You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
so do I understand this right no rights for tenants at all and open to total abuse?
So early last year we were alarmed when we got notice that the property we were renting was been put up for sale. We could have been kicked out and struggling to find somewhere to live. I did not mention the end result of that I don't think. Ultimately there were 3 interested groups that viewed the property.
1. A young girl who had been supported by parents to save up a deposit and was interested in her first home, she was very chatty polite and seemed like a very nice person. I can't say for sure she could be a horrible person but I only met her the one time which was when she viewed the property and she was very polite friendly and decent to me and my partner throughout the viewing so probably a nice person.
2. property developers who seemed absolutely vile people, again they could be wonderful people but they conducted themselves with total disdain for us and openly talked about how they could do this up or that up with no empathy or consideration for people they could have potentially been forcing out. I am not going into whether it would have been morally right or wrong or indifferent for them to buy the property kick us out and do it up, but to have total disdain for us.
3. an elderly couple who seemed very interested in ascertaining how long we planned to stay and made it more then clear they were looking to buy to let and having paying tenants already in the property was a major plus to them. They just seemed professional and polite.
In the end the elderly couple bought the property so It is likely we are here until they die or we decide to move out of our own accord whichever comes first. It was a scary time though so I was a bit outraged when I saw the following article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/rebel-tory-mps-may-force-renters-reforms-to-be-put-on-ice/ar-BB1iLwgD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=8f05883fadf548bf883e1c018c7ef07f&ei=45
so first point no external body to hold landlords to account?
as for the second point I dont claim to be a lawyer or legal expert but I did once have my own legal issues where I consulted with a Lawyer and if I remember right he explained heresay as if I say another person say bob for example said x. So Bob in this scenario isn't available to appear as a witness himself but someone says he said x.
So if that is right then if a landlord wants to evict a tenant all he has to do is allege that someone made a noise or drug or other anti social complaint and that is another evidence to evict them on anti social grounds.
Now if that is the case effectively landlords can evict any tenant at any point by just making up the alleged complaint, once a tenant is evicted on anti social grounds the Tories made a song and dance of saying they would be at the bottom of the list for social or council housing. I don't know how this works for private landlords I guess that is down to the individual but no Landlord with any sense at all would have tenants evicted for alleged anti social behaviour then give them a positive reference for any other property they chose to rent.
If I understand this right it means any landlord could make their tenants homeless at any point, giving total authoritarian powers to the landlord.
as for point 4 so once the six months or 1 year term is up we can be evicted with immediate effect.
as for point 5 so their is no one to hold landlords to account.
as for point 6 so effectively section 21s are not eliminated but then why would a landlord need a section 21 if he has no morals and is happy to make up claims of anti social behaviour?
if I understand this right it effectively eliminates all tenant rights, and puts them at the mercy of been homeless at the landlords convience or whims.
This outraged me in the extreme and I just thought I wanted to check I am understanding this right, and not reading the wrong things into this because this does sound extreme.
1. A young girl who had been supported by parents to save up a deposit and was interested in her first home, she was very chatty polite and seemed like a very nice person. I can't say for sure she could be a horrible person but I only met her the one time which was when she viewed the property and she was very polite friendly and decent to me and my partner throughout the viewing so probably a nice person.
2. property developers who seemed absolutely vile people, again they could be wonderful people but they conducted themselves with total disdain for us and openly talked about how they could do this up or that up with no empathy or consideration for people they could have potentially been forcing out. I am not going into whether it would have been morally right or wrong or indifferent for them to buy the property kick us out and do it up, but to have total disdain for us.
3. an elderly couple who seemed very interested in ascertaining how long we planned to stay and made it more then clear they were looking to buy to let and having paying tenants already in the property was a major plus to them. They just seemed professional and polite.
In the end the elderly couple bought the property so It is likely we are here until they die or we decide to move out of our own accord whichever comes first. It was a scary time though so I was a bit outraged when I saw the following article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/rebel-tory-mps-may-force-renters-reforms-to-be-put-on-ice/ar-BB1iLwgD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=8f05883fadf548bf883e1c018c7ef07f&ei=45
The rebels’ amendments
1.Abolishing landlord licensing – which would require landlords to register with their local council.
2.Allowing ‘hearsay’ to be permissible evidence in eviction claims for antisocial-behaviour
3.Requiring renters to have lived in a property for a minimum of 4 months before giving notice to end their tenancy
4.Allowing tenants and landlords to agree to a fixed-term tenancy. The original aim of the bill was to make all tenancies indefinite to give renters stability
5.Allow landlords to opt out of a new private renting ombudsman designed to make sure renters have recourse in disputes
6.Delaying the end of Section 21 evictions until the Secretary of State has published a review into how evictions will be handled by the County Courts.
1.Abolishing landlord licensing – which would require landlords to register with their local council.
