Mother told to go the day after reporting leak at Hove house (From The Argus)

I also have had similar problems with my landlord!! Trouble is, it seems there is no protection/help for those to deal with 'cowboy' landlords!!

I also have had similar problems with my landlord!! Trouble is, it seems there is no protection/help for those to deal with 'cowboy' landlords!!

Nice washing of hands there by Paul Kendrick !!!!!

This poor lady & her child have to put up with this right on christmas,& lets note this is a working mother.Yet again the vile Torys look after their own.Landlords like this should never be able to get away with things like this.The law only works for the rich end of.

Freeloaders wrote:
This poor lady & her child have to put up with this right on christmas,& lets note this is a working mother.Yet again the vile Torys look after their own.Landlords like this should never be able to get away with things like this.The law only works for the rich end of.

How exactly is this the Tories fault ? There were equally vile landlords while Labour were in power. This isn't political - it's a greedy, vile individual landlord who is being assisted by a letting agent.

She looks like a yummy mummy and I hope the nasty landlord poos a hedgehog for all the grief he has caused!

What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Im on the fence here, she may be right in what she is saying, but if the house is in such a terrible state, the landlord may be thinking they don't want to keep being bothered by complaints and are therefore going to refurbish the house and potentially ask more rent for it to cover the cost of the refurb? Moving house is a massive upheaval especially with kids, but the landlord is quite within his rights to do what he wants with his house, with pensions as they are, who can blame a hard working person for investing in property to rent out? My thoughts are that she would be better focusing her time and energy on looking for a new home for her and her family.

Im on the fence here, she may be right in what she is saying, but if the house is in such a terrible state, the landlord may be thinking they don't want to keep being bothered by complaints and are therefore going to refurbish the house and potentially ask more rent for it to cover the cost of the refurb? Moving house is a massive upheaval especially with kids, but the landlord is quite within his rights to do what he wants with his house, with pensions as they are, who can blame a hard working person for investing in property to rent out? My thoughts are that she would be better focusing her time and energy on looking for a new home for her and her family.

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

It helps if you know what you're talking about !!!!!

What legislation around renting out property has been cut then ?

Freeloaders wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

You seem to just have a hatred of Tories - you've yet to answer how it is the Tories fault ( or indeed any political parties fault ) that this lady has a bad landlord ?

This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

Fight_Back wrote:

Freeloaders wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

You seem to just have a hatred of Tories - you've yet to answer how it is the Tories fault ( or indeed any political parties fault ) that this lady has a bad landlord ?

Can you not read?One in four MP'S are Landlords themselves.They changed the legislation to help their rich friends.Also if you watched Exposure last night you would see what your Tory friends are really like.They had a really big part to play in the Jimmy Savile case which is clear for all to see now.They was pure evil in the 70 & 80s,and even more so now.Its called the old boy net work,jobs for the boys.They will never change.So yes i have hatred of the Tories if you like.

Fight_Back wrote:

Freeloaders wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

You seem to just have a hatred of Tories - you've yet to answer how it is the Tories fault ( or indeed any political parties fault ) that this lady has a bad landlord ?

Can you not read?One in four MP'S are Landlords themselves.They changed the legislation to help their rich friends.Also if you watched Exposure last night you would see what your Tory friends are really like.They had a really big part to play in the Jimmy Savile case which is clear for all to see now.They was pure evil in the 70 & 80s,and even more so now.Its called the old boy net work,jobs for the boys.They will never change.So yes i have hatred of the Tories if you like.

playing ignorant of the facts is no excuse. Google it ya fool! type 'legislation, Tory, 2012, vote'. They SLASHED regulations.


Also BBC says ANYONE can set up letting agents, NO checks required (again, thanks to Tory change) - no wonder then dodgy landlords get rich...


My views on Tories are irrelevant - we are talking about rules for landlords. These are set by the governing party - duh. So of course this will involve them. Again, it has been reported in media both left AND right that dodgy landlords are worse now than for long long time...

So again, these facts STAND, irrelevant of whether or not this woman is correct. The discussion in the posting section turned to these events, which is about the bigger picture.



Your tactics sir, are embarrassing.

1 - Claim ignorance.
2 - Deny facts.
2 - Claim facts must be wrong, yet do not check to back up own opinion.
3 - Accuse person of bias 'cos they question your bias...
4 - etc, ad infinitum...

Its all pathetic politiking.


And I thought the art of debate was dead....

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag
reementservice.co.uk
/section-8-notice-to
-quit.htm

whereisthe...? wrote:
playing ignorant of the facts is no excuse. Google it ya fool! type 'legislation, Tory, 2012, vote'. They SLASHED regulations.


