Simon Dewsberry Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 With the TDS regime now underway and the countdown to chaos down to approx 36 days (as i write) ...november 7th 2007 .... This will be the beginning of the first 6mth ast's to end under TDS ... I have mixed feelings about the whole process; Rogue LL do need to be held accountable which they certainly will be(well those that actually use TDS that is!) So the T now does have very good protection in place (as long as they also know about TDS....so far none of mine have been aware until i have explained it to them !) But as the whole rental sector is being "cleaned up" then should we not have parity in this with the T..... I suggest that a Rogue T is going to adversely affect..financially.... a LL far more than a LL will a T .....(which is pretty much negligible with TDS).... So, to now protect LL from rogue T I think the time has come that we have equality and parity with penalties ..... From now on when a T is 14 days late with rent payment ... He should have to pay upto 3X the rent payment PLUS the rent ..also as we lose our S21 rights whilst transgressing TDS rules ...maybe T should lose protection from eviction rights whilst rent is outstanding .....??????? Not fair to most T..??? NOPE but then TDS is not fair to most LL...!!! Ridiculous ...that was what we all siad about TDS ....!!.LOL Fair & balanced but controversial !!!!!!! Comments welcome.. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Not having a great response here Simon are you? I think i'm gonna hold back my thoughts until i've had 'less' beer!! hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Good idea.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 "So, to now protect LL from rogue T I think the time has come that we have equality and parity with penalties ....." I seem to remember you already have a 'sort' of parity in place with your £5/day interest on late payments?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Hardly "parity" or "equal" Though is it !!? Unless TDS are going to change the system to ...£5 for every day past 10 days of "not returning T bond ......" in which case all would be fair and equal.......dont you think?? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Not exactly equal no but it certainly goes some way toward it i think!!! I'm guessing that because of 'aforementioned' rogue landlords the %age of Landlords ripping off Tenants far outweighs the reverse and that's why the system was set up in this way. I don't know the figures but i'm sure that if these were in favour of the Landlord then the system would have been set up more in favour of he/she. Suffice to say, the Landlord has the 'eviction' 'court' 'DC' route also but the Tenant hasn't a great deal in his favour for this situation. "maybe T should lose protection from eviction rights whilst rent is outstanding . ." I do agree with you on this one actually, i'm sure too many tenants know the law better these days and extract the urine on a regular basis. This would be another 'tool' to use when attempting to chase arrears etc. note to self >>>>> don't be agreeing with Simon too much or the 'fun' would just go out of this relationship!! hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Not exactly equal no but it certainly goes some way toward it i think!!! HARDLY! but what of the vast majority who do not have these measures in place ...where is their statutory protection???? I'm guessing that because of 'aforementioned' rogue landlords the %age of Landlords ripping off Tenants far outweighs the reverse and that's why the system was set up in this way. I don't know the figures but i'm sure that if these were in favour of the Landlord then the system would have been set up more in favour of he/she. You think ? never seem to hear about T taking any legal action on LL always LL having problems with T's .....Not disagreeing with TDS it is right and just ....but now needs to be balanced to protect LL from huge financial "hits"....Is that not fair ? Suffice to say, the Landlord has the 'eviction' 'court' 'DC' route also but the Tenant hasn't a great deal in his favour for this situation. 'eviction' 'court' (one and the same)Bullying at its worst..Too long ...doesn't recover debt ....compounds the financial losses .....and does T no favours in any way; evicted, ccj, debt too big to manage, once court proceedings started ..effective comms from LL have ceased ..one way ticket to no where ...!DC not many people have woken up to this route .......and incredibly is put forward as first line of attack or rather defence..... The equivalent is to sent a LL to prison for not protecting a bond ....If 3x is good enough for LL then its good enough for T ... Altough i do feel that a far more sensible approach would be to make the penalty lower like 1x Bond for LL and 1x rent(amount outstanding) for T .....Fair, equal and sensible i feel ......Any opinions..?? "maybe T should lose protection from eviction rights whilst rent is outstanding . ." I do agree with you on this one actually, i'm sure too many tenants know the law better these days and extract the urine on a regular basis. This would be another 'tool' to use when attempting to chase arrears etc. Well ....I actually thought this was the most controversial bit !!!!! and am not to bothered by not getting it ....the above needs to be seriously considered first....! note to self >>>>> don't be agreeing with Simon too much or the 'fun' would just go out of this relationship!! hehe I dont think that is a very likely scenario on our past record !!!lolol Although with time do do seem to be realising that not all T are "perfect"... i'm sure too many tenants know the law better these days and extract the urine on a regular basis.. Sad but true and as a lot of LL/LA are aware need to have integral sytems in place ready to deal with them but as always the good news is that 99% ARE A1 "tidy" people...............