Grampa

I have yet to confirm this but it looks like a new "easy read" version has been brought out so a 3 year old can read it which is 48 pages but the normal one of 18 pages hasnt been changed. As both are still on the government website I can only assume there is no change to the normal one and the easy read one is the same. I cant be bothered to compare them but there will be clarification on the web in the next few days.

So does this also effect houses that have had cladding. Around my area it is very common for houses to be cladded in a wood /grain effect cladding in various colours. I'm unsure what the material is made of though.

Unless there has been a change in the law there is no legal requirement to PAT test in residential however, all appliances must be “safe” on supply but if the property is an HMO I think there is.

So you supply a lawnmower and the tenant chops a finger or toe off, you potentially could be leaving yourself open for an insurance claim regardless whether you gave instructions or not. Unlikely I acknowledge, but the risk is still there none the less and I think we would all agree the odds of tenants making a claim rises every year. It is so important for landlords to have their own liability insurance in place now even if the property is leasehold and there is block insurance arranged by the freeholder.

Having used the bailiffs many times over the years I have never had a ex-tenant have to be physically removed from the property mostly they go before the day of the visit because the bailiff has has contacted them prior to the visit to pre-warn them what could/will happen if they try to remain. You just have to make sure you give access to the property on the day of the visit to the bailiff such as keys or have a locksmith on hand. If not the bailiff will walk away if they cant get in. He will then walk around check no one is there and sign off, 5 mins max. You then secure the property to make sure they cant get back in. Though it may only cost £66 to move to the high court but there will extra costs for the high court bailiffs to attend but the process likely to be very quicker and more certain.

You have done the hard bit getting the possession order. After the notice period the judge gave expired you need to establish if the tenant has vacated by the ordered date. If not you need to apply for a court bailif to enforce the possession order which I think is form number N325 and approx £110. You are there in the hands of how fast the bailiff in your area work. There has been a hold on bailiffs due to COVID but I think it has been changed again so called you local court and ask the question and what their lead time is. You could also use a high court bailiff which could be a lot quicker but comes with a cost.

Are the knobs faulty? If not the tenant is clearly at fault. If they are faulty request details from them when they reported it. It they can’t do so they are at fault for not reporting it. Have you checked your insurance to see if you have cover for this?

Having the memory of a snail I shall take the 5th on that.

It is a sorry state of affairs where it now appears more and more of older members of society are disillusioned with the Police which I dont think was so bad 20 years ago. There may make been more police corruption 20 years ago however, I think there was generally higher respect for the British police by the man in the street.

Or not.

I know its easy to tar them all with the same brush but you can only comment on your own experiences but I do think there is a general attitude of the Police palming the issue off if they they can. What really annoys me is reports of the Police still taking no interest or enforcement in squatting in residential properties even though it is now a criminal not civil offence and to them blatantly turning a blind eye to certain traveling people who park illegally on private or council ground, trash it with rubbish, sewage and damage before they are moved on without penalty and huge cost to the owner of the property. The staff in our local Tesco a few years a were told not to confront shoplifters from a bunch of these people who were parked illegally nearby because the Police weren't interested so word got back to these lovey people so they were walking out with full shopping trolleys of goods unquestioned and unpaid.

I saw that news item and It doesn't surprise me at all regarding the Police lack of interest. It appears to me nowadays and I am speaking from experience and from people I know who have been victims of crime the Police are always coming up with a reason not to visit or investigate and when they do its a half arsed job and will only investigate when you do your own investigation to gather further information for them. In my opinion Police aren't interested in justice any more they just want a easy result.

*More estate agents = more chances of success (esp in the private stage). I would have to strongly disagree. You will be pressurised and possibily misled into taking an unsuitable tenant if agents are in a bun fight. Letting agents dont generally start charging until a tenant is found and signed up. Remember most agents use the same portals and likely as much to have a lot of the same people on data list. All the agents will also tell you they have many suitable applicants waiting. The most important thing is to get the rental price right and also do your own research. It is all very well an agent stating they can get you xxxpcm but if the property takes 3 months to rent it doesn't really achieve much more. I would rather advertise my properties at a little less to have a better choice of applicants and to rent out a lot quicker.

Indemnity Policies can be a solution for some issues for a couple of hundred quid but are not a magic bullet. A lot of indemnity policies they are hard to claim on according to a couple of solicitors I have previously spoken to, also a lot are time limited. Some purchasers also don't like them and will rather pull out of a sale unless the original issue is rectified. It is a fairly common problem for a solicitor to pick up on issues that have been missed previously by an earlier solicitor. We see it occasionally in houses we might have sold without issue 10 years ago. It does reduce your faith in the legal profession.

I have lost count of the times I have had to correct tenancy notices etc which many bog standard conveyancing solicitors muddy through and appear to hope for the best and get wrong.

If the notices are served correctly and the tenants also provided/served the new landlords details on completion normally via a section 48 notice that should be ok. But there is a BIG IF here. There are so many things that could make the notices the landlord served invalid such as: Not complying with the correct covid regulations and notice periods required when the notice's were originally served. Not protecting the deposit correctly in the correct timescales at the beginning of the tenancy Not providing the correct prescribed information in the correct timescales at the beginning of the tenancy. Not providing the deposit certificate in the correct timescales at the beginning of the tenancy. Not providing a gas certificate Not providing a EPC Not acting on any reported maintenance items You need to see sight of the tenancy agreements, notices served, deposit details and get your solicitor to confirm in writing all notices and relevant documents have been correctly served in the correct timescales to obtain a possession order if the tenants dont leave. If not new doc's and notices would need to be served again and potentially any deposit returned first.