2.Allowing ‘hearsay’ to be permissible evidence in eviction claims for antisocial-behaviour
3.Requiring renters to have lived in a property for a minimum of 4 months before giving notice to end their tenancy
4.Allowing tenants and landlords to agree to a fixed-term tenancy. The original aim of the bill was to make all tenancies indefinite to give renters stability
5.Allow landlords to opt out of a new private renting ombudsman designed to make sure renters have recourse in disputes
6.Delaying the end of Section 21 evictions until the Secretary of State has published a review into how evictions will be handled by the County Courts.
so first point no external body to hold landlords to account?
as for the second point I dont claim to be a lawyer or legal expert but I did once have my own legal issues where I consulted with a Lawyer and if I remember right he explained heresay as if I say another person say bob for example said x. So Bob in this scenario isn't available to appear as a witness himself but someone says he said x.
So if that is right then if a landlord wants to evict a tenant all he has to do is allege that someone made a noise or drug or other anti social complaint and that is another evidence to evict them on anti social grounds.
Now if that is the case effectively landlords can evict any tenant at any point by just making up the alleged complaint, once a tenant is evicted on anti social grounds the Tories made a song and dance of saying they would be at the bottom of the list for social or council housing. I don't know how this works for private landlords I guess that is down to the individual but no Landlord with any sense at all would have tenants evicted for alleged anti social behaviour then give them a positive reference for any other property they chose to rent.
If I understand this right it means any landlord could make their tenants homeless at any point, giving total authoritarian powers to the landlord.
as for point 4 so once the six months or 1 year term is up we can be evicted with immediate effect.
as for point 5 so their is no one to hold landlords to account.
as for point 6 so effectively section 21s are not eliminated but then why would a landlord need a section 21 if he has no morals and is happy to make up claims of anti social behaviour?
if I understand this right it effectively eliminates all tenant rights, and puts them at the mercy of been homeless at the landlords convience or whims.
This outraged me in the extreme and I just thought I wanted to check I am understanding this right, and not reading the wrong things into this because this does sound extreme.
Comments
The first point to make us that, with the greatest of respect, you do tend to see things as wonderful or terrible-rather than the in between that life invariably is. But that is not to say that tenants do not need better statutory protection-they do.
When I started out in Law, landlords did have to show cause to evict. And-to me at least-they seemed to have the balance about right 40 years ago. There were clearly laid down facts that would allow a Landlord to evict. From significant rent arrears, to need to sell the property to meet debts, to needing to live in the place yourself.
It is important to note that there were a limited number of reasons, and being able to get a bigger rent from some other Tenant or being asked to fix problems at the Property were not amongst them.
For me, the starting point must be to end "no fault" (or at least no justifiable cause) evictions. Boris Johnson may have had many faults, but he did at least have a social conscience-hence the manifesto pledge.
Some of the proposed amendments are entirely sensible. And some most certainly are not. Looking briefly at the 6 listed points:-
1. There is plenty of argument to be had as to who should Register as a Landlord. There is a world of difference between (say) Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and a private landlord with 1 property. However, this should not be a smokescreen to stop Section 21 evictions
2. Actually, this one has merit. The time it tends to be useful is when a Landlord wants to evict a Tenant who is threatening all his neighbours with violence, and the Neighbours are too scared to give evidence. It is up to the Court as to how much weight to give such hearsay evidence
3. This would have merit if (and only if) Landlords had the same restriction. It is unworkable
4. Tenancies normally have both an initial end date and flexibility to continue. This proposal is nonsense
5. Nonsense. Many Courts currently experience delays of well over a year. Such ADR schemes are necessary-for everyone. Landlords as well as Tenants
6. Nonsense. IMHO this is putting the cart before the horse. There needs to be new rules as to when and how both landlords and tenants may end tenancies. The current system is weighted too heavily in favour of Landlords
Hope that helps
unfortunately my academic profile whilst adequate is not brilliant and I do not know the right people. well I know people who have the position but they wont help me get in the door they dont dislike me per say they just don't like me. basically just people I know.
however if I do get a position its likely to be in Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow or Edinburgh London is obviously the main place but far to expensive to live there.
at that point likely new landlord so obviously it scares me if they bring in something that could potentially leave us in a vulnerable position.
If a court is reliant on a decision by Jury which I assume it would be then one would hope they would be reasonable but I dont trust people selected at random from the population to always be rational and reasonable in assessing a case.
I know my neighbour has been ridiculous in trying to get us evicted but he has gotten nowhere and now its just hostile silence whenever we pass him.
the truth is he is over compensating for his own selfish guilt for messing up his own life which is entirely his own fault. probably best I dont go into great detail here, on that one just he got nasty and it got nowhere.
I wouldn't worry too much about what the future may hold in relation to landlords and the law. It's not that great at the minute, but it is likely to improve over the next year or two. Most unlikely that it will get worse.
In England & Wales, Juries only get involved in Criminal Law and a couple of rare Civil Legal matters. Wouldn't go anywhere near stuff like this.
qualified statisticians dont do to bad either so likely I wont get anywhere and will be stuck earning min wage with two degrees and taking abuse in kitchens. However I have to try.
I already have stuff planned out for different scenarios.