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we cant have all this agreement.....where is the debate..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 "where is their statutory protection????" The TDS is their statutory protection!! If Landlords are fair then the deposit is returned to the Tenant as it should be and how it is meant to be (as set out now in LAW) LL's still have eviction, court, DC routes to get arrears of rent paid and the Deposit SHOULDN'T be used for this, (although I think a submission to the TDS to 'freeze' a Tenants deposit until all arrears are settled may be the way to go) Landlords still have more power over the Tenant than some may suggest here by using the above routes 'for whatever conceivable reason they want/make up' What about the Tenant that has no electric for 4 weeks?? What can they do or who do they go to?? it really swings in the favour of the Landlord whichever way people like to dress it up. "never seem to hear about T taking any legal action on LL always LL having problems with T's" That's because many Tenants don't understand the law and don't realise how simple it is to sue someone these days. What is the Tenant above going to sue the Landlord for? No electric in their place?? Wouldn't work would it? So what do they do?? They withhold the rent and the LL sends around the DC's!! Tenants don't always have a way out APART from 'drastically' withholding rent in the attempt to get 'promised' works done on the house that they've leased with the 'promise' of quiet enjoyment of! I suppose it WOULD be quiet with no electric . . . .. . "Although with time do do seem to be realising that not all T are "perfect"..." I have NEVER stated that all Tenants are perfect, they do fall foul of the law, LL's on occasion but the reverse is also true. My view on this is, If a LL is fair and gives a reasonable service for a reasonable rent, and a Tenant pays on time and looks after the property then all is well. If either side reneges on this agreement (and any AST, if you care to read them, is written by and heavily weighted in the Landlords favour) then they should be hit, and hit hard!! Tenant OR Landlord!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 "where is their statutory protection????" The TDS is their statutory protection!! I was refering to the LL NOT the T..............................so i ask again where is their statutory protection and more important compensation like T is to get ie 3x What about the Tenant that has no electric for 4 weeks?? What can they do or who do they go to?? it really swings in the favour of the Landlord whichever way people like to dress it up. Why would a T be without electricity ? 1 Havent paid the bill and cut off? well that will be down to T 2 Instalation unsafe and condemned...in which case prop is unihabitable and T should leave immediately and seek alt accom ...but as this is emergency ..then LL should react , if not T can present quotes for work to be authorised by LL or in extreme cicumstances if "rogue LL " get work done and deduct from rent ....but as we are talking and advising sensible tidy LL on here ...my posts are directed at people who i assume are not "rogue" and are having rent held for "NON" reasons.... If either side reneges on this agreement (and any AST, if you care to read them, is written by and heavily weighted in the Landlords favour) then they should be hit, and hit hard!! Tenant OR Landlord!! Failure to pay rent is clearly reneging... Failure to carry out repairs is a quite seperate matter enforcible when neccessary by EHO .....takes time tho..? so does eviction so guess at least that one os balanced...(clearly a responsible LL will look after his investment without the need for EHO intervention ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 "I was refering to the LL NOT the T..............................so i ask again where is their statutory protection and more important compensation like T is to get ie 3x" Statutory protection from what exactly?? We are talking about deposits here. If a Tenant doesn't pay YOU a deposit YOU don't allow them to have the property. If a LL doesn't deposit the bond satisfactorily or doesn't inform the Tenant WHERE it's deposited within 14 days then he gets fined 3x . . . . good enough for them!!!! You're talking about rent arrears and to some extent I agree that there 'could' be some sort of statutory protection from this, that's why I suggested that it would be a good idea for a LL to 'apply' to freeze a Tenants deposit in the event of rent arrears upon proof that rent hasn't been paid. Yes some compensation could be attached to this but this should be for the courts to decide and NOT the LL with the DC on his side. This will never happen though because the 'rogue' Landlords would see it as a 'loophole' to making life difficult for the Tenant and squeezing more money out of them. I think that if harsher penalties were given to non-paying Tenants AND some form of compensation was attached to this for Landlords then the numbers of Tenants reneging on their part of the contract should