The government is expected to announce today that there will have to be compulsory mediation before at least some evictions take place in the private rental sector. This will relate at least to those cases where tenants have run up Covid-related arrears. For some months the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been operating pilot schemes in certain areas, where mediation has been used by agents, landlords and tenants. The government says this process can avoid eviction if an agreement is reached between the parties. Under the pilot, the system has been free to use for landlords or their agents, and tenants, and involves an independent trained neutral mediator to help identify issues. The MHCLG says that under the pilot, following one or more sessions “if mediation succeeds and you are happy with the proposed solution, you will sign an agreement, which will be put in front of a judge for approval. The agreement will explain what actions each party [landlord/agent and tenant] must take next.” It is not known if this same system will be adopted when mediation becomes compulsory, nor if the mediation will have to be used in all future evictions after the Covid-related arrears crisis has been resolved. More details are to be released this afternoon when Steve Barclay, the chief secretary to the Treasury, makes an announcement in the House of Commons. Both the letting agents’ and landlords’ trade bodies have called for taxpayer financial packages to be agreed to resolve the Covid-related arrears issue.

No but a quick internet search doesnt look good for them. https://www.arcoservices.co.uk/news/blog-article/roofing-firm-in-court-following-bbc-watchdog-probe

A good tenancy agreement would have a clause about vehicles (including caravans) on the property and them having to be taxed and insured. Obviously you could then amend as you see fit or agree with the tenant by special arrangement if necessary. The reason being some properties and locations are not suitable for having beaten up unroadworthy crappy vehicles causing an eyesore and complaints from neighbour's etc. Also its not unheard of for mobile motor mechanics or over active car enthusiasts causing problems with noise etc so having a clause is a fall back if needed.

We take a flexible view and may do the same as RL says but only if it suits us. However, our contracts make very clear that the notice period should fall in line with the monthly rental period and most tenant read their tenancy and comply.

Tell the agency to contact the original contractor who fitted them to go back and repair as they were not fitted securely. If curtain brackets are fitted correctly the bracket should break or bend before the screws pull out. Well they do if I put them up.

To be honest if you are housing people as a charity you should have assess to a professional organisation for your legal advise to make sure all the legalities are in place at the outset. You will need a court order to get vacant possession but as the notice periods to give to the tenant first before a court application is applied for have been extended due to covid it is important you serve them on the tenant ASAP. You also need to look into if giving a licence is the right route for the future. A lot of landlords think using a licence is a way around not giving a normal AST tenancy agreement and they can get the tenant out quicker. It maybe so on a true licence but just calling something a licence doesn't necessary make it one and if certain conditions are met the agreement will default to a normal Assured Shorthold tenancy no matter what is signed. As a suggestion I would recommend you join an landlord organisation such as The Guild of residential landlords https://www.landlordsguild.com/ they are excellent value for money at about £120 per year and will provide all your legal advice for all aspects of a tenancy etc and guide you through serving notices and even doing the court application if you want to do it yourself. You also get a help line for any housing/tenancy/tenant issue. Having been a member for about 15 years and an agent myself I cant praise them enough.

I agree. Just be aware of the ruling and what is told to unsuccessful applicants.

I do agree, but a landlord would be foolish to do so. The law used is section 19 & 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and the court ruling confirmed that anyone who seeks to exclude renters receiving housing benefits is acting unlawfully. So I guess if the reason given to exclude someone is a reason other than that and the same criteria is used equally with all applicants you should be ok. I would also guess other reason(s) to rule out an application could be a number of things such as: Income Provable income (getting a official letter (not a print out from a on-line calculator) stating what benefits they would receive if they moved into your property can be quite difficult. Just because they receive £xxx at their current property doesn't mean they will receive the same benefits at another property that may have more or less rooms, be in a different area with different rates, maybe different number of people/occupier's and also a different rent amount) Not providing an official letter stating there isn't an existing benefit debt they need pay back (due to an earlier over payment) and therefore a claw back on future benefits . This claw back isn't uncommon and would reduce the amount of benefit the tenant would receive therefore reducing income. If there was a debt it wouldn't appear on normal ref checks. Number of occupants Number of Children. Suitability of occupants for the type of property ie: pets children Pets. (take no notice of the fallacy that pets cant be refused. This stems from the recent clause added in the free government AST that allows pets. Though I have heard even this isn't enforceable) Mortgage restriction Building Insurance restriction Head lease restriction Criteria for Rent Guarantee insurance Having a Guarantor

Just a little footnote to the court case mentioned to put some context to the story. The case was brought by Hayley Pearce and I believe this was the third case in 2 years which she has taken on letting agents who rejected her due to being on benefits though the 2 earlier case did not reach court and were settled for a estimated 15k in damages. You wont be surprised to know she was backed by the housing charity Shelter Just remember the law doesn't force landlords and agents to house tenant's in receipt of benefits but to only consider their application along side any other application. Which is a bit of a nonsense really.