Also BBC says ANYONE can set up letting agents, NO checks required (again, thanks to Tory change) - no wonder then dodgy landlords get rich...


My views on Tories are irrelevant - we are talking about rules for landlords. These are set by the governing party - duh. So of course this will involve them. Again, it has been reported in media both left AND right that dodgy landlords are worse now than for long long time...

So again, these facts STAND, irrelevant of whether or not this woman is correct. The discussion in the posting section turned to these events, which is about the bigger picture.



Your tactics sir, are embarrassing.

1 - Claim ignorance.
2 - Deny facts.
2 - Claim facts must be wrong, yet do not check to back up own opinion.
3 - Accuse person of bias 'cos they question your bias...
4 - etc, ad infinitum...

Its all pathetic politiking.


And I thought the art of debate was dead....

Wow - firstly there has been no legislation revoked or indeed any loosening of regulations under either Labour or the Conservatives in relation to renting out property. In fact, the Labour government tightened legislation and the Tories have not revoked it.

By what or whose measurement has there been an increase in "dodgy landlords" ?

Anybody has always been able to set up a letting agency under both this government and the previous and without any checks at all so to blame the current government seems somewhat crass and stupid.

You seem to think posting the word "fact" makes it so but you've yet to provide any facts with evidence ( you do realise every act of Parliament has a name and reference ? You could prove me wrong by quoting the said act that reduced regulations over landlords ! ).

I'm not a fan or supporter of any political party so I'm at a loss to understand why you think I'm biased ?

It would that this lady appear that this lady has a bad landlord supported by an equally poor letting agent - no politics involved in that !

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag

reementservice.co.uk

/section-8-notice-to

-quit.htm

I suspect from what you've posted the tenant stopped paying rent. In that case you do need a section 8 to get rid of them assuming they're unwilling to leave voluntarily ( or a load of big mates !!! ).

Anyone renting should never enter into a tenancy agreement that doesn't have a break clause.

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag


reementservice.co.uk


/section-8-notice-to


-quit.htm

I suspect from what you've posted the tenant stopped paying rent. In that case you do need a section 8 to get rid of them assuming they're unwilling to leave voluntarily ( or a load of big mates !!! ).

Anyone renting should never enter into a tenancy agreement that doesn't have a break clause.

Well if that's the case and you sign an agreement that has a break clause and the landlord for whatever reason decides to avail himself of that clause, how does that make him a bad landlord?

brighton-breezy wrote:
Im on the fence here, she may be right in what she is saying, but if the house is in such a terrible state, the landlord may be thinking they don't want to keep being bothered by complaints and are therefore going to refurbish the house and potentially ask more rent for it to cover the cost of the refurb? Moving house is a massive upheaval especially with kids, but the landlord is quite within his rights to do what he wants with his house, with pensions as they are, who can blame a hard working person for investing in property to rent out? My thoughts are that she would be better focusing her time and energy on looking for a new home for her and her family.

While I think you may have a point, a) If the house was in such a terrible state then why did he rent it in the first place?, b) We don't know if that guy is a "hard woker" just trying to go by or one of the many greedy landlords exploiting their tenants, and c) in any case working hard is not an indicator whatsoever of morality or decency and I'm quite sick of it being used in every argument; you can work hard, pay taxes and go to church every Sunday and still be a ruthless son of a mongrel.

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag



reementservice.co.uk



/section-8-notice-to



-quit.htm

I suspect from what you've posted the tenant stopped paying rent. In that case you do need a section 8 to get rid of them assuming they're unwilling to leave voluntarily ( or a load of big mates !!! ).

Anyone renting should never enter into a tenancy agreement that doesn't have a break clause.

Well if that's the case and you sign an agreement that has a break clause and the landlord for whatever reason decides to avail himself of that clause, how does that make him a bad landlord?

I guess it depends if the "facts" in this story are indeed facts. If the reason the landlord in this case has served notice is because she complained about the poor state of the property then I'd suggest that makes him/her a bad landlord. On the very rare occasion I've served notice on one of my tenants I've also given a reason ( not that I had to ). Decent human kindness should play some part even if it is a contract.

Interesting that Kendricks don't want to know. That's not quite what it suggests on their website.....

"The Letting Agent, whilst acting for the Landlord, operates within accepted guidelines in the industry to ensure that you are able to rely on a professional letting agent taking your concerns seriously and advising the Landlord if they are being unreasonable. In this regard, you should be assured that the property conforms to all safety regulations and is fairly priced."

