Jump to content

Carryon Regardless

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carryon Regardless

  1. A new boiler has been fitted in one of my properties. Fitted by a Gas Safe engineer, well one of his contractors. The price was to include everything but as there was some urgency to get heating and water restored for the T's I didn't clarify what is 'everyhting'. It was stated that this included electrics though. As much as he was aware that it was a rental property it could be argued that updating the gas certificate is an extra, but to my mind a reasonable expectation by me. I'm aware that the controls are now legislated to provide for more efficiency, and it follows that replacing a 20 year old boiler would mean updating the controls to comply. What would be the minimum type of control to expect as 'including everything'?
  2. 1. Fact and not overly difficult to prove. If a person is willing enough to raise this with the LL it is reasonable to assume that the authorities would be next. 2. As you rightly point out this is an individuals opinion. 3. Rfer to 4. 4. The LL, not me in this case for a change, wouldn't be complicit. 5. No 6. Surpringly with my experience of HB I hadn't considered that possibility. However with my understanding unlikely. 7. Only be frequent visitors and possible inconvenience of parking, so not really. 8. Most would consider nothing to that one. But some years ago local authorities, Manchester for sure, decided it was right to prosecute a LL if a rape had occured on his / her property. I could never understand this being a realistic lawful responsibility, but understand it was aimed to reduce the all night parties being an anti social effect on neighbourhoods. So from this I wonder if 'local authorities / police' might cause further responsibilites on a LL. After all we are responsible for immigrant over stayers and as you say HB abusers in our properties.
  3. If we are made aware of illegal activities being carried out from one of our rental properties do we have any responsibility to take any form of action? This being counterfiet hardware and cloned software, and might be described as being on a small industrial scale.
  4. Better the devil you know, but monitor closely. He has lost a grip of life and it takes very little for things to deteriorate further. When he stops looking after your investment he has to go. In a simialr situation I tried to give the T more responisbility. Making sure the correct bins are out on the right week. Some care of the local environment, clearing stray rubbish , weeding, extra clean up around the palce....... In truth it never worked as I'm remote and couldn't manage him daily. When he absconded the clean up of his 'stuff' was a significant effort. So to me attempting to prepare for that day has intelligence, making sure he doesn't fill the flat with whatever that will be your later problem.
  5. Thanks for the check tool, as I hadn't considered any need for me to have involvement with the yet new regs I'm glad it confirms my "no need to register" belief. That of course 'ass'u'me's (but i believe it to be them) that I have read the multiple pages correctly and answered correctly. But in reality if I haven't I'll still wait for them to come and get me for something that, no doubt, I deserve to hung and drawn for.
  6. As LL's we can't stop T's taking guests and realistically we can't prevent them sub letteing. We can only repossess when a tenancy is abused. "The two young couple has just moved in for a month (6 months contract)" sounds like you granting a tenancy? If not and the 2 guys have abused the 'written' agreement you have with them in that they are effectively sub letting then your serving a repossession notice ( a section 8 most likely) might satisy the council that you are addressing the situation?? In truth what you write above doesn't feel like the whole or accurate story. I suggest you seek more expert advice than I can give.
  7. Like I said, beyond my area, but It sounds like, from your economic responses, that you have 2 tenacies running for your 1 flat. I wonder how house share situations are viewed. That is if you grant a tenancy to a person/s and allow them to sublet. Would this also be a HMO situation? That would mean a rearrangement of present situation, as I understand it.
  8. I think you need to explain the status and use of the whole building before any one here can comprehensivley understand. HMO is intentionally beyong my area of knowledge anyway. My thoughts to help others gain a better understanding. How many tenanc'ies' are granted by you for your flat? Is there a shared access route to all flats in the property, or do they have independant access? Is it the local council that have caused you to seek HMO status? How long have you owned the flat?
  9. Is there a conflict with the council requiring that you gain HMO status because of the use of the whole building? That is, is it beyond your choice as to if this becomes HMO or not?
  10. I would exepect the letter from the mortgage company to give a contact, number and possibly the person handling this. Give them a call and discuss your options. Remaining as the original status of BTL and renting to 'a' family should mean there is no change. Withdraw the HMO application and I don't see why this doesn't just go away. While discussing ask what their conditions would be should you make the change at some time. Don't forget that HMO is more complicated with the planning requirements and the management anyway.
  11. This assumes there is a deposit, and even better a guarantor. Point out that where works will be required post tenancy that he will still be liable for the lost rents due to these works preventing a fast replacement tenant being able to take residence. I doubt you would enjoy much success in court with this approach, especially if the works are deemed to be due to fair wear and tear, but hopefully the threat might well cause a change of attitude. As above you have no legal right of access unless there is an emergency situation, vague statement that that is (like fair wear and tear really).
