Getting Rid of Tenant? Advice please?

[Alan Medic]

I never understood that expression though I know what it's meant to mean. If I had a cake why shouldn't I eat it?

Anyway, is someone trying to say it's wrong for landlords to charge a rent (if they can) that's more than their mortgage for the property? Don't understand why anyone would think that unless you think it's morally wrong. It's business.

My son is sharing a house with 3 other students. It's actually a 2 bedroomed house but the front room has been converted* into a bedroom, presumably to squeeze more tenants in and thus be able to increase the rent. So to get in to the house other than through the front door (which is in my son's bedroom) they must go through the back door. To access this they must walk through the neighbours back yard as it is the only way in. I've emailed the landlady regarding the situation of them having to trespass to get in to the house (I never saw the place until I dropped my son there). I still await a reply, though it's been some days now. Now this sort of landlord is taking the pi**.

* they put some bedroom furniture in it

[jollybaby]

There's a few people on this forum who seem to have an irrational hatred of private landlords. I'm currently both a landlord and a tenant. I'd much rather not be a landlord but after 3 sales falling through on my flat I've decided to bite the bullet and rent it out. I thought about being charitable and renting out my flat at much lower than the going rate but hey that wouldn't have covered my mortgage and so I've decided to be dastardly and rent it out at ?5 more than my mortgage. A real money spinner!

[zeban]

Ah Huguenot, how I've missed you ;-)

By the way, I'm not a charity shop worker! I do charity work in my spare time for free- you should be very grateful for people like me ;-). And many hairdressers earn a very good salary thank you very much- a 'proper salary' as you put it, it's certainly not a hand to mouth existence as unlike many professions, hairdressers, especially good ones will always be needed so it's quite a sensible career choice I think!

most people with 'proper' salarys still can't afford to buy because of the ridiculous deposits you need now.

No irrational hatred of private landlords. Just that many people seem to have an irrational hatred of tenants on this thread and I wanted to balance it out. And that was exactly my point, people rent out their places often to make a business out of it. Fair enough you might say, but personally I think many landlords take the p***. Especially as many are not actually any good at being a landlord. If I have a good landlord, who fixes things straight away when things go wrong, who respects me as a tenant and actually just does everything above board then I might not resent lining their pockets.

If you resent being a landlord but are making money from it then take your role seriously! otherwise buy a property and live in it and stop moaning!

Of course, it is

[Jeremy]

Unless you have a large deposit, someone buying to let in ED will probably struggle to cover the mortgage. And as moos said, you also need to consider maintainence, buildings insurance, periods without tenants... and of course problem tenants screwing you over.

It's probably still a reasonable proposition if you're cash rich.

[red devil]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My son is sharing a house with 3 other students.

> It's actually a 2 bedroomed house but the front

> room has been converted* into a bedroom,

> presumably to squeeze more tenants in and thus be

> able to increase the rent. So to get in to the

> house other than through the front door (which is

> in my son's bedroom) they must go through the back

> door. To access this they must walk through the

> neighbours back yard as it is the only way in.

> I've emailed the landlady regarding the situation

> of them having to trespass to get in to the house

> (I never saw the place until I dropped my son

> there). I still await a reply, though it's been

> some days now. Now this sort of landlord is taking

> the pi**.

>

> * they put some bedroom furniture in it

Quite, and a reason why all landlords should be licensed/regulated against this sort of practice.

Have you checked to see that everyone would get out safely in the event of a fire?

Are smoke detectors fitted?

[nashoi]

Not really Jeremy. A commercial investor will expect at least a 7% yield. Assuming ?600 per room, which I would say is high end for Ed, that would value a 2 bed flat at just over 200k and a 3 bed house at just over 300k. Where in ed can you get those prices?

[Alan Medic]

As he can lock his door, the only available ground floor exit for the others is the back door. Didn't see any fire detectors. I'm wondering now just how many things are wrong about this rental?

[red devil]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As he can lock his door, the only available ground

> floor exit for the others is the back door. Didn't

> see any fire detectors. I'm wondering now just how

> many things are wrong about this rental?