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag




reementservice.co.uk




/section-8-notice-to




-quit.htm

I suspect from what you've posted the tenant stopped paying rent. In that case you do need a section 8 to get rid of them assuming they're unwilling to leave voluntarily ( or a load of big mates !!! ).

Anyone renting should never enter into a tenancy agreement that doesn't have a break clause.

Well if that's the case and you sign an agreement that has a break clause and the landlord for whatever reason decides to avail himself of that clause, how does that make him a bad landlord?

I guess it depends if the "facts" in this story are indeed facts. If the reason the landlord in this case has served notice is because she complained about the poor state of the property then I'd suggest that makes him/her a bad landlord. On the very rare occasion I've served notice on one of my tenants I've also given a reason ( not that I had to ). Decent human kindness should play some part even if it is a contract.

Yep, agree that decent human kindness should always prevail! But as you say we don't know the "facts". It's speculation on behalf of the woman that it was because she complained - landlord is claiming he simply wants to refurbish, which IS giving a reason. Maybe the duff plumbing was the last straw and he decided it was time to sort out a property in need of updating. Maybe the plumbing was fine up until that first incident. Maybe tenant is a nightmare and landlord is reasonable, maybe tenant is absolutely lovely and landlord is a complete cretin. No one really knows the ins and outs, but strictly on the surface, it's within a landlord's rights to end an agreement with a break clause, and landlord has provided a reason for his decision. Whether or not that is the actual or complete reason we'll never know.

Name and shame the landlord.

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag

reementservice.co.uk

/section-8-notice-to

-quit.htm

Private sector properties are let on Assured Shorthold Tenancies whereby the Landlord does not have to prove breach of tenancy to evict as there are no grounds they simply serve a Section 21 notice giving 2 months notice then they apply for court for an Accelerated Possession Order which can't be challenged once this is in place they obtain a Bailiffs Warrant. Private sector lettings have no regulation and landlords can do whatever they want once the initial term usually of 6 or 12 months has expired.

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag

reementservice.co.uk

/section-8-notice-to

-quit.htm

Private sector properties are let on Assured Shorthold Tenancies whereby the Landlord does not have to prove breach of tenancy to evict as there are no grounds they simply serve a Section 21 notice giving 2 months notice then they apply for court for an Accelerated Possession Order which can't be challenged once this is in place they obtain a Bailiffs Warrant. Private sector lettings have no regulation and landlords can do whatever they want once the initial term usually of 6 or 12 months has expired.

Freeloaders wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Freeloaders wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

You seem to just have a hatred of Tories - you've yet to answer how it is the Tories fault ( or indeed any political parties fault ) that this lady has a bad landlord ?

Can you not read?One in four MP'S are Landlords themselves.They changed the legislation to help their rich friends.Also if you watched Exposure last night you would see what your Tory friends are really like.They had a really big part to play in the Jimmy Savile case which is clear for all to see now.They was pure evil in the 70 & 80s,and even more so now.Its called the old boy net work,jobs for the boys.They will never change.So yes i have hatred of the Tories if you like.

Totally agree there.

Fight_Back wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
playing ignorant of the facts is no excuse. Google it ya fool! type 'legislation, Tory, 2012, vote'. They SLASHED regulations.


Also BBC says ANYONE can set up letting agents, NO checks required (again, thanks to Tory change) - no wonder then dodgy landlords get rich...


My views on Tories are irrelevant - we are talking about rules for landlords. These are set by the governing party - duh. So of course this will involve them. Again, it has been reported in media both left AND right that dodgy landlords are worse now than for long long time...

So again, these facts STAND, irrelevant of whether or not this woman is correct. The discussion in the posting section turned to these events, which is about the bigger picture.



Your tactics sir, are embarrassing.

1 - Claim ignorance.
2 - Deny facts.
2 - Claim facts must be wrong, yet do not check to back up own opinion.
3 - Accuse person of bias 'cos they question your bias...
4 - etc, ad infinitum...

Its all pathetic politiking.


And I thought the art of debate was dead....

Wow - firstly there has been no legislation revoked or indeed any loosening of regulations under either Labour or the Conservatives in relation to renting out property. In fact, the Labour government tightened legislation and the Tories have not revoked it.

By what or whose measurement has there been an increase in "dodgy landlords" ?

Anybody has always been able to set up a letting agency under both this government and the previous and without any checks at all so to blame the current government seems somewhat crass and stupid.

You seem to think posting the word "fact" makes it so but you've yet to provide any facts with evidence ( you do realise every act of Parliament has a name and reference ? You could prove me wrong by quoting the said act that reduced regulations over landlords ! ).

