective grey area knowing it's unlikely a working family or single parent could take you to court over the discrimination.

Whodafunk children, could even be a teenager?, can't use an expensive bowl correctly and will to go all moshpit on your furniture, because they all do that

 

[Ponty]

Unsuitable for children…sure. Prejudice and therefore in violation of The Equalities Act.

Whodafunk children, could even be a teenager cant use an expensive bowl correctly.

Sorry, you have no idea. I’ve never had a request for a viewing from someone with a child and would be amazed if I ever did. They’d be mad to. For less money, they could rent a beautiful family house with garden etc. I’m appealing to and fulfilling a completely different market. Horses for courses.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Sorry, you have no idea. I’ve never had a request for a viewing from someone with a child and would be amazed if I ever did. They’d be mad to. For less money, they could rent a beautiful family house with garden etc. I’m appealing to and fulfilling a completely different market. Horses for courses.

You said ‘I don’t allow kids…’ not ‘my tenants don’t have kids’

 

[Ponty]

You said ‘I don’t allow kids…’ not ‘my tenants don’t have kids’

Hypothetical situation. I have a property for rent. I receive 6 offers. 5 are from single professional people (the target market), 1 is from a couple with 2 kids. Who decides which offer is accepted?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Hypothetical situation. I have a property for rent. I receive 6 offers. 5 are from single professional people (the target market), 1 is from a couple with 2 kids. Who decides which offer is accepted?

Well if the decision comes down to ‘kids/not kids’ then you’re breaking the law. What happens if the couple have the best credit score and references, and make the best offer?

And you said ‘I don’t allow kids’ not ‘My tenants don’t have kids’

 

[andrew d]

Hypothetical situation. I have a property for rent. I receive 6 offers. 5 are from single professional people (the target market), 1 is from a couple with 2 kids. Who decides which offer is accepted?

The ones with the best credit ratings / references / deposit. No room for sentiment in the rental game.

 

[mandryka]

Just a legal point. As far as I know, maybe a lawyer will clarify, a tenant need not inform the owner that there will be children living in the property. Children's names don't appear on leases. You couldn't evict a T on the ground that they're letting children live in the house without your consent, unless it led to overcrowding.

I just looked at rental prices for houses like mine and it's a shock how much they've gone up. Normally I wouldn't bother to look, but I'm a bit worried by the thought that there may be a rent freeze. Somehow it feels wrong to get myself trapped into achieving a much lower rent than I could get, especially if s21 goes -- a bit lower, yes, but not a lot lower. So I guess I'd better have a chat with the tenants about it in January, before it's too late.

 

[Ponty]

Well if the decision comes down to ‘kids/not kids’ then you’re breaking the law. What happens if the couple have the best credit score and references, and make the best offer?

And you said ‘I don’t allow kids’ not ‘My tenants don’t have kids’

I had one tenant (a couple) become pregnant (accidentally…) shortly after moving in. He rang me, he was paranoid about damaging the place and thought they should rent a more suitable property. I said if you want to go, go whenever you like, I won’t hold you to the lease period, or you can stay, it’s entirely up to you. They had the baby then chose to move to a house. I gave them total flexibility, he took me for lunch. I always do the right thing by my customers, every time. Trying to let that place to someone with a child would be like a car salesman trying to flog them a Caterham. They’re simply never going to be interested in the first place. If I were to let my current house (which I might well do at some point), then of course, crack on and enjoy, it’s perfect.