Any gas appliance needs to be certified by a registered Gas Safe engineer that they're safe to use.

The tenants should be given a copy of the certificate, and it needs to be renewed every 12 months.

If someone were to die from a faulty gas appliance i.e carbon monoxide poisoning, the landlord would face charges of manslaughter if they didn't have an up to date certificate.

[red devil]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As he can lock his door, the only available ground

> floor exit for the others is the back door. Didn't

> see any fire detectors. I'm wondering now just how

> many things are wrong about this rental?

Do the other bedrooms have locks on their doors?

[Alan Medic]

I would guess so though would need to confirm. What regulation might that be breaking if this is the case?

[red devil]

I'm not sure, I was just wondering that if they were locked, would they then be construed as bedsits, and the house is then seen as a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy), which is governed by strict legislation, particulary means of escape. Might be worth checking with the local council or maybe your son's University. In my day the Uni had a list of approved accommodation which the Uni vetted, so they were familiar with the current rules/regs.

Wherever we live, we should familiarise ourselves with what we would do in a panic situation such as a fire.

[zeban]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > My son is sharing a house with 3 other

> students.

> > It's actually a 2 bedroomed house but the front

> > room has been converted* into a bedroom,

> > presumably to squeeze more tenants in and thus

> be

> > able to increase the rent. So to get in to the

> > house other than through the front door (which

> is

> > in my son's bedroom) they must go through the

> back

> > door. To access this they must walk through the

> > neighbours back yard as it is the only way in.

> > I've emailed the landlady regarding the

> situation

> > of them having to trespass to get in to the

> house

> > (I never saw the place until I dropped my son

> > there). I still await a reply, though it's been

> > some days now. Now this sort of landlord is

> taking

> > the pi**.

> >

> > * they put some bedroom furniture in it

>

> Quite, and a reason why all landlords should be

> licensed/regulated against this sort of practice.

> Have you checked to see that everyone would get

> out safely in the event of a fire?

> Are smoke detectors fitted?

Exactly Red Devil. Sadly this crap goes on all the time.

[zeban]

Just as tenants have to go through certain checks, I think landlords should too. Not everyone should be allowed to be a landlord. It's taken so lightly by many people but it's a serious responsibility.

[Herroeeeey]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just as tenants have to go through certain checks,

> I think landlords should too. Not everyone should

> be allowed to be a landlord. It's taken so lightly

> by many people but it's a serious responsibility.

nonsense you can't regulate landlords. You regulate the property

[red devil]

Herroeeeey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zeban Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just as tenants have to go through certain

> checks,

> > I think landlords should too. Not everyone

> should

> > be allowed to be a landlord. It's taken so

> lightly

> > by many people but it's a serious

> responsibility.

>

> nonsense you can't regulate landlords. You

> regulate the property

You do both, just like cars and car drivers.

[Moos]

Have your cake and eat it would probably be better expressed as keep your cake and eat it, because that's what you can't do.

I like the idea of a voluntary register of "good landlords", kind of along the eBay model where you get ratings from your counterparties. There could be a code of conduct around for example consideration re: inspections, time to conduct repairs and so on.

I don't remember anyone expressing an irrational hatred of tenants, though.

[Jeremy]

Sounds like a good business idea, Moos... while also helping to protect tenants, and rewarding good landlords.

[KidKruger]

Any ratings are likely to be subjective (just like the comments on this forum about meals eaten at restaurants or service from a particular business) and therefore not entirely reliable and in some cases unfair.

The rules around the rights of the tenant and the tenancy agreement implicitly set the obligations of the landlord, surely ? These are objective measurable things which therefore can be raised/enforced via the 'proper' channels presumably ?

In my experience building-up a relationship with the tenant, if possible, is best way forward as a landlord. It's easy for both parties to think badly of the other when things (seem to) start to go wrong. Also I think that generally people, if given the chance, take the p!ss a bit. So from either side it's easy to believe the other is starting to fail their duties. It's all people at the end of the day, not different species.

