Jump to content

Grampa

Members
  • Posts

    2,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grampa

  • Birthday 01/01/1912

Profile Information

  • Location
    West Sussex
  • Interests
    My Motorhome and a large glass of red or 3

Recent Profile Visitors

8,978 profile views

Grampa's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. If the tenant had a issue with the day he should have refused entry. As he let him in he has agreed. If the tenant has googled the 24hr notice period he was more than capable to have been aware he could have refused entry. Tell him to take it up with the contractor.
  2. If a BTL purchase was empty the potential rental income would be taken into consideration and I guess taken from local comparables on the market. If the property is tenanted surely the only figure that can be used is what is received at present. Now if you have served on the tenant a section 13 notice increasing the rent to start sometime in the near future I would see no reason why that figure couldn't be given as the rental amount for the purpose of a mortgage application. However, if the lender wants to see your bank statements which is likely it may raise a question or two regarding the discrepancy in amounts.
  3. As a general rule I don't supply W/M either however one flat of mine the only place to fit it was the bathroom for which the bathroom door had to be taken off and power supply routed through the wall into the hallway. So I brought the cheapest possible W/M from Currys and pay £3 pm for their essentials repair service which will replace it with a new one if they cant repair it. Currys have been out twice so far to repair and this cheap W/M is now 9 years old. So I guess I have about broken even with the £3 pm charge. Just need a issue to arise now that makes it unrepairable and get a new one.
  4. We also have a clause in our tenancies that state: 1.The tenant agrees that the landlord’s liability to repair (if there is a liability to repair as outlined under this ‘Repairs’ heading) does not arise until the landlord has received notice in writing. Further, no breach of any repairing obligation arises if the landlord then carries out the necessary work or repair with reasonable expedition. Where some other person is liable for the repair (whether or not jointly with the landlord), no breach of any repairing obligation arises whilst the landlord uses all reasonable efforts to communicate the need for repair to the other person. 2. The tenant has the use of all the appliances provided in the property, as listed in the inventory save those which are noted as not working. However, should any items require repair, or be beyond repair, the landlord does not undertake to arrange a repair, to pay for any costs or repair or to replace the appliance, except for those which the landlord is required by law to maintain. We wouldn't normally enforce clause 2 unless we were maybe in the middle of an eviction. But it does give you some wriggle room with difficult tenants and can focus their mind if they think there is a possibility that you wont do the repair.
  5. I agree with the above. However, regarding access issues/difficulties we sometimes just give the contractors details to the tenant and say here is the repair company call them yourself and arrange a convenient time to repair. But contact the company in advance to let them know mr/mrs xxx will be in contact and to sent the invoice to you for payment but make it clear you are not authorising out of hours call outs that cost more. Or you get permission from the tenant to give a key to the contractor to gain access when they are out which we find a lot of tenant allow.
  6. Made too easy to get benefits without enough follow-up interviews. Doctors too readerly sign people off with bad backs and mental health issues. I remember 25 years ago interviewing 40/50 year old guy for a job who straight up said he didn't want the job but only came to the interview to be able to keep receiving his benefits and he could tell the job centre he had been for an interview. The odd thing was his young son was already working for this company and was a cracking good hard worker. Personally I think anyone out of work receiving benefits is not actively searching for work 40 hours per week so should be required to do 15-20 hours work pw for their community such as litter picking to continue to receive their benefits and also cut back on the on-line applications for benefits and go back to more face to face regular interviews at the benefit office. A few more single mum hostels with communal kitchens opposed to giving out nice one bed flats to every work shy female who just chooses to bash out a kid to get a nice flat then later knock out another one to upgrade to a bigger property. But maybe I'm being to harsh?
  7. Sounds like it. But to confirm go through the paperwork you were provided at the time of purchase or look on Companies house website which will list directors, shareholders accounts etc.
  8. Assuming all leaseholders own a share of the freehold I think the poster is referring to the limited company that owns the freehold where he/she refers to management company. That company would normally have at least a couple of directors and in a lot of situations like this the directors would take control and make decisions sometimes without informing all the shareholders. The directors most likely instructed a managing agent because they either don't have the time or skills to do it themselves. However, because the leaseholders own the freehold they can to an extent dictate the terms, fees and level of service to the managing agent. If the freeholder was independent of the leaseholders he wouldn't normally care because its the leaseholders who are paying the fees via the service charges.
  9. With your leaseholders hat on, no you are probably not intitled to see it. As a shareholder and interested party of the management company I would say there is no good reason why you couldn't see the contract. That appears to me that that they are trying to hide something or just being difficult. Can you become a director or get a few other leaseholders on your side and bring it up at the next AGM meeting which I guess you have at least once a year. Look at this site which give a wealth of info on leasehold/freehold issues https://www.lease-advice.org/