It may be apparent that I am not an optimistic person,
- Buying two adjoining semis and converting into about 8 flats, which I don't think was registered with the authorities. Electricity was only available by purchasing a token from him and he was often unavailable.
- Not having a TV aerial or phone/internet cable into the flat. Said it was fine to install, then went ballistic on the phone after one hole was drilled to bring a cable through. Charged £40 to fill the hole in.
- Did not provide blinds or curtains in a furnished flat and would only allow his fitters to install blinds at full cost to us.
- Went ballistic down the phone about a car parked behind the property (it wasn't mine).
- Insisted in signing us up to six month terms each time with an admin fee. We left after 5 months.
If you like stats then the ONS in Hampshire used to have jobs when I was a new grad. Otherwise, anything down the accounting and finance road would suit you. Actuary can be quite dull with a low salary ceiling from what I've heard. Air traffic control at Swanick might also be interesting if you have a decent IQ and can handle pressure.
"Air traffic control at Swanick might also be interesting if you have a decent IQ and can handle pressure."
@Doubleme working in ATC, now there's an interesting thought.
Are England & Wales the only countries in the world that still allow residential leasehold?
Scotland scrapped it years ago, why can't we?
What I will say though is a certain proportion of landlords do fit that decryption is it less then 1% of greater then 50%? I don't know and how can we know that?
however I dont believe it should be the case that landlords potentially have this power to literally put tenants on the streets.
With regard to actuary I may be dead in the water my A level Maths I self taught completely and went to an exam centre because I have an anxiety disorder I got an allowance for the exam that was I could pause the exam.
Now as soon as I chose to do that I had to step away from my seat and the exam paper so unless I could work out the answers in my head perfectly remembering the question there was no real way to game the system I wasnt trying to but the exam centre decided to suspect me and put pressure on me in the end they didn't attach the external pages i had wrote answers on and this led to me getting a very low score. I cant proof that but I had one stats exam my strongest area of math where I walked out geniunely believing I had got 95% of the answers and an A star it came back U. I later saw the exact same material examined at uni still knew the same answers and got a first so that was odd.
In maths I usually know roughly what grade I have got before I get my result and this has been mostly very accurate with a few exceptions through out every maths exam I have ever done degree level and etc.
So why did the exams I sat at this exam centre all come out way below my feel? I was screwed over because they made a judgement on me and decided to screw me.
actuary jobs usually say you need to have a grade A at A level maths and a 2.1 degree but I already have a 2.1 degree in accounting and Finance and am about to achieve a 2.1 degree in maths and statistics so hopefully I can still get in but with the A level been bad I this could be a major obstacle.
they tend to desire either a maths and stats based degree or a finance/economics degree Since I have both this may put me at an advantage?
for the record you cannot retake the A level because they only count a first sit. I probably would hit a ceiling of £72000 + rises with inflation if I got a job as an actuary. That been said I the highest wage I ever had was £23500 so I am fine with that.
stats jobs can be hard to get too as they can pay well too.
With regards to pressure it depends on the type of pressure and how much. I really dont like this compete to hold onto your job pressure which i have experienced in some places.
What I will say though is a certain proportion of landlords do fit that decryption is it less then 1% of greater then 50%? I don't know and how can we know that?
however I dont believe it should be the case that landlords potentially have this power to literally put tenants on the streets.''
I have read this thread and kept my powder dry..... but this is absolute b ollocks, the hoops we have to jump through being a landlord is a joke only to have sh itty tenants that take the absolute pi ss, I am in the middle of trying evict a chancer that hasn't paid for over 6 months, the popular misconception is that we are all Hoogstraten types, I know there are some terrible landlords but not the majority at all.
every time I hear from tenants how bad landlords are basically how lanlords charge ridicolous sums and mouldy walls and trying to tripple the rent and demand sexual favours.
and then from landlords how there is this tenant that doesn't pay the rent for 3 years who they cant get out who has ripped the radiators of the wall is running a prostitution and drug ring from the property and who is currently in the middle of ripping each brick out to sell individually down the local market.
of course I hyperbole like I often like to but yeah you hear the extremes from both sides and both sides usually always say the other side is Hitler.
I am just saying landlords should not have powers to evict tenants at very short notice which this legislation potentially gives them. I do not want to be in a position where I have got less then a month to find somewhere new to live.
Would you trust the 'Snake' that is MICHAEL GOVE ?
There are a few different types of Tenancy in Scotland, each with different rules. But none of them just allow a Landlord to repossess on a whim-unlike in England under Section 21's.
There are undoubtedly a smallish minority of Landlords who abuse the system. As indeed do a smallish minority of Tenants. And each deserve to have a legal system whereby the other side receives an amount of protection from those people.
I'm not saying the current Scottish legal position is perfect-far from it. Same goes for previous English legal positions. It is difficult (if not impossible) providing the right balance. But the current English legal position gives far too many rights to unscrupulous Landlords.
When Tenants are too scared to ask Landlords to carry out essential, health-related, repairs for fear of eviction, then something has gone very wrong.
You can afford a rent rise now, after your epic win?🤔👹💩