[binary_star]

Sorry but any tenant in London thinking about "enforcing" their landlord's obligations can expect a section 21 in the post! We've been evicted twice now in as many years. Both times because the landlord wanted to do the place up and sell on, both using the 6 month break clause written into our contracts. It's is fair enough, it's their place to sell but we did state we were looking for long term lets both times so admittedly this has made me a bit biased.

The ONLY reason we haven't bought a place (because it would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for us to do so) is because we can't afford the deposit. I don't know whether I have a "proper" job but I work a 45 hour week and earn (apparently) above the average London wage. Friends who missed the boat getting 100% mortgages have fallen into the same trap as us, and most of our friends who have bought have mortgages cheaper than our rent so I can identify with what others have said above.

/rant

[Sue]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We've been

> evicted twice now in as many years. Both times

> because the landlord wanted to do the place up and

> sell on, both using the 6 month break clause

> written into our contracts.

xxxxxxx

But isn't that what a break clause is for? It's so either side can end the contract at that point.

So if you don't want to risk being kicked out after 6 months, you need to hold out for a 12 month contract at the outset?

I used to let my house whilst I was working (and renting) out of London, and I once included a break clause before I thought I might want to sell the house and move permanently. As it turned out, my tenants used the clause to move out because one of them had got a job with free accommodation included.

They had been such excellent tenants, as compared with some I'd had in the past, that I couldn't bear to let the house again and moved back into it :)

[binary_star]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But isn't that what a break clause is for? It's so

> either side can end the contract at that point.

Yeh absolutely...

ETA: Actually the above is not correct. After finding out our landlord wants to give us a Christmas eviction we thought we might give notice ourselves to move earlier, but in our contract, the break clause applies to landlord only.

> So if you don't want to risk being kicked out

> after 6 months, you need to hold out for a 12

> month contract at the outset?

After explaining we wanted to settle, we were "assured" by both landlords of long term lets, which we knew at the time to take with a pinch of salt so we insisted on a 12 month minimum contract but couldn't get one without a break clause, sadly. Maybe too many landlords burnt by bad tenants? Or estate agents just being cautious? Either way, it wasn't an option. And we have always been served with a notice using section 21 at the beginning of the tenancy (which removes a tenant's right to two month's notice - if anyone's interested, Google "Sword of Damocles"). Private renting is a fecking laugh.

[Jeremy]

binary_star (and zeban) - I don't think we'll ever see a return to 100% mortgages (such practises are partly to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in). But we're returning to a situation where 10% deposits are not uncommon. I think that's about right, and should be realistic for first time buyers who save carefully.

[binary_star]

I agree that it's not really viable to have 100% mortgages, and I know individual circumstances are just that but we are struggling to raise the ?20-30k needed for a deposit, especially given that rents are so high. I think historically, it has been a lot easier to buy a house for first time buyers than it is now, which is why the market is saturated with renters...?

[ratty]

Herroeeeey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Ratty

>

> The agents are warning me this could still take up

> to 6 months. I'm wondering how I can (if

> possible) speed this up? Or am I purely at the

> mercy of how quickly the courts act?

>

The agents are correct, but this is only if the tenanct does not heed the notice expiry. It can take some time for courts to hear these cases (although each one takes about 5 bloody minutes). However, if you are on decent terms with the tenant you can explain to them that you will get costs against them (incl your legal fees) if they do not vacate following the notice period. Almost every judge will make this award so this is not an idol threat. It will then of course be up to the tenant, but they would be v daft to take this route as they will presumambly at some point need a reference from you to get onward housing?

Happy to chat by PM if needs be. I am a social landlord.

[Sue]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Private renting is a fecking laugh.

xxxxxxx

I've been on both sides of it, as a landlord (sexist term but hey) and as a tenant.

I've had very good experiences as both, but also absolutely appalling experiences as both.

I don't think you can tar everybody with the same brush, on either side. I just think you have to be extremely careful, whether you're the landlord or the tenant.

And even then, things can go very very wrong.

It made me realise (bit like employing tradespeople) that I'm an absolutely crap judge of people :-$