  12. That's the greatest problem with insurance, you'll never know if it will provide the expected cover until you attempt to claim. They are increasingly wrigling out of making payment and often with the poorest of excuses. I attempted to claim for broken skis and goggles from RBS travel insurance, used them for many, many years as associated to a premium account. They refused as I hadn't reported the incident. To whom they couldn't specify, the policy doesn't detail the requirement. The legal route would be more costly then the skis so they win.
  13. Grampa I see you as being conscientious and up to date with the ever changing legislation. Many A's aren't and many of the larger ones will employ less able front line staff that don't really help situations. When things go wrong the owner is still as exposed as if they had managed themselves. An example i remember was with the deposit legislation, where A's screwed up the owner still suffered the penalty. I don't use RGI but do look for the HOG, the 'G'uarantor has saved my situation a few times. As for excuses, I don't care. I'm in business and whilst there is 'sometimes' room for compassion I don't see myself as thier banker, social worker or any other type of support they like to fall back on. I do see that there can be benefit to having some involvement with T's, in that understanding their situation and personality is a useful tool to making my decisions. It's also good to learn from each about the antics of another. No sympathy toward the FBI T's, they abused from day 1 by having undeclared dogs that specifically require permission. If the rent faulters this month (the 20th) I serve the S21 and write to the HOG. Another has changed employment and has faultered a little, this month he needs to bring his account up to date or the same for him. It's not always intelligent to act swiftly, each is a judgement call. "I'm in Cornwall so I don't know what has happened with the rent payment, I'll look into it when I get back." 2 weeks later, "I've an appointment with HB, I'll get this sorted and back dated." I knew the flat to be already mt, and when she had departed but I left it for 3 months anyway. The HOG paid up over the next 9 months, with or without T assistance wasn't my concern. It's often easier to be paid for an mt property.
  14. I've had all the excusues as to why T's are having issues with paying the rent. Some are so ill thought out they don't get more than a sly smile. Recently a new one, to me anyway. The T's company (a Stock Broker) are under investigation by the FBI so he is in limbo as he hasn't lost his job but he isn't working and getting paid. Who can top that one?
  15. Unless they are hoping to use it as a get out clause, there is no working with them but reminding them of their contractual obligations becomes a better strategy.
  16. Morning Melboy, I added some advice but then saw the other 2 threads by the op. There is likelihood that my advice would be repetative and I didn't care to read the other threads to find out so pressed delete instead. Really I was saying to the op that a mouse is the T's problem if it wasn't apparent at the letting, as is any other infestation nuisance like wasps, ants, human visitors.......
  17. With the potential T's there are many subtle questions that can indicate lack of suitability. On the phone I often ask where they are living now, when the answer comes back as the west end of Rhyl, although I appreciate anyone wishing to get out of there, the fact they thought it ok to move there shows their low standard of expectation. Where they work is another reasonable pointer, how long isn't always an issue with todays les than reliable employers. Plasterers, decorators and the like will always have their job left overs to be stored somewhere, and of course their returning home dusty isn't good. Then there are those that work from a van, that will clog up the parking areas. I try to eliminate where possible before arranging a viewing, but during a viewing there is much to be learnt in subtle ways. Come assessing an application, again where they have lived, and for how long. A few short duration tenancies and I'll be the next one. Gaps in accomodation dates may mean they were abroad, or in jail. Assessing a bad attitude isn't overly difficult. I point out that errors on the application, for both T and G'tor will mean a lost application fee, and suggest all issues are best divulged to save their money. It goes on and in practice most of my 'interview' is done as a second nature rather than a tick list. But I have to accept that many of my properties will only attract those with a less than ideal history an circumstance. I don't want a troublesome T, but the G'tor is my safety net.