  10. Ultimately the tenant is responsible for damage, rent arrears etc.. Is there a guarantor you can chase? You could ask for the agents complaint procedure and if not happy with the response escalate it to the ombudsman scheme they belong to and if they rule in your favour they can award compo. However I doubt any award if any would be much because the tenant is at fault and even if you were warned earlier that furniture was missing would that have put you in a stronger position to claim from the tenant? But you could try to claim the cost for the inventory if it wasnt fit for purpose and any other element of service you paid for but didn't receive.
  11. In September 2022 a new owner took on my flat (I am a sitting tenant under the 1977 Rent Act). You have extra rights so don’t sign a new contract before taking legal advice otherwise you could lose those rights He'd never seen the flat or met me. He didn’t have to His so called Managing Agent wrote to me telling me that a new 'Investor' had bought the flat and that I should pay the rent over to them instead and to talk to them about any repairs. This is normal practise when using a managing agent. Given that the Investor runs a limited company and the so called Managing Agent is another legal entity entirely, I am unhappy with this arrangement. It doesn’t matter that you are unhappy the legal owner in intitled to do so. When I challenged the Investor's (which is a company not a person) Director directly, he said that all matters to do with the running of the property, the rent and all matters to do with maintenance are entirely handled by the Managing Agent. This doesn't seem right to me: Perfectly normal practice for muti-property landlords. if the investor company is not calling the shots and the Managing Agent is, then surely the Managing Agent are more than simply an Agent. They are the acting landlord instead. The managing agent will act for the landlord under the landlords instruction and legally anything the agent does is as if he is the landlord. The reason this matters is because I have to have the landlord's address to serve Notices. This involves more than 'wobbly doorknob' queries, it also means I need a clear liable landlord for which to serve County Court Notices too, should a matter result in litigation. Sitting tenants are prone to harassment and maintenance problems that could result in a dangerous situation. I need to know who to sue, who is legally liable. Legally the tenant does not have to pay any rent if an address upon which the tenant can serve notices on the landlord is not provided. However, as so as one is provided all rent even historic becomes payable. The landlord only has to provide an address, which could be the agents address and it would normally be provided upon the sale of the property or stated on a new tenancy agreement. I asked the investor to prove who was the landlord, based on my definition, and he wouldn't tell me anymore than I knew already. You only need to be provided the Landlord name or if a company business name and an address. You can find out/confirm the legal ownership by going on the land register website. He said he was the owner of the flat and that was all I needed to know Correct. The Managing Agent was the Managing Agent only is all he would admit to. I am not happy and insisted on a s.3 notice on a formal form. He h as failed to provide one. I cannot advise on this point. Furthermore, the investor is claiming that I owe rent to the previous landlord, who he claims sold the debt onto himself. Ask for solicitors letters confirming this. Yet the paperwork from the former landlord and the Managing Agent now says the rent is only payable from the time the investor took possession of the flat. He has not proven anything else that would convince a court. I was in dispute with my former landlord and kept rent back for three months in case I needed to conduct repairs they'd refused to do. Make sure all maintenance issues are reported in writing but holding back rental payments are ground for eviction. Instead of addressing this, they just sold the flat from under me. That was their right to do so. Yet the new owner won't prove that the former landlord had not claimed from rent insurance The landlord has no obligation to provide that information or even tell you if a valid insurance policy is in place the obligation is on the tenant to pay their rent. or that they had sold the debt on (which surely they can't do without mis-selling the property if the property has been mis-sold that is no concern of yours but a issue between vender and purchaser). I told the new investor to claim from them if they sold for more than they should have. But he is coming after me instead. This seems unfair as I kept the rent back for a good reason and don't owe this new investor/Agent any rent from before they took possession. Unless the debt was legally passed on as part of the agreed sale process. I would guess this not legally possible but not 100% sure. I feel I am being caught up in knots. In the meantime, I have paid no rent over to either of the new parties either, and told them I am keeping it in a separate account. This action could be grounds to evict you. No one has threatened me with legal action I suspect it will shortly if you continue to withhold rent . But I am still feeling very uneasy and nothing is being resolved. Furthermore, the new MA/Investor has not bought the freehold to the flat He doesn’t normally have to either which is essential if they are access the south facing wall which they must be able to do to meet their legal obligations to maintain all parts of the property. The long lease may give them permission for this and if not that is not really an issue for you but one between leaseholder and freeholder. They are saying that the leasehold is all they bought It may well be correct I have no idea what I should do now. Pay your rent, report any maintenance in writing and give reasonable time for the repairs. If they are not done and are a legal requirement/obligation of the landlord and you have given a couple of reminders tell them again and state in writing that unless a legal reason is given