I'm not a fan or supporter of any political party so I'm at a loss to understand why you think I'm biased ?

It would that this lady appear that this lady has a bad landlord supported by an equally poor letting agent - no politics involved in that !

Still awaiting the references to the Acts of Parliament that revoked any previous legislation ? Could it be that it never happened ??????

Hoarder12345444 wrote:

Freeloaders wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Freeloaders wrote:

whereisthe...? wrote:
What do you expect? Tories have cut all legislation here, meaning landlords can do what they like!!


...and why? one in four MP's ARE ALSO LANDLORDS themselves...


Criminals.

Thank you my friend you said it for me.Hope Fight-Back reads that.

You seem to just have a hatred of Tories - you've yet to answer how it is the Tories fault ( or indeed any political parties fault ) that this lady has a bad landlord ?

Can you not read?One in four MP'S are Landlords themselves.They changed the legislation to help their rich friends.Also if you watched Exposure last night you would see what your Tory friends are really like.They had a really big part to play in the Jimmy Savile case which is clear for all to see now.They was pure evil in the 70 & 80s,and even more so now.Its called the old boy net work,jobs for the boys.They will never change.So yes i have hatred of the Tories if you like.

Totally agree there.

So 163 ( ish ) MPs rent out property. Big deal - how many of that 163 ( assuming the figures are correct and I can find on evidence to support the claim ) are Tory ? Just point me to the evidence and I'll agree but as yet it just looks like political hatred with no logical or factual argument behind the statement. And if you prove the statement why does an MP being a landlord make it a bad thing ? As yet you and your mates haven't provided any evidence to any changes to regulations ( mainly because there haven't been any - or at least in the favour of the landlord ! ).

Amazing how there are people who can turn just about any story into a Tory bashing exercise (or a Green bashing exercise, or a Labour bashing exercise...). Boring.

LoopyLouHove wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag


reementservice.co.uk


/section-8-notice-to


-quit.htm

Private sector properties are let on Assured Shorthold Tenancies whereby the Landlord does not have to prove breach of tenancy to evict as there are no grounds they simply serve a Section 21 notice giving 2 months notice then they apply for court for an Accelerated Possession Order which can't be challenged once this is in place they obtain a Bailiffs Warrant. Private sector lettings have no regulation and landlords can do whatever they want once the initial term usually of 6 or 12 months has expired.

It's like that in the States too. Once your initial term has expired the landlord is under no obligation to extend your term. I don't see what's wrong with that. The only difference is, in the States most landlords are real estate companies who will generally never want their property back - as long as you pay the rent they keep renewing your tenancy every year. The problem here is there are so many individuals who rent out there property for a while, and then want it back later cuz of all sorts of personal issues - split up with their boyfriend, want to sell the flat to get hold of the cash, etc, etc. Less people feel the need to buy a property in the States because renting is quite secure, so the renting culture is strong and stable. It's really awful renting in this country.

KarenT wrote:

LoopyLouHove wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag



reementservice.co.uk



/section-8-notice-to



-quit.htm

Private sector properties are let on Assured Shorthold Tenancies whereby the Landlord does not have to prove breach of tenancy to evict as there are no grounds they simply serve a Section 21 notice giving 2 months notice then they apply for court for an Accelerated Possession Order which can't be challenged once this is in place they obtain a Bailiffs Warrant. Private sector lettings have no regulation and landlords can do whatever they want once the initial term usually of 6 or 12 months has expired.

It's like that in the States too. Once your initial term has expired the landlord is under no obligation to extend your term. I don't see what's wrong with that. The only difference is, in the States most landlords are real estate companies who will generally never want their property back - as long as you pay the rent they keep renewing your tenancy every year. The problem here is there are so many individuals who rent out there property for a while, and then want it back later cuz of all sorts of personal issues - split up with their boyfriend, want to sell the flat to get hold of the cash, etc, etc. Less people feel the need to buy a property in the States because renting is quite secure, so the renting culture is strong and stable. It's really awful renting in this country.

Too right it is, but with property prices as they are who can afford to buy and get a good mortgage deal? Who has £30k lying around? It's the 90's cheap property prices that got gobbled up by people then that are hampering the younger generation and many others too now.

Hoarder12345444 wrote:

KarenT wrote:

LoopyLouHove wrote:

KarenT wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

KarenT wrote:
This sounds an incomplete story. A landlord cannot "evict" someone unless they break the terms of the lease. The only other way a landlord can insist that a tenant leaves (because they want the property back for their own reasons, through no fault of tenant) is if the lease has come to an end, which doesn't sound right here either as she was only there for 18 months. No landlord can just break a lease for no reason - impossible - it's a binding contract.

