Bad Landlord

I am not a fan of campaigns to ‘kick out rogue landlords’ who I believe to be both a minority and a distraction. Personally, I am more concerned about the constant, low-level misery caused by insecurity or short term contracts, and in London, rocketing rents. And don’t forget: many landlords are, like my current ‘landgirl’ (she wants to be called that) superlatively decent and reasonable.

But bad landlords exist. They are out there. A friend had a nightmare experience: she moved newbuild flat, and in the middle of a freezing winter, followed the best instructions on what to do about the pipes, and went away.

She returned to find the flat deluged after a burst pipe, and living in a nightmare of flooded possessions, was forced to leave her uninhabitable home (the one she paid rent for.) The letting agent were singularly nasty and obstructive, and after months spent sofa surfing, my friend could not get back into her flat. The letting agents contrived to blame her for the leak, claiming that pots and pans in the sink had caused water to spill (!) and then refuted their own plumbers report, which agreed that any damage was not the fault of my friend.

The lesson is a common one: she did not feel able to take the landlord to court. She discovered he was not on the local landlord register (she had not, in common with many tenants, checked this before moving in.) And so here’s what she suspects: that her landlord did not have permission to let the place from the mortgage provider, had no insurance (I always say that like drivers, landlords should be insured by law) and so tried to shift the blame onto my friend.

At that point she was held responsible for the flooding, broken down and demoralised. Oh and also: she was homeless. There is no happy ending. She invested her energy in finding somewhere to live: a decision most tenants make. They do not pursue bad/rogue/vile landlords – instead they move out and move on and I don’t blame them. While entirely understandable, it does have the effect of letting the landlord keep on harassing, flooding and tormenting the next tenant.

Elsewhere, even a casual chat with friends has garnered tales of bad landlords who: harassed and tried to kick down doors, refused outright to repair heating in the middle of a freezing winter, went bankrupt, confused the right to inspect with the need to enter randomly at will, collected or reclaimed vital furniture while tenants were out, and the worst of all, who illegally evicted tenants by sending round thugs.

Tenants can be evicted if they misbehave: procedures are in place. But what happens to landlords who terrorise tenants? There should be a licence, withdrawn if landlords act unlawfully, or by actions or omissions cause physical and/or mental harm. Oh – and they should forfeit the property. There really aren’t that many, but increasing reliance on the private sector means more amateur, untrained rentiers and resentful ‘forced’ landlords. Tenants will show their love for which ever party legislates about this by voting for them.

Yoo-Hoo! Jack Dromey!

Yoo-Hoo! Jack Dromey!

Cooee-cooee…I can see you!

Technology is marvellous, and thanks to a mcguffin I can see who reads this blog, where they are and how long they linger over my fine words. Intriguingly, over the past few months, my work is being repeatedly read by persons unknown in the House of Commons.

Now, it might the cleaner, struggling to cover the rent on minimum wage. It might be newbie housing minister Prisk, reading about the trauma of renting, all the better to ignore our woes since he is, like all his accomplices, not keen on ‘regulation.’

Worse: it might be one of the 25% of Condem MP’s who are private landlords.

I am however hopeful that someone, perhaps even Jack Dromey the Shadow Housing Minister is paying attention. If so, I am going to spell it out. This is what tenants want. More to the point – this is what tenants genuinely need.

(1) Security. We want to know we can stay, and we want to know that tenants can only be given notice for a damn good reason, and not because it’s Wednesday, because the owner has thing about Librans, or you know… just because. Currently we can be given notice for whimsical and capricious reasons.

(2) Licence and register landlords. Yep. It must happen. Tattooists need a licence, as do café owners – contravening rules leads to losing the business. Currently even in violent wrongful evictions, landlords rarely suffer the full weight of the law, and police often collude in their actions.

(3) Follow Scottish model for banning letting agents ‘premiums’ ie the curious inventive fees charged without cause and with impunity (and no making them ‘transparent’ is NOT enough!) Landlords can pay. Oh – and agents must be trained to degree level and licensed.

(4) Rogue landlords are an attention grabbing minority. But anyone who herds tenants into a shed and or those letting dangerous buildings (ie faulty electrical wiring) should be barred for life whilst forfeiting their property, which then fortuitously passes into council ownership.

(5) Bring back rent controls. I know Shelter don’t agree, but the only real reason for rents to rise is spiralling interest rates (currently at their lowest ever level). It’s greed pure and simple: letting agents ramp up prices because they can and because they want to: there are no genuine reasons. Rent officers should again visit and forbid or allow rent increases.

