Grampa

On 5/7/2021 at 8:57 PM, Richlist said:

 

But surely it has to be more than that in the eyes of the law. There has to be a more detailed description/definition of the term 'consideration' in the context of this issue......don't you think ?

I could receive an expression of interest/ application from anyone in receipt of benefits, think about it for 10 seconds and tell them I won't be letting to them because they are in receipt of benefits. I can honestly say I've thought about (i.e. considered) their application and decided they are not suitable.  I don't have to tell them they don't meet the criteria for rent guarantee or my mortgage lender's rules or that a far better quality tenant will be along shortly. 

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:

1. Income
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. Number of occupants 
5. Number of Children.
6. Suitability of occupants for the type of property ie: pets children
7. 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)
8. Mortgage  restriction 
9. Building Insurance restriction
10. Head lease restriction
11. Criteria for Rent Guarantee insurance
12. 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.

14 hours ago, Richlist said:

I don't understand the problem.

My letting agents & I have a policy of only accepting applications from tenants who meet the criteria for rent guarantee insurance. Applicants in receipt of housing benefits/UC get help by virtue of not having sufficient income to pay their rent so they don't qualify for the insurance. 

Am I missing something ?

Am I over simplifying a problem that I don't think really affects landlords ?

Then there is the restriction on some mortgage t&c's which don't allow letting to people in receipt of benefits.

I dont as a rule use rent guarantee insurance but the one time I did which was which was with Rent4Sure they made a big thing of accepting benefit tenants. So your agent may need to come up with another reason in case they come across a sharp tenant. There is bound to be other RG products with other underwriters as well who accept HB tenants.

Now if the rent is sustainably higher than the UC/HB rates for that size property that will wittle down any possible benefit tenants. Or as a final resort they get told their application has been put forward to the landlord with the other interested parties who will decide on their preferred choice from the applicants.  

Well the Agent should have been a bit more careful regarding the way the property was marketed and the manner in which the tenant was refused its not hard. An agent who out rightly tells an applicant they wont be considered due to being in receipt of benefits then gets fined has no one to blame but themselves. Its no different to a wheelchair user who insists to view an unsuitable property even after being given the reasons why its unsuitable, you would be just inviting an discrimination claim whether it has merit or not.

Sometimes in business you have to give lip service to head off a problem before you get to the pass. 

On 5/4/2021 at 6:36 PM, MaxxHeadroom said:

It is 'judgemental' because the author is the one who is asserting that it is 'good advice' and imposing his/her ill informed judgement on the situation. Why should this incident give rise to the need for the intervention you are suggesting? Just because I came to this Forum which is full of Noble members who dedicate their time to helping others doesn't mean that I have failed to address the problem and therefore I need the services of an estate agent, you don't know my personal circumstances. Completely irrational way of thinking in my opinion.

Really?  ill informed judgement? Please clarify and justify the reasoning behind this statement and why it is  "ill informed". Posters can only comment based on the information provided in the original post and based on that, my advice still stands.

I believe you were the one who stated in reference to your tenant   "I have not commented to date in order to preserve working relationships"   which implies an inability by you to address issues with your tenant and avoid a possibly difficult conversation. So if you are not going to address the situation WHO IS???? That leaves either you burying your head in the sand ignoring the problem  and possibly ending up on a TV program about problem tenants which is mainly landlords who have tried to self manage badly. Or you take the option of using a professional such as an Agent.

Just because you don't like the tone of a conversation doesn't make the content invalid/bad That fact that you appear to be so sensitive to comments or criticism  on a public forum just reinforces my opinion that you would benefit from a professional property manager and you are not cut out to self manage.

Take the advice in the manner it was given which was to help. What you do with it is up to you.  

If its but mutual agreement thats fine but I would confirm it by email just so there is a paper trail clarifying the amount and start date so there is no confusion at a later date.

2 hours ago, MaxxHeadroom said:

As for the comments by Grandpa above, this community of Members offers help, it doesn't judge.  I never claimed to be suited to be a landlord, you might be better suited that's absolutely fine.  But there are fine Members here ready to help as you can see from the above comments.  

The help/advise was to use an agent if you couldn't address the problem yourself which is good advise., so I fail to see how that is judgemental. 

If you feel you cannot address the situation with the tenant you either need a letting agent or consider that you are not suited to being a landlord

have you spoken to him about the issue???

6 hours ago, Carryon Regardless said:

Is that the new model that might be attracted to a sports car?

I couldn't possibly say. 

Old Boilers. I've known many over the years. Some just keep going but you do wonder sometimes if its time to trade in for a new model.😉

Whatever route you choose it has to be a commercial decision, handled carefully and ideally you want a win/win situation. If it is perceived as a win/lose to the landlord you potentially could lose the the tenants and have a void period that may cost you more or any number of problem.