We're not talking about a lease here, we're talking about a tenancy agreement and virtually every tenancy agreement allows for either party to serve notice on the other. The landlord does not need to give a reason just as the tenant doesn't - the notice period is usually two months.

I've never heard of that. My neighbour had to evict someone with a tenancy agreement in place, and yes, he had to give two month's notice and serve a Section 8, but he also had to have a valid reason, i.e. tenant broke terms of the lease. Unless there were some special terms in the agreement providing either party to terminate without any reason then I can't see how this could be carried out. http://www.tenancyag




reementservice.co.uk




/section-8-notice-to




-quit.htm

Private sector properties are let on Assured Shorthold Tenancies whereby the Landlord does not have to prove breach of tenancy to evict as there are no grounds they simply serve a Section 21 notice giving 2 months notice then they apply for court for an Accelerated Possession Order which can't be challenged once this is in place they obtain a Bailiffs Warrant. Private sector lettings have no regulation and landlords can do whatever they want once the initial term usually of 6 or 12 months has expired.

It's like that in the States too. Once your initial term has expired the landlord is under no obligation to extend your term. I don't see what's wrong with that. The only difference is, in the States most landlords are real estate companies who will generally never want their property back - as long as you pay the rent they keep renewing your tenancy every year. The problem here is there are so many individuals who rent out there property for a while, and then want it back later cuz of all sorts of personal issues - split up with their boyfriend, want to sell the flat to get hold of the cash, etc, etc. Less people feel the need to buy a property in the States because renting is quite secure, so the renting culture is strong and stable. It's really awful renting in this country.

Too right it is, but with property prices as they are who can afford to buy and get a good mortgage deal? Who has £30k lying around? It's the 90's cheap property prices that got gobbled up by people then that are hampering the younger generation and many others too now.

I know, it totally sucks and I hate how it's nigh on impossible to buy here now. I've never quite understood what made property prices quadruple (at least in London and the SE) over a five year period back in the late 90's/early noughties. I bought a 2-bed flat in London back then, £100K, which is NOTHING by today's standards! I sold too soon. That same flat is on the market right now for almost £400K! WTF! And my income hasn't quadrupled either! If anything it's gone down with the recession. So now, a dingy flat in Finsbury Park that once a secretary on £17K pa could buy could now only be bought by a friggin' banker! There's such rich bloke living in my crappy little attic flat now with his Porche parked outside! It really is looking bleak for most people now, sadly.

Landlords can opt to have a letting agent fill a property with tenants only and the landlord takes responsibility for managing their own property or they can pay for a fully managed property via the letting agent.
However, my experience of the landlords who opt to manage a property themselves, is that they don't.
I have also had terrible problems getting a letting agent to confirm whether a proeprty is managed by them or the landlord.
In the end, it is best to pay a small online fee to the Land Registry which will give you the property owners home address and you can then send a registered letter demanding repairs be made.
If you receive no response then contact your ward councillor and/or MP for help.
Also under the council's new HMO licensing which came into effect from November 5, all HMOs with three or more people must be licensed and there are standards which the property much reach.
Go on, make the landlords do some work. If they want to run a business then they must behave like a business.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Landlords can opt to have a letting agent fill a property with tenants only and the landlord takes responsibility for managing their own property or they can pay for a fully managed property via the letting agent.
However, my experience of the landlords who opt to manage a property themselves, is that they don't.
I have also had terrible problems getting a letting agent to confirm whether a proeprty is managed by them or the landlord.
In the end, it is best to pay a small online fee to the Land Registry which will give you the property owners home address and you can then send a registered letter demanding repairs be made.
If you receive no response then contact your ward councillor and/or MP for help.
Also under the council's new HMO licensing which came into effect from November 5, all HMOs with three or more people must be licensed and there are standards which the property much reach.
Go on, make the landlords do some work. If they want to run a business then they must behave like a business.

I've always thought that the perfect solution to this sort of problem would be that if a landlord does not carry out repairs after a set period of time - say, a week, the tenant can then undertake to get the works done themselves (perhaps after three quotations, going with the cheapest), and the tenant is within their rights to deduct said amount from next month's rent! That would make the landlords jump - but I'm sure that'll never happen.

KarenT wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Landlords can opt to have a letting agent fill a property with tenants only and the landlord takes responsibility for managing their own property or they can pay for a fully managed property via the letting agent.
However, my experience of the landlords who opt to manage a property themselves, is that they don't.
I have also had