We are many, we are unhappy and we are learning how to bite back. See the recent actions by Edinburgh Private Tenant’s Action (their marshals visited another letting agent recently) and Housing For The 99% who ‘inspected’ a London letting agents (caught rejecting claimants) in high-vis vests and carrying clipboards.

As long as renters can be moved on every six months for no clear reason, they cannot rest safe. Schools have uncertain numbers of pupils, and few tenants are registered to vote, as we move so much. Hey there Jack - we also feel that nobody represent us. Whoever listens and enables renting to improve might find we vote for them.

The Name Of The Landlord

Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Ethnic cleansing.
Differently-abled.

Just a few of the neologisms and new phrases which have seeped into our daily vocabulary and the collective consciousness. The words we use control how we see the world and alters our behaviour to the people living in it. Some phrases restyle the world for the better, others terms sanitise and mask appalling actions.

Language matters. I am mirroring the esteemed Ben Reeves Lewis, who has mooted changing the names of those who own and manage property they have inherited, or bought to let out to tenants (aka landlords and landladies.)

Say the word landlord and what’s the first image to appear in your mind’s eye? A wry man with a handlebar moustache serving real ale? Or a Rigsby-stile Rachmanite who wallows in your discomfort at insecurity, damp and disrepair?

Landlord is a term loaded with baggage and preconceptions. A landlord sounds privileged – even aristocratic. No wonder many feel they are the actual rulers of their estate (ie our home). The name gives pretensions of grandeur: might be why some owners imagine that inspecting a flat once a month with just one days notice is an absolute right. Some imagine they can turn up whenever they want to. ‘It’s my property – I can do whatever I want’ being the usual excuse.

Or take landlady – a word weighed down by notions of east-end pubs, and doughty woman of uncertain age who can pull a pint with one hand and free-style wrestle troublemakers to the ground with the other. It does not suggest besuited professionals who have invested in several homes while gently accruing equity wealth, managing several homes and rallying recalcitrant contractors.

Ownership is about power, and the power relation between landlord and tenant is complex and fraught. Landlords seem, by all they do, to require constant reassurance that they can reclaim their property whenever they want to. Tenants, meanwhile, want to stay. That little ‘…lord’ makes the situation seem ever more complicated, but tenants should feel no more beholden to their landlord than shoppers do the manager of their local supermarket.

This is a world where some Rentiers (to steal wholesale Ben’s suggestion) certainly don’t hold with this ‘call me Dave’ mentality, and can insist on proper titles (usually Mr, although Sir is declining…along with your Landlordship) that’s if we ever find out the real names of these enigmatic overlords. Landlords are mysterious. We are shielded from them. Letting agents are increasingly hiding owners by assuming their identity on the rental agreement. Research is necessary to ascertain who actually owns the building, while being paid for our right to occupy the space.

But I quite like rentier - Ben Reeves-Lewis’ solution, although my own (kind, fair and responsible) landlady has the last word on this point, and recently emailed to say:

‘I've been thinking. I hate the term landlord (I don't have a wiener), and landlady makes me sound doubled up and old and smelly. So my new title, given my love of all things retro and 40/50s, shall be Landgirl !!!! Plus, that makes me sound all headscarfed and pro-active. That is all :-)’

She wants to be called Landgirl and I would never dare argue. So Landgirl it is then.

They're Doomed! Doomed!

Such charming people, letting agents. Lovely, warm-hearted, honest and caring.

My friend is still looking for a place, and she’s getting desperate. I saw a ‘To Let’ sign outside a likely property, and called the number to ask about the flat. Now keep in mind that my friend had already called: she thought I had imagined the sign, so strenuously did the agency deny its existence. I thought the agency had re-let the place, but was told ‘they had no property in that area.’ I said forcefully that they might take the sign down. They kept repeating their mantra, and did not apologise for wasting my time, and that of countless others.

It’s that sort of casual, callous disregard for people that made me sort of glad in a way about this related story.

A friend contacted me to ask about his deposit: the letting agent had gone bust. Briefly I mourned the innocent jobs lost, then I got out the bunting: the joy was briefly unconfined. This is going to happen a lot more in the coming months. There are too many agents scrabbling for business, and they are already ‘surplus to requirements.’ Many landlords are using ‘portals’ (which still sound so sci-fi) and traditional agents are going under.

This also explains why they have dreamed up more cruel and unusual fees - aka a premium (officially declared illegal in Scotland – despite another agent telling yet another friend that this would all be settled in November. He paid up and will reclaim the fee in court. What a waste of time.)