decrease. Watch the queues then . . . .. . .. . Landlords outside the courts . . . . And DC's outside the benefits agency. "Why would a T be without electricity ?" I'm no electrician but apparently the lighting on the ring main upstairs was faulty and needed some repair. It was reported to the LL who said he'd get it sorted but 4 weeks later still hasn't. The Tenant has had to go out and buy some lamps for all the rooms and the landing that will work from the sockets. There doesn't appear to be anything 'dangerous' about this on the surface so 1) It's not reportable to EHO 2) Because it's not a legal requirement to have electrics checked. Scenario here was teenage boy helping his mum carry some washing upstairs, tripped on a wire from one of the lamps, fell onto the lamp and ended up in A&E and required 17 stitches in his behind. Misses school for a week, his GCSE year, because he can't sit down. So who is at fault? The boy for helping his mum? The mum for asking him to help? The schoolboy for being clumsy? The wires for jumping out? Or the Landlord for not repairing a fault on his property? I'd sue his friggin a**e off!!!!! "Why would a T be without electricity ? 1 Havent paid the bill and cut off? well that will be down to T 2 Instalation unsafe and condemned" I hope i've answered your question here . . . . . I'm getting really sick of people in this game looking for 'ANY' loophole they can to make themselves money or to renege on something they SHOULD be doing like repairs or maintenance or even something they've promised. Once bitten, twice shy?? Yeh be careful when you've experienced problems, we all do this but skimping on quality and safety for the benefit of your own bank balance or you can't be arsed?? Deplorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 I think that if harsher penalties were given to non-paying Tenants AND some form of compensation was attached to this for Landlords then the numbers of Tenants reneging on their part of the contract should decrease. This was the VERY point i was making with regard to "statutory" protection as was very clear. From "loss of rent" protection = to T protection from loss of deposit (unless cosher) IE 3x rent as penalty Unfortunately TDS in its infinite wisdom has made it very clear that DEP is DEP and RENT is RENT so your freeze at present is no good ...or will it be, as what is in "the kitty" to cover potential damage if dep is used as rent on month 2 ???...not very well thought out at all.. I hope i've answered your question here . . . . . Get serious , So T DID have electricity, was just missing one light circuit ...I am a quailfied electronic engineer so can comment safely here ! Safe to say if upstairs, then we are talking bedrooms ...generally they have lamps in them any way ..if not and it was a FF flat then okay lamps had to be purchased (clearly LL should hae done this immediately ...no quarms here and LL was clearly a Txxxxr for not doing this ..No arguement!) As per one of your recent posts: T should have requested permission to buy lamps from LL (in writing ..if we need to get pedantic about it) If LL not prepared to supply then clearly T has a moral right to go purchase lamps and DEDUCT THE COST OF THESE ONLY from the rent enclosing receipts for them ..... Deducting £20 for half a dozen lamps is VERY different to with holding ALL rent for months on end seriously "reneging on ast terms" as you put it ......... As T has taken it upon themselves to install lamps then clearly any problem associated with the installation will presumably fall on the installer of such .....If they did not have the sense to route cables sensibly or invest £3 of the LL money in a roll of duct tape then what can you do.?...(ALTHOUGH I WILL RE-ITERATE LL SHOULD HAVE PRESENTED AND SORTED SITUATION) I'm getting really sick of people in this game looking for 'ANY' loophole they can to make themselves money or to renege on something they SHOULD be doing like repairs or maintenance or even something they've promised. Completely agree with you (did i just type that ??!!) but a lot of these "discussions" revolve around problem T; the posts i put up are based on the LL being a "proper ethical and responsible LL" and suggestions on how to deal with "awkward situations" Now when my posts are taken by you (gareth) and put into a situation where the LL is a "rogue" means that the advice is no longer appropiate ...as the situation is a different one...and will require a different approach... IF A LL LEAVES A T IN predicament that is not acceptable thru negligence then he deserves all the Sxxxt in the world ........ And IF a tenant posts on here with "rogue LL " poblems ...NO electric NO windows NO CE and "refusing to return bond etc then i would give them advice on how to tackle that problem ..YES even put DC on LL ..but I would NOT advise T to with hold FULL RENT FOR MONTHS as this against ast terms AND is probably the very cash LL needs to repair the problem.... The guy who had no lecky ...I would have advised to get a few quotes from sparks and if LL not cooperating within 10 days ...would instruct cheapest ..pay him with rent money and send balance to LL along with receipt ..if LL not happy then tell him you will see him in court ... Yeh be careful when you've experienced problems, we all do this but skimping on quality and safety for the benefit of your own bank balance or you can't be arsed?? Deplorable. The very reason i self manage ...THE BUCK STOPS HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.