Sunday, 26 January 2014
Because We Want To
Imagine this: being refused entry to an open supermarket because it’s Wednesday. Or being denied the use of a road because the council, without justification, feel like it – or because you’ve got funny hair. Or being thrown out of a restaurant halfway through a meal because you asked, politely, for a clean fork. Or thrown off a train for being poor, and in 2nd class.
Not wishing to harp on about those damn Wilsons, but for me the most shocking part of the whole sorry tale is the fact they could evict their tenants because they want to. Much is made by Shelter, the various housing ministers and media about rogue landlords, when for me, the worst problem in the whole rented sector is the sense of insecurity.
It works this way. Tenants move in, and letting agents insist on a six month, assured short-term tenancy. Some – the minority – renew with another contract of similar length. If you’re really fortunate, you’re allowed a whole twelve months. But for others, the contract is not renewed – instead it’s ‘rolled over’. This means you don’t endure the continuous renewal fees payable in England, but the other effect is that occupants need only be issued with two months notice when the urge to turf them out strikes.
No-fault evictions are the bain of every tenant’s life. Rentiers commonly chuck out perfectly fine tenants because they can, and because they want to. No need for a reason – even if the secret, hidden cause is owners thinking they can earn more money, or that tenants have insisted on essential repairs, which is known as retaliatory evictions.
Where demand is high and supply limited, I’ve heard of occupants guessing that their lord and effective master is looking elsewhere only when the front door opens and prospective new occupants are shooed hurriedly around. Oh – and they’ve been texted to explain their task is to clean up and ‘be nice.’
This is all perfectly lawful (if a bit stupid) and tenants must even keep their heads down and be nice to avoid their seigneur cursing them with a bad reference. Landlords keep one eye on making more money, and even issue notice to quit, which is withdrawn if they fail to get a better offer. Yep – this happens, especially in property hot-spots.
This highlights another inherent problem with renting – that of amateur rentiers, who thrive on making sure their tenants i.e. the saps who subsidise their pensions or business portfolio are permanently on tenterhooks.
Precarious life, seeped in insecurity makes people ill. No fault evictions are wrong. They’re helpful to nobody – even landlords suffer. They facilitate prejudice, enhance insecurity, and are curse on long term plans. Simply losing your private sector home is now one the main causes of homelessness, and local council must pick up the pieces from the shattered lives caused by short termist cruelty.
To evict a tenant, rentiers should, be forced by law to provide a damn good , evidenced reason.
Either that or letting renters to be empowered to vacate without prejudice because the owner of their home has bad taste in clothes.
Which brings me back, neatly, back to the Wilsons and their hideous Burberry.
http://rentergirl.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/secure-and-insecurity.html
http://rentergirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/cult-of-insecurity.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
It's a bit worse than that.
A landlord can serve a section 21 soon after the start of the tenancy then not have to wait 2 months before applying for a possession order at the end of the fixed term (thought you would have known that).
To further cheer you up, following the recent Spencer vs Taylor case, it may be possible for landlords to set up tenancies where the tenant has to give them 6 months + notice to quit, which will really be unfair.
Landlords evicting on a whim doesn't make sense. There is nearly always a reason for supposed no fault evictions and it usually involves not paying the rent.
If it was a realistic proposition to evict someone for not paying the rent, ASB etc then there would be little need for no fault evictions.
Until that is changed, it is a very good reason for keeping them.
Regards, HB Welcome
"There is nearly always a reason for supposed no fault evictions and it usually involves not paying the rent."
Nope. It's usually because tenants dare to ask for repairs. I've interviewed tenants on the receiving end, and written up their case files.
If landlords continue to have this right, I'd like the right extended to tenants to leave a fixed term early if repairs aren't managed.
RG You are totally wrong on this issue.
The knowledge that if a tenancy goes wrong whether it is for non payment of rent or anti-social behaviour that you can issue a notice to quit and get your property back is one of the main reasons that people are willing to rent their property out.
This is simplifying the situation greatly and it is not usual for the current process to take six months plus and a large legal bill to regain your property.