My friend had paid his deposit just before the law enforcing the protection scheme in Scotland came in. His landlord is awol. The agency had done that new trick of listing themselves as the landlord, rather than naming the owner on the lease – very dodgy indeed. Anyone out there know why they do this?

My friend located the owner (hooray!) who’s ignoring his emails and letters (boo!) He’s going to the small claims court to take action against the landlord: if he sues the bankrupt agency he’ll be put on a list of creditors, and will be a very low priority recouping a fraction of what he paid.

I am glad that all deposits must now be protected everywhere – and the law was post-dated; it applies to all rental agreements no matter when they started.

The sad part is for those under the yoke of agents who were struggling before this, who have escaped with deposits, which can run to thousands. My friend is desperate for his money. He’s also worried about going to court, but I reassured him that it isn’t expensive and is very straightforward.

I’m left wondering how many agencies are endangered. They can’t run away with deposits now, but will go into liquidation - landlords suffering as incoming rent payments are eaten up. Hey-ho: no pain, no gain. We might be rid of this unnecessary layer of parasitical laziness, con-tricks and bumph quite soon. Seriously – if you work for a letting agency, look for another job.

Nowhere Left To Go

Being lost, and about to be homeless is the sad and inevitable consequence of the housing catastrophe we live in. Many people are googling, and even asking me as a last resort about a simple problem: they have nowhere left to go.

These unfortunates are not roofless (the unofficial reality is that to be accepted as homeless, and therefore housed, applicants must be at the very least sofa-surfing to count, such is the demand.) No – these people are desperate and close to disaster.

The reasons are quite straightforward. Because of benefit cuts and the bedroom tax, tenants are being forced to leave their home and are looking for a new place.

But they are flat-hunting whilst in limited poorly paid employment or claiming, and face referencing, extreme vetting and the need for guarantors. Letting agents, certain landlords and even a few housing associations now require spotless reputations, despite the fact that life is messy and human beings make mistakes.

As Tenancy Relations Officer Ben Reeves-Lewis has said hereabouts, even Sir Alan Sugar went bankrupt a few times before becoming ‘Suralun of You’re Fired Towers.’ And as I’ve said here, people lose money when holding fees are swallowed after non-pristine credit checks, and then…well then where do they go? Find a guarantor, except guarantors are increasingly asked to earn disproportionately high levels of pay.

Next up: prices. Agents and owners conspire to ramp up prices where demand is high, leaving claimants and the low paid struggling to cover their rent, and punished by homelessness for their inability to afford the buttock-clenchingly large sums required in certain areas of the country.

The next reason for the precarious nature of housing is supply, and competition for a limited number of suitable houses. This is getting worse with housing benefit cuts, as many people are in desperate need of one bedroom flats under the cruel and ridiculous bedroom tax (don’t tax the bankers – punish the poor.)

The next spectre pushing tenants into the abyss is that of adverse personal circumstances. Being unemployed, or even on low pay makes for an undesirable tenant, and such people face being turned down everywhere they go: letting agents avoid them, and landlords spurn them – despite there being a depression. As I wrote about previously, having kids is also a no-no. As are pets. And just not looking right.

Something is very wrong in housing land. It’s strange how often these fatal flaws are surmountable by cash: pay six months rent in advance, and all flaws are ignored.

In Manchester, and other areas where there was an oversupply of urban Dovecots, prejudices were immediately and strangely overcome when agents and owners endured a lengthy void. They found their homophobia, loathing of the jobless and kids overcame by need and greed. Elsewhere, the perfect tenant (professional – often arriving as a couple even for a one bed) are welcomed in.

Meanwhile, the gathering storm is swirling in the distance: homeless figures are spiralling. I wrote while back I write that something very bad is going to happen. Well, now it’s begun. Brace yourselves: it’s going to get ugly.

They Can't Away With That, Can They?

I am breaking a resolution, to write again about letting agents. The Scottish government recently confirmed it: all ‘premiums’ charged to tenants are illegal. The courts are currently gridlocked with claims because agents refuse to return the money without a fight. So how, exactly will these parasites skim money from the perfectly workable deal between landlord and tenant, across the UK?

Well, in Scotland, they are (seriously…) still charging admin fees, in the full knowledge they’re illegal. A friend contacted me to say that the agent handling his rental would not letting him read the tenancy agreement until the day he moved in - after charging him a holding fee (that he would presumably lose if, after reading the lengthy legal agreement, he objects to its hidden terms.)

