Grampa Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 You may have missed this but in George Osborne's budget he plans/wants to allow tenants to share their homes and not have to get permission from the freeholder or landlord. I guess that is good for some leaseholders who are refused permission to sub-let as a clause in the long lease. . But not so good for residential landlords renting their home on AST'S who then find their tenants taking in lodgers or sub-letting the property to undesirables. I could see a big increase of tenants who if they are refused permission to end a tenancy early will just sub-let or threaten to sub-let. Or sub-let and stop paying the landlord but keep the sub-tenants rent. This on top of the below on the horizon Legionnaires tests Carbon monoxide alarms Smoke alarms Electrical certs Must make being a landlord a pure joy. Its good for me as a agent though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 A lot of political ideas/ plans rarely get past the initial stage after applying due diligence. This, I suspect will be one that gets no further. With an election just a few weeks away, providing a large proportion of the electorate with (false) promises is only to be expected.....and no less than most of us would do in the same situation. Legionnaires = is easy and presents no problems Smoke alarms = most of us already have them. Co alarms= only necessary if property has gas Electrical tests = will be an expensive pain in the a**e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Just one of the many new regulations coming in this year for landlords. For us good landlord's we will all comply of course but as we all know the Cowboy's will still carry on and operate outside of the law in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 This is one of those things that should never be legalised, public apathy allows government to get away with it. Currently the tax payer will be paying for first time buyers deposits (anyone else able to earn 25% on their savings?) and a huge chunk off the cost of new build homes, anything more we can do for you sir? Where do these imbeciles come from, the crap that spews from their orifices around election time is as ridiculous as playground story telling? Counting down from 10 and breathing deeply and slowly. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortitia Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Subletting - well if any of you spot this amongst your tenants make sure you report this unearned income to HMRC as extra income. I can guarantee most tenants won't declare it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionaf Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 The rent a room scheme allows £4,250 a year tax free income. My mind boggles at the complexities that sub-letting would bring. Would sub-letting several rooms in effect turn the property into an HMO and thereby in breach of some local authority laws. Having other people in the property would most likely invalidate the insurance etc. What if you own a leasehold flat and the terms of the lease permit renting to an individual or a single family unit but not to multiple people? Lots of questions, will have to work through the answers. I can imagine we will all need to re-word tenancy agreements carefully that if we are not allowed to prevent sub-letting to ensure there are obligations on the main tenant to bear the cost and consequences. It's lucky I actually enjoy the paperwork as I only have to do it for three properties and is a diversion from the day job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 The government says letting agents and landlords can, after all, prevent tenants sub-letting properties, despite apparently saying the reverse in a statement immediately after the Budget earlier this month. On page 51 of the Budget Red Book - the document which is released after the Chancellor makes his Budget speech - the government committed to "make it easier for individuals to sub-let a room through its intention to legislate to prevent the use of clauses in private fixed-term residential tenancy agreements that expressly rule out sub-letting or otherwise sharing space on a short-term basis, and consider extending this prohibition to statutory periodic tenancies.” However, now Brandon Lewis - currently housing minister - has given further clarification to The Guardian newspaper, which in fact appears to contradict this. His 'clarification' says: “Tenants should be able to ask for permission to sublet their home without expecting a blanket refusal in every case – but landlords should also have the right to know who is living in their property. Our proposals would mean a tenant could ask for this permission under the model tenancy agreement, with landlords having the right of refusal offering reasons for that decision and within a reasonable time frame." A string of organisations inlcuding the Residential Landlords Association and the B&B Association have expressed dismay at the original government proposal. Paul Shamplina, founder of Landlord Action, says if this policy goes ahead it will thrown up a magnitude of problems in the buy-to-let industry. “We have never seen so many sub-letting cases going to court because of unscrupulous tenants trying to cream a profit from a property they have rented. We experience continual problems with tenants taking out tenancy agreements and then, in some instances, not even moving into the property themselves, but putting up partitions and sub-letting to as many people as possible” says Shamplina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Quite right too! Another ill-thought out proposal from yet another government minister who has no clue of the outside world beyond the drinking bars of Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortitia Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Agree Mel - but I am always dubious when MPs make announcements via the Grauniad. Why can't the government employ someone with a sound knowledge and experience of residential letting (not a solicitor or judge) to put forwards sensible proposals that will work? Not exactly rocket science. The property industry has a massive effect on this country's finances (well England and Wales at least) but the whole thing is a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Surely it's not beyond expectations that our politicians would seek advice from the myriad of experts in the residential lettings market !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Even if the attention seeking (media coverage) politicians don't get all they set out for they can end up with a diluted result, that can be 'improved' on later. This may be seen as a fair compromise but is in fact a further disadvantage to us. Already I view that I am just an agent for the state. Abusers are encouraged by legislation protecting them from our efforts to right wrongs. There are so many free agencies helping them with often incorrect advice. If we feel there is purpose in taking T's / G'tors to court the sympathy is rarely with us and any recompense, if your so lucky to get an award, will be slow to realise and will likely involve more significant expense to achieve. That of course supposes the LL or his paid professional understands how. Why it's assumed that a LL wishing repossession is doing this with evil intent is beyond me. We are seen as taking from the innocent rather than trying to reduce what will already be, and will increase to, very significant losses. Repossession is expensive, then the likely restoration is expensive, the void, the re letting costs all lost forever. This business is less ours each day, it's far too complicated and becoming more so, the risks for many out weigh the rewards. The result seems fairly obvious. Mind the meddlers only see this from a region where property inflation makes the property investor seem like a greedy banker. When / if the property inflation migrates North again I'll be considering selling up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 But Cor, we are all 'agents of the state' already from the moment we are born. Apart from having rules imposed on us and laws applied to us we are taught to comply with national & social behaviour. Some seem able to roll with the punches better than most, and some seem to struggle with life generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Now RL it would be interesting to see how you roll if you find a T has installed a couple of scroats into your pride and joy of a property. You hear that the property is in disrepair and a housing inspector serves a notice of improvement, on you. You are then unable to repossess for the next six months, the T believes they are justified in withholding rents (if your T is being paid or not is not your control or business). Your insurance have no interest as you now have benefits T's, well 'you' don't but the effect is the same. You serve a S21 after 6 months and it may seem reasonable to anticipate a defence that you haven't yet complied with the improvement notice. Your assertion that any repairs required are new will only cause an adjournment for reports. I have learned from my Welsh experiences that follow the rules, and roll with it as you say, the T's will laugh their titties off and take the mick even more. To take the law into my own hands, creating what I may perceive as justice has clear risks attached, but sometimes such a response might save a lot of dosh and stress. The law 'is' an ass, but if you look where and by who it has evolved is that a surprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.