How on earth are landlords expected to carry on with no safeguards?

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 14/01/2025 - 10:25
I think you have misunderstood this. The deposit can not be used by the tenant in lieu of owed rent i.e. at the end of the tenancy, but some tenants fail to pay the final month believing they are going to lose their deposit anyway. However, my understanding is that the landlord is quite entitled to use the deposit where rent is owed and I have previously been awarded a CCJ with a deduction by the judge for the deposit remaining in my possession.

It will be interesting to see. I always regarded as section 21 as my get out of jail card. I'm obviously careful in vetting my tenants but however much due diligence you carry out there is always an element of risk. For new/novice landlords who are also unincorporated it seems daft to take this risk on for the potential returns or losses. I think it probably makes much more sense to invest in a stocks and shares ISA.

We need support full stop.

Safeguards are not worth the paper they are written on when it can take 12 months to evict a tenant and the judge does everything they can to help the tenant stay put, it’s so bias it’s ridiculous.

The latest suggestion is that landlords pay compensation to tenants if we ask them to vacate??!!?? Does no one other than us realise this is first and foremost a business?

Bottom line is that currently we are all on borrowed time, and many of us would be better out of it leaving it to larger companies and housing associations.

Reply to the comment left by JUD KIRK at 14/01/2025 - 17:42
I stand corrected , always happy to learn something

Reply to the comment left by JUD KIRK at 14/01/2025 - 17:42
I stand corrected, always happy to learn something

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 14/01/2025 - 10:25
I read it as the events Christine was referring to may well have happened years ago. She was a Landlord for 20 years and may well mean the good old days when a Landlord could take a deposit for their own protection, which 99% of the time was either kept in a bank account or deducted from the last month's rent. Obviously in those days if a Tenant left 'through the back door' and left the property in poor state then a Landlord could use the deposit exactly for what it was intended.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 14/01/2025 - 11:49
I had a tenant leave in arrears and the DPS returned the deposit to me on the basis of the arrears.

I don't have any issues with us landlords having responsibilities. Just like mortgage companies can't force the mortgagee out of a house for no reason, it's probably not right to evict a rental tenant for no reason.

I just had to evict someone for non-rent payment. They were within their fixed term, so I used section 8. It took 5 or 6 months from the last rent payment to eviction. This is apparently about how long before a bank evicts someone who doesn't pay their mortgage. So it seems fair.

If a tenant is in breach of their tenancy (such as subletting part of the property), then it is up to a judge to decide if it is fair to evict them, depending upon the severity of the breach. That seems right to me.

And do you expect convicts to sleep rough? Everyone needs a home. We are thankfully not a society who brands convicts - everyone gets a chance to reform.

However, on a closely related note, the reality is that cheap rental properties don't work any more. A two or three bed house in a more expensive area has very similar maintenance costs to a one bedroom flat in a cheap area. There's still one boiler to break, one shower to leak, etc. The house is also more likely to attract a two income household who have (and want to keep) a good credit rating, so the rent is more likely to be paid in full.

This in itself is an issue for the PRS akin to the problem of affordable housing in the purchase sector. The increased regulation is a problem here because it makes the small profit not worth the hassle or risk of a tenant who may fail to pay.

Reply to the comment left by Phil rosenberg at 16/01/2025 - 14:37
Big difference with a mortgage is that banks don't normally loan you 100% of the value of the house, so if you fall behind on the mortgage then they can sell the house at 80-90% market value and still get all their money back. And they have the resources to catch up with you and demand payment in the future. If a non-paying tenant leaves, then in most cases you just have to take the hit and move on as you are unlikely to ever get your money back.

And contrary to all the rhetoric from certain quarters, a landlord would never evict a tenant for no reason. It would make zero sense to just lose the rental income and start paying council tax on an empty house, just for the hell of it! Section 21 is "No reason required/given", NOT "No reason". Almost all the stories you get are for perfectly good reasons when you read on and find the landlord wants to sell or use the property themselves.

In answer to the comment of no safeguards it is time to stop further investment in this business.
Whenever a tenant leaves a property of mine i'm out. Have sold 2 so far and have another up for sale currently. Another tenant has just given notice so am now looking at taking this one to auction.
This leaves me with 3 tenants, all have been long term. They can remain as long as they like and I have no concerns from them changing their ways.
I have had to use a S21 on an eviction that took 14 months, 12 of those with no rent. Advised not to use S8 as the tenant would have complained about mould, not getting jobs carried out in a timely manner etc etc. None of which was true. It was explained that experts would be appointed by the judge to see any issues were true that the tenant had complained about. All costs incurred by the Landlord and further delays. I had already been to the property to look into a leak. Turned out to be her lad spilling his drink, madness. In fairness to the tenant when I had the bailiff get him out property was in very good condition. However, i have had to get rid of his belongings which again is not straightforward.
There is no chance of me taking a risk with new tenants, the rights of them far outweigh mine.
Let my first house in 1992, it's been a great business and i've had an excellent relationship with the vast majority of tenants. Times have changed and i'm adapting.