We had a similar situation earlier in the year with a new boiler installed badly by a contractor and after numerous return visits had to get another contractor to put right which took longer than it should have. The tenants wanted compensation even though there was an electric immersion heater and electric shower but there had to use portable electric heater. The tenants wanted compensation for the extra cost of the electric heating. It was explained to them "not entitled to any special treatment over and above that which an owner occupier could expect it they were in the same situation." as RL rightly states, but we told the tenants if they could provide details/calculations of the extra cost they have incurred against the savings of less gas used we would put it to the landlord for his consideration.

We didn't hear anything further and there is no bad feeling between between parties because we kept up a good line of prompt polite communication during the whole saga.

You may find their idea of compensation is relatively small and a small price to pay for making the issue go away, or it could be unreasonable to which you could meet in the middle or refuse outright.

There are a lot of laminate type products out there now that are completely water proof/resistant. I will only use these now no matter what room they are being laid. 

9 minutes ago, Richlist said:

1. In the OP's case it's only 4 months early (could be less if notice not served yet ). The landlord will need to pay all the usual fees if the tenant left at 12 months so I don't see any 'extra' costs for the landlord. Would you pay for a new gas cert after 8 months and not  see that as "extra cost". Me-thinks you need to sharpen your pencil.

2. That's got nothing to do with the tenant. The location, desirability & suitability of a property is entirely the owners responsibility and I don't see how a tenant can be held to account for the owners poor choice of rental property. No but signing a legally binding contract has got everything to do with the tenant so the landlord is perfectly within his right to make a commercial decision   not to release early. 

3. This tenant wants to be released now so the point is not valid in this case.  I was replying to your comment "I've never understood landlords who try to stop tenants leaving early. Why "

Wrong side of bed this morning RL?

7 hours ago, C Em said:

My tenant is trying to force me to terminate his tenancy. (4 months early from a year’s tenancy)
He said he would stay if I would reduce the rent by 30% and I refused. He is now unwilling to let my electrician gain entry during working hours to carry out remedial work on the electrics (fit new consumer unit) for the EICR unless I cancel the tenancy. He says he will sue me for having unsafe electrics. 
After much talk he is now only allowing entry to do this work through the night or weekends knowing that my electrician does not work these hours. 
Ive kept all text messages regarding this as evidence. Can anybody give advice on where I stand in this situation?

People who threaten to sue very rarely do. Also if the tenant refuses access it is a situation of his own making and thirdly what would he sue for? He hasnt incurred a material lose.

I have found warning people you will put the phone down on them and not discuss the matter further if they continue to swear or be aggressive to be quite effective. A lot of the time they phone straight back with a different attitude. Sometimes it took putting the phone down on them mid-sentance a couple of times but they soon got the message.  

33 minutes ago, Richlist said:

I've never understood landlords who try to stop tenants leaving early. Why ? If a tenant needs to leave early they are going to do exactly that or cause numerous problems if you try to stop them. Just let them go.....you've had 8 months of income. Let them go & move on.

I agree to a point but there are a number of reasons I would say it isn't in the landlords favour to release the tenants earlier.

1. If there are extra fees the landlord has to pay for new tenant referencing which some agents charge for + also new set-up fees which I acknowledge would have to be paid anyway at some time but there is still an element of extra cost depending how earlier from the original end date.

2. If the property is tricky to rent ie: due to location, layout size etc. Had a number of these over the years that causes a groaning  in the office  whenever they become empty. 

3. If the tenants want to be released early at the end of November or earlier December as it makes it harder to find new tenants in the lead up to xmas so the landlord potentially could have a longer void period.

If your solicitors have advised against making/amending the claim for further arrears at this stage TAKE THEIR ADVISE. 

You need to prioritise the 2 issues. The most important thing is to get your property back. Deal with any further arrears at a later date as they wont go away and be still be owed. However, you have to realistically decide what your chances are of ever getting the arrears out of this person. If they are on benefits this is very very unlikely so put it out of your mind FOR NOW and revisit at a later date if practical. 

You need to come up with some sort of compromise to defuse the situation otherwise it will become very messy. Yes you could dig your heels in and flatly refuse but potentially that could cause you a lot of grief and time and effort which could be rent chasing and/or arguing over damages/wear and tear at the end of the tenancy. 

Explain you understand he wants to terminate his tenancy earlier but he has to understand he has signed an legal agreement. However, you are prepared to CONSIDER releasing him early on condition an 1.ACCEPTABLE replacement tenant is found and 2.there is no break in rent payments between tenancies and 3.he allows you to do viewing/maintenance etc. That may calm things down and even if you found another tenant tomorrow it is likely to be a month before they can move in anyway which is at least another month closer to the end of his original tenancy.