  18. Hence my question. I beleive I've explained my rationale for not taking deposits previously. Good T's aren't a problem, they demonstrate respect and / or fear actions against them. We get our money and the property is returned in an acceptable state. The others will avoid their responibilities. I also insist on a guarantor, home owning or at least in a position where they have something to lose. But when things have soured we then make claim for unpaid rents and often excessive wear and tear, and then costs. Even with a good inventary the claim for those losses is ambiguous and biased in T's favour. For losses other than rents any excessive claim would lose us any sympathy or even be thrown out. Any accurate claim will be moderated to somewhere in the middle. For this we have paid for an inventary in and out (I know some charge the T for the in), we have made claim at our cost and the effort is significant. Unpaid rents are easily demonstrable by a simple statement of account. The only defence is disrepair but T's now have an increased responsibility to demonstrate that we were informed. The DPS scheme is only us acting as an agent for the state by providing funds for them to enjoy. Aside from the rent aspect we are highly unlikely to acheive true satisfaction from an involved claim. If defended, by T or Shelter, the effort required to attempt to win the small deposit I could realistically take would not be worth it. Dealing with the DPS just for deposit in and out is extra effort I can do without. Any slight mistake and we only increase our risks, and considering the continual changes by the London meddlers that risk is ever increasing. Keep it simple stupid is my aim. Now we are unable to keep this as simple as many of us would prefer but avoiding the ever increasing obstacles in our path, where we are able to makes sense to me. I save money and effort on check in / out. I save hassle dealing with deposits, and any later claim on a deposit. The guarantor, thank you Grampa I still use your Deed of Guarantee, and a £3 LR check, are my get out of jail card. Meeting potential T's is invaluable, but as I've never seen a bad T till I give 'em the keys it isn't fool proof. Visiting their present domicile at 6pm by surprise can be very revealing.
  19. RL my fast response is that I like your thinking, possibly as I don't wish to pay the cost of those wantng to enjoy animals but can't control their effects on others, us included My general style, and more strict for the flats, is no animals. I don't want them but occasionally might prefer that to the next unknown T'. I practice one alternative to deposit protection, I don't take deposits. Are yu aware of more?
  20. Blimey RL, you start to sound like me being frustrated at the state expecting me to be a social LL'. Your points assume that we will be able to increase deposits, although proving it is an increase could be difficult. Then after the move in a T 'then' decides to get an animal and we are in a more difficult situation. If the legislation were to say they can have one it follows that we can't penalise them for having one (or more). Any repossession attempt would fail. The wear and tear over damage argument has always been ambiguous. With animals it then would be far more difficult for us to cite excessive wear and tear, as with animals this is often more and to be expected. My AST prohibits animals of any description w/o written consent, like you I might permit such depending on which property, but it would always detail numbers and size of. I would also detail that consent is for a particular animal and not for a replacement, due to doggy death for example. T's had moved in, I visit 2 months later and there are 2 small dogs, without any consent. I can repossess but the effect of the animals on carpets has already taken place. My efforts to get rid of dog smells would be needed already. I would suffer another void, and likely a little longer due to increased cleaning. They are still there but they pay over £40 pm more than my next door and same type property. Now my application form specifically requests if there are or will be animals at the property, to attempt to focus their minds some.
  21. I totaly agree with the advantaqges of T's making a long term home of our properties, but many have strange ideas and as suggested the risk of Mr DIY having a go is well experienced. One issue I would have had with the op's new T's was the attitude of "it's our house and we should be able to do as we want", although they did at least ask. I find that reminding T's as to who owns the propeerty can have value, them paying rent gives them enough legislative rights already. Whats the panels opinion of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045552 I mean T's are creating a home, they are paying rent. Why should we be able to control their lifestyle?
  22. Most contract will prohibit tenants from making such alterations/ additions. Hopefully your AST isn't so vague that it could be interpreted either way. When I've been askied similar requests I respond by saying let's see how the tenancy is running in a few months. After a short time we know better if the relationship is good and likely to continue for a significant time. I've had a few that carry out their experiments and then don't hang around anyway and leave thinking that what they have attempted is to my benefit. W/o reading the contract it isn't really possible to give a definitve answer, but generally tenants wishing to alter things isn't good.
  23. I only mentioned the booklet as a sarcastic quip to demonstrate the continual meddling. The later conversation demonstrates nicely how we are continually tripped up by such pratting about by our so superior legislators, and with our combined expertise we still don't quote a definitive answer for our own protection. Nicely done chaps. Grampa your comment on there being no stipulated time, serving the booklet of the day in front of the judge, if it goes that far, seems a nice strategy.
  24. i agree on our taxes being abused, a good way to reduce that is for our politicians to stop messing with policies for self promotion. Is anyone sending out the revised How To Rent booklet yet? I'm being hit by Selective Licencing again. The previous 5 years were at a cost of £750 per property. This time £500 application fee, I don't know the result of a failed application ie a re application being required. Followed by £120 per year. It only came out yesterday so I don't know if this will be ongoing or a repeat each 5 years again. I do see the Council is empowered to fine a non applicant £30,000, not a typo, of course no S21 possible and 12 month rent refund to T. I know the policy statement but don't see any advantage re tenant security, better property management, or even less anti social behaviours. All given reasons for this. Glad I've only got the one property over in that hole.
  • Create New...