for not complying with their repairing obligations you will arrange repair yourself and deduct the payment from the rent and provide the landlord with the invoice from a reputable contractor. I certainly can't afford expensive lawyers to discuss this with and most freebie consultations don't really cover anything other than the most typical disputes to do with arrears, rent deposits, wobbly door knob maintenance issues -the usual stuff. In my opinion, I am entitled to keep all rent money back No you are not and not even repay it except from the date they have sorted this out and told me who the parties are You pay the agent for rent due after the sale which tells me who is liable in the event of a claim. I have a right to know who the real landlord actually is before rent is due to them. You have been in formed, in writing. That does not necessarily equate to just the owner; nor does it necessarily equate to the Managing Agent either if they aren't calling the shots on what they can or can't do or agree or can't agree except on the investor's sign off. Doesn’t matter you have been informed the agent is collecting the rent. But I suspect that is not the arrangement at all.evidence?? I suspect instead that the investor has sublet the flat to them to gather rent for themselves whilst the investor simply benefits from the capital gain. He would be intitled to do this if he wanted to. This is what I suspect has happened only no one will admit it or prove it to me even though I have asked both parties for the upper contract they have between them. They don’t need to provide this, your only concern is the contract you have and the parties stated. within it What is more, I would never accept this arrangement anyway because it effectively robs me of my negotiating rights to moderate the rent to an affordable level below the maximum RCO set rent every two years which is now exceeding what I consider to be a comfortable level for me, even though it is below market levels, which is irrelevant to me as I moved in 40 years ago and could not have foreseen let alone did forsee what the popularity of the area would be that far ahead. That is because it is clear that the MA would want the most they can get from me, especially if from that money they are also responsible for funding any repairs entirely and not the investor who has washed their hands of the flat entirely except for when it is sold on with vacant possession giving them a huge capital gain. I believe you do not lose your protected rights unless you move out, sign a new contract or give your landlord reason to evict you ie: rent arrears. This is a shady arrangement and unsuitable for a sitting tenancy letting as it robs me of my rights to peace and quiet enjoyment, and effectively means that both parties are rent pimping me: buying in at a cheap rate because I am there but still exploiting me by robbing me of my rights whilst treating me like a cash cow to the point that I am eventually forced out: a s.21 by stealth. I am unsure if a S21 applies to you if you have a protected tenancy. I actually feel quite violated as matters affecting my life are being decided on my behalf without my consent or agreement and yet my life and day to day peace of mind is being badly affected due to endless emails and no resolution to this tangled mess of an arrangement for which I can see no easy way out. Pay your rent deal with the maintenance issues correctly and don’t worry about issues that are not your concern or do not directly affect your tenancy. . Can anyone give some solid advice on what to do. I know this is a landlord forum but some of you must be buying up sitting tenancies under 1977 Rent Act. If not, do you know a reliable source I can turn to. Many thanks for reading this post. I know this landscape is treacherous for everyone right now, even landlords out to do good and do the right thing by their tenants. I am by no means a bad tenant but I feel compelled to take the action I am. Note: the above is just my opinion and doesn't constitute legal advice.
  12. Yes they make you jump through a lot of hoops to make a claim. In my experience with Rent4Sure you had to report any late payment over a certain amount of days and I would guess if you missed the deadline they would throw out the claim and while they dealt with the eviction you had to compile and submit to them a new rent statement of payments arrears and any correspondence with the tenant every month until vacant possession. So yes it can be useful but if you are proactive with issues and choose the right tenants I wouldn't bother.
  13. Usual story you get a good deal the first or second year and then the large rise. I thought had a good relationship with my local independent broker as I put a lot of work his way and got a half decent deal. Not any more it as I can get a huge saving by just going on the comparison sites. I found with building insurance if you add a small amount of contents cover you get public liability cover as well.
  14. You have hit the nail on the head there RL. You only need to watch those nightmare tenants programs to see that 99% of the landlords shown with bad tenants either did a "tenant find" only with a agent or self-managed themselves. from the start That is not to say as a agent you dont still very rarely get a problem but thats the nature of the business. If you wanted an investment 100% safe you stick your cash in the Post Office. (not the best analogy). We have a current benefit tenant above our office we have just had to go through the court process (rent arrears) and the bailiff is booked for next week. However as we work with the council regularly we knew there was a possibility of getting the council to pay the arrears and court costs which we have had confirmation of today. Its cheaper for the council to do that than pay for emergency housing. All further benefits will be coming to us and if for what ever reason arrears becomes a problem again we go through the process again but a lot faster without the arrears getting to the level they did. We chose to take this higher than normal risk tenant in the first place as its our property and have had this "hard to rent" property tenanted for the last 4+ years at a reasonable rent so cant complain.
×
×
  • Create New...