Jump to content

Carryon Regardless

Members
  • Content Count

    1,723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carryon Regardless

  1. 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 p
  2. 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.
  3. 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 sugge
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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 re
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.......
  14. 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 hom
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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 de
  20. 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.
  21. 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 fin
  22. I don't think it unreasonable to assume that this latest initiative will become more stringent over time, with a D requirement and eventually a C. While I'm ok Jack for others it's not daft to plan for this. True enough the lower rated properties will be of lower quality, also more likely they will be occupied by claimants and be low revenue. Since legislation is creating this socialist tax on LL's there being some assistance doesn't seem unreasonable, to me.
  23. Don't do this, it's a disaster in the making. Bail out saying you have learnt that letting a property not up to standard is too risky, which it is. You start off with risk of a claim of disrepair being possible. If a housing inspector were to get involved you would be given a strict time limit to carry out works and then it / they would be organised at greater expense to you. If you use the services of an Agent, I'm sure Grampa would agree, that a good one wouldn't touch the property until ready anyway. It may be that you are needing the rental revenues to finance the renovatio
  24. I can't see a problem with selecting a living companion that fits in with the household. It must increase the chances of enjoying social stability.
×
×
  • Create New...