I can assure you that landlords are also disappointed when good tenants leave and they have exactly the same notice period as tenants. Further 8% of tenancies in the private sector are ended by the landlord and 54% of the time this is because the landlord takes the property back to live in or sell. Only 92% of tenancies are ended by a tenant and the average tenancy length in the private sector is only 500 days.
Shelter are currently arguing for five year rents which the tenant can leave with only two months notice which is completely bonkers and will kill the PRS stone dead.
The first point I have is that only 1% of tenancies in the private sector last five years. The second point is it is fundamentally unfair that a tenant has only got to give two months notice whilst a landlord is tied in for five years.
Finally the best part of the no fault route is that you don't have to get involved with fighting legal battles against so called "charity" lawyers earning £45k a year funded by the tax payer.
No - you're wrong. Rentiers issue ntoice, which cowed tenants just meekly accept. Fighting unlawful evictions, or simply trying to keep your rented home - that's different. Many rentiers are rank amateurs, encouraged by letting agents to think there's better ie richer - tenants just around the corner. Oh - and all power to the the skilled taxpayer lawyers. The reason people rent their property is to coin it in. Simple.
Barney's outrage is funny. These are homes and they must come with security. So, yes, tenants must have the right to stay unless you have very good reason to get your property back. That is how it works in much of Europe. Wake up and smell the coffee wd you. Property has been the play toy of bankers and amateurs for far too long.
RenterGirl said;
Nope. It's usually because tenants dare to ask for repairs.
A leading homelessness charity says;
Landlords usually evict tenants on grounds of failure to
pay the rent, anti social behaviour or because tenants
are damaging or neglecting the property.
http://www.mungos.org/documents/3632/3632.pdf
...Idiot says chuck 'em out ie issue notice whenever landlord's feel like it.
'What’s really striking is the rapid increase in the loss of a private tenancy as a reason for homelessness – 22 per cent of all households accepted as homeless last year and now the single biggest reason given for homelessness in London.'
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2013/12/homelessness-housing-market-failing
Space Cadet In Europe PLCs rent shell residential properties to tenants who are responsible for the upkeep of the properties.
It is a completely different model to the UK PRS.
No Barney. That's not the case. People rent individually in many cases direct from the owner. In longer leases, yes - tenants are responsible for replacing the home to original state, but rarely 'upkeep.' Unless it's the Finnish model of part ownership.
Oh - and here. More excellent work from the amazing Crisis. http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/admin_uploads/research/HomelessnessMonitorEngland2013_ExecSummary.pdf?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=The%20Homelessness%20Monitor%3A%20England&utm_campaign=Resend%20of%20Crisis%20news%20January%202014
Odd link but the gist in that and elsewhere is that being given simple notice for spurious reasons is a misleading cause of homelessness. notice
Yes ,as in Germany most are rented not from companies however there are a lot more Wilson's sized landlords not like uk with people with one or two .
But yes they are rented 'cold' ie without kitchen light fittings floor coverings etc and are generally responsible for the buildings insurance .
It's kind of like a commercial else over here .
So when you take all these things int account there is very little difference in pricing although longer tenancies there is a lot of upfront costs
Also from the amazing Crisis;
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/HiddenTruthAboutHomelessness_web.pdf
Respondents who had been living in the private rented sector had lost/left this accommodation for a range of reasons including;
*given notice for reasons other than anti-social behaviour or rent arrears (10 per cent).
Contract just not renewed for unclear reasons - ie because thr rentier wants to, or claims they're about to sell.
Good point - shame it was SEO spammer.
Barney's outrage is funny. These are homes and they must come with security. So, yes, tenants must have the right to stay unless you have very good reason to get your property back. That is how it works in much of Europe. Wake up and smell the coffee wd you. Property has been the play toy of bankers and amateurs for far too long.
I've been called many things, but never an SEO spammer.. My original post (as you since reposted) resides above you'll see.
Erm... it's not about you spacecadet - rather the comment I deleted, then reposted above. That comment was reposted once more, by a spammer. Odd. But true.
Okay, cool. Confusion resolved.
Post a Comment