Rent guarantee insurance would give protection if they are acceptable to the insurance company. Try Rent 4 Sure

10 hours ago, Carryon Regardless said:

My issues with A's, on the find only, was them ringing to discuss an ideal proposed T. But didn't know their age, if they had animals, if there was a G'tor (and suitable). They effectively expected me to trust them to install who ever, and considered me to be awkward for having the audacity to question their choice for my properties.

Exactly what I found.

2 hours ago, Richlist said:

I only have 2 issues that can be annoying.

* Inexperienced staff......everyone is inexperienced at something at some time in their life but why do I have to deal with them ?

* Unsatisfactory prospective tenants.......I provide a basic criteria that applicants must meet but occasionally I'll get sent an applicant who doesn't tick all the boxes. It's annoying because a simple question would determine their suitability. 

It seems "Unsatisfactory prospective tenants." is a common theme here.

So for everyone who has been previously offered unsuitable applicants could this be because the tenant type requirements is based on a casual conversation with the agent that isn't clear cut and interpretation of requirements can get blurred?  

8 hours ago, bil8999 said:

I have only used an agent for one of my properties which is some 20 miles from where i live.

Of all my properties it has been by far the most problematic.

This i believe was down to the people they had working for them at the time and choice of tenant.

Also it concerns me when the agents working on your behalf states that they own and let properties in that area, they will cherry pick.

So is that because the agent did not provide you with all the facts or relevant info on the tenant they put forward? Or give an honest assessment of suitability?

Back on the subject of "Tenant find Service" and the quality of tenants pushed forward onto the landlord with limited info. I found myself in the unusual position of instructing another agent to find me a tenant for a 2 bed flat I have just completed on.

I happen to enquire about another possible purchase which another estate agent (who didn't know I was a agent myself) and I mentioned I had just completed on a property and about to look for tenants, they mentioned they had the perfect tenant couple and then went into great detail about them. I thought hey hoe if I can get a good tenant asap via another agency I wasn't bothered it wasn't through my own agency as tenant find only.

Well these tenants didn't materise and I thought why not continue with this company to see how a corporate agent acts and I might pick up some tips or be able to plagiarise some docs. Well I am shocked by the way they acted and tried to put you under pressure to take anyone and it was also like getting blood out of a stone to get info on the applicants. I had "really interested nice people" wanting the property who were, split up couples without history, furloughed chefs from pubs who would "definitely" be going back to work, couples with a reasonable joint income but one  who was pregnant and couples of 20 yo who are in a new relationships. These were people who I was encouraged to take on as tenants without any advise or opinion on the suitability or possible pitfalls of the situation. It was FXXXXXXG OUTRAGEOUS.  

My staff will only put forward applicants who tick at least all lot or all of the boxes of suitability/requirement and will advise of the pros and cons of each applicant in our professional view and give a preference and the reason why. I thought all agents would do that as a basic service requirement

5 hours ago, Carryon Regardless said:

My issues with A's, on the find only, was them ringing to discuss an ideal proposed T. But didn't know their age, if they had animals, if there was a G'tor (and suitable). They effectively expected me to trust them to install who ever, and considered me to be awkward for having the audacity to question their choice for my properties. 

In one location the A had their own properties. This meant they had 1st choice and I would get the undesirables sent to me.

Some A's found it unpalatable to use 'my' contract, as they were not familiar. They didn't see that I would have the T on their contract that I was unfamiliar with.

This isn't something I had experience of but have heard that the transparency in maintenance / repairs can be lacking. The cost often might be perceived as ott with A's enjoying what ever mark up. Then of course there are questions as to the validity of works carried out. To some "it's a rented property" sounds like "it's an insurance claim", it being a cash cow situation.

I can see the thinking about agents who are landlords as well and the perception they will keep the good tenants for themselves but in reality I dont think that is the case. I am a landlord as well as a agent with a handful of properties and some of my staff also have some of their own properties. However, it would be very unlikely one of "our own" properties coming up for rent that is the exact and/or very similar in price and area to another at the same time. If in the very unlikely event it did happen I probably would try to direct a good tenant to my property but ultimately it would be the tenants choice. An agent in my view would have to own many dozens of properties for that to be even a slight concern and remember there is always more than one good tenant out there.

I do agree there is an issue with "Tenant find service only" with a lot of agents and I think there is a lot of agents who dont add in the agents best interest with this service as some are happy to put forward any one so they can get their fee and wash their hands of any future problems.

Being an agent and liking to think I am (maybe wrongly) a slightly better than average one, I have my own ideas what I think the main failings of poor agents are. However, my thinking maybe skewed as I am in the industry and do all the legal courses etc and probably think it is different to what what the landlord thinks

So if any of you would like to share your opinion of letting agents you have used (past and present) what would you say are the top 2 or 3 things that could be improved with the biggest fault number one. 

Even if you are generally happy with the service received there will always be something that could be improved upon even if the majority of the service is good.