which idiot gave tenants rights?

[squirrel_hunter]

While I sympathize with you and your brothers situation I have to take exception to the title of this thread

which idiot gave tenants rights?

.

Now having been a tenant myself for many years I had to put up with all sorts from landlords. Those who didn't care and were just doing the bare minimum to those who ended up screwing me and my friends over.

The worse one let a perfectly good house go to ruin as she didn't care about it. Put absolute ****wits in who made a mess in the kitchen worse than the feral cats that would **** everywhere. Those who could not grasp the concept of closing doors as opposed to slamming them. She would sometimes not pay the phone bill that resulted in us being cut off, no phone line, no internet, no job for me. She then stopped paying the mortgage, which along with a couple of other reasons is why I'm currently homeless. To be honest though the bailiffs that would occasionally visit at unsociable hours for her should have been a warning sign.

I blame my self I shouldn't have stayed there so long, but for all the negatives living there gave me I did have some reasons to stay. But even after all of that I still tidied up and left the place in the same condition as when I moved in.

So what I am saying is that tenants were given rights to stop things like that happening, though as you might have realized it all counts for very little as pursuing anything like your rights usually isn't worth it. Tenants and landlords can be as bad as one another, but there is no need to tar them all with the same brush as I have had some very good ones as your brother has also had some good tenants as you wrote. Just sometimes you don't get lucky.

As for my situation, they took my landlords house, repossed it and are selling it for far less then she had it mortgaged for. They closed her business down as she stopped paying her suppliers there. Most likely with all the money she now owes they have bankrupted her. Just goes to show...

[hindle8907]

The First house we rented was repossessed, we moved in and 2 months later we received a letter telling us we had 28 days to get out.
Feel sorry for your brother but we have rented for 4 years now in three different properties, each time we have had to put down a nice deposit and first months rent most recent was "£1350 down before we even got the keys" and go through all sorts of credit checks and referencing.
One thing I wouldn't accept if I was a landlord is DSS payments.

Originally Posted by hindle8907

One thing I wouldn't accept if I was a landlord is DSS payments.

I won't accept DSS as I don't trust the letting agent to vet tenants properly. If I was meeting them myself (house is 400 miles away) I wouldn't have an issue with it. DSS does not automatically mean scrotes. Many single mothers or families with disabilities will be on DSS, but not working or not being able to work usually means they are not able to get a mortgage, so are looking for a home to live in the long term, so they are more likely to treat it as their own home as they know they have to live with any mess or damage they make. Once set up and all the applications are completed, the DSS play the rent direct to you, it's paid every month without fail, and it's on time. Payments are only subject to your tenant following the rules and not subject to their financial ups and downs. DSS isn't as bad an option as everyone thinks it is, so long as you choose the tenant carefully. I know a single mother who has lived in her current rented house on DSS for the last 15 years. Her son is about school leaving age now and has grown up in that house.

[timwilky]

Interesting to read the other side of the argument, I suppose you could say that if you have a bad landlord you can just walk away, but to be kicked out because of a bad landlord is different, I guess they screwed up on buy to let.

In my brothers case he owns the flats outright. If anything he owns the shops underneath and letting the upstairs flats is incidental to his real business.

My mate owns the 5 bed house over the road from me, he is letting that. After a bad tenant who scarpered without paying, he now has a good one, a bit of a mitherer who wants every minor job that he is quite capable of doing in a few minutes repairing immediately, but he pays on time, keeps it spotless and as such has not had a rent increase for two years because my mate would rather keep a good tenant than risk him giving notice and ending up with another bad tenant.

Sorry if the title annoyed you SH, yes tenants should have rights, but so should landlords.

[hindle8907]

Yeah it doesn't automatically mean scrotes but I would rather have piece of mind.

Originally Posted by hindle8907

Yeah it doesn't automatically mean scrotes but I would rather have piece of mind.

All depends on how secure the tenants job is anyway, he could be working today and on DSS a month after he signs the lease. Because of tenants rights, you can't get them out and the best course of action will be to let them stay and accept the DSS payments, and the delay not getting paid whilst the application goes through.

[hindle8907]

Swings and roundabouts.
I'd Still go for the no DSS option. The house most probably isn't going to get wrecked by someone that's put down over 1000 cash has a job and has passed all the credit ratings and reference checks.

Rather than some so called single mum, who gets the DSS to pay the rent and has her non working boyfriend living their Scot free and messes the place up with his other non working pal's.

I know we shouldn't tar all with the same brush but in this day in age the latter is most likely imo.

personally, I am a tennant and I must say my landlord is great, never gives us any bother or anything and simply lets us pay the rent. we're now officially out of the initial contract with him too so that's 2 months notice to be given however we've given him no reason for that and as a retirement option for him he wants us there.
Albeit we nearly ended up being a DSS tennant thaks to connaught he was happy with that as he knew that I would be actively persuing moving to a better job (which i did).

I agree that all tennants should have rights, however also agree that there needs to be a limit where the landlord is allowed to step in and take required action for non payments etc then all property and rights of the tennant are allowed to befall onto the landlord and the tennant is forcibly removed and must request personal effects back.
The courts should also stop the rubbish where people get 50p per weeek for the next 20 years to repay a judgement in teh case of criminal damage/theft (which lets face it, it is) and the tennant should be given harder punishments like jail terms.

[squirrel_hunter]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Sorry if the title annoyed you SH, yes tenants should have rights, but so should landlords.

No apology necessary, I just wanted to help show you the other side of the fence. And judging by the following I think whats in this thread has done that:

Originally Posted by timwilky

Interesting to read the other side of the argument, I suppose you could say that if you have a bad landlord you can just walk away, but to be kicked out because of a bad landlord is different, I guess they screwed up on buy to let.

Bad landlords, bad tenants. They give each other a bad name. And yes they really screwed up on buy to let.

[Bluepete]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...-with-crow-bar

Don't upset this landlord!

Pete