There’s also a massive ‘non-returnable cleaning fee.’ This is mentioned repeatedly, and the redoubtable EPTA (see links) and their amazing protest dressed US Marshalls, won a case declaring that this too is unlawful.

Charging a months rent in advance, six weeks rent upfront as a deposit – all legit and customary then. But also slapping on a charge amounting to a third of the last months rent in advance? The law in Scotland limits the amount charged in advance, and this is a way of circumventing the spirit of the law, while giving the landlord an interest free loan. What if the tenants stays for years?

Also – asking for six months rent upfront.

Demanding a holding fee before a viewing, retained if the tenant turns the property down (so very illegal, that one.) Letting agents are relying in London on scarcity of supply, and elsewhere on fear of contesting claims and lack of knowledge by new, young tenants.

Now, landlords should pay all the costs of renting their own home – actually, they already do. So agents are in effect charging both parties for the same transaction. Make that over charging both parties: £150 for a credit check? Credit checking every year? The tenants credit rating is no concern of the agent, frankly. They pay the rent. So stop unnecessary and intrusive annual checks. Anyway, the reason tenants might be able to afford the rent is simple: rents are usually too high.

Another ploy: during a six month tenancy, agents end the existing agreement, booting out the established tenant. The agent collects a ‘finder’ fees for overcharging another poor soul (and also charges the landlord). Oh, and the rent always increases.

Also – as I wrote about elsewhere, agents seem to have been deducting ‘cleaning fees’ from protected deposits, using estimates passed of as receipts, thereby halving the money returned. Meanwhile, wages, are low, working hours long, and people struggle to feed their children. On top of that, tenants are charged extortionate, random (and in Scotland – illegal) fees.

The good news? Everybody: politicians (well not the condems, but what do you expect) even landlords are in agreement: across the UK, including England, letting agents need regulation. The end is nigh for letting agents – you can’t get away with this anymore. They’re on to you. So run!

Not Suitable For Children

This story is hitting me from all angles: in search terms, emails, friends, and the experiences of fellow bloggers. Quite simply, private landlords will not let to people with kids, be they couples or single parents.

They don’t say so in the property ads of course, but shockingly, they could stress: ‘No kids’ without sanction. Nobody cares: it is discrimination, but not illegal.

One correspondent relocated to the UK and started flat-hunting. They were staying for about a year as mature post-grad students. They had money in the form of state funding, excellent references and (when problems in securing a house became clear) would pay six months rent upfront. Only trouble was, they would become proud parents about four months after moving in.

He’s Canadian, and didn’t say whether this would be tolerated in the USA, but he did seem astounded. They were after a two bed flat, and sound like dream tenants. Why not let them move in? I never heard whether they found anywhere.

Elsewhere, my blogging friend My Shitty Twenties is trying to find a new home, closer to her friends, family, hopefully with a garden for her cherubic son ‘Tom’. Suddenly the landlord suddenly decided she didn’t want a school age child in the house (Tom is 6). Their decision came after she had paid a holding fee and the actual deposit, so the letting agent didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Coincidentally, just after she had viewed her perfect house, a childless couple pulled up outside.

Another potential tenant is a single parent, but her landlord rejected her after some intrusive question, assuming she would be on benefits (she isn’t.)

Really young children can be mischievous, but their misdemeanours usually involve tiny trikes bumping into skirting, or some drawing on the walls (mostly washable now, or covered with a coat of emulsion.)

Social housing is a fleeting, disappearing dream. All tenants will rely on the private sector, including, or rather especially, families with children. Rented houses are often inadequate, and anyway, it’s much more lucrative to let a house as an HMO, as landlords can ‘maximise profit’ cramming in more renters, using the lounge as another bedroom (kind landlords don’t) or rent to a couple.

Blinkered, prejudiced rentiers believe all single parents are scroungers, claiming benefits when really they are in full time, possibly well-paid, work. They assume that couples will not be signing on, as one of them will always be in full employment, when in this climate, that is not the case.

Private landlords must now fulfil a social role, when they are accustomed to exercising whimsical prejudices and capricious choices with impunity. Their word is law. Families can be given notice every six months, with children settled in good local schools (there might be no places if they are compelled to move) or just secure and happy.

It’s the opposite of the odious child-catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang-Bang. Landlords do not gather children, the push them away.
The private sector is not family friendly. It just isn’t.





http://rentergirl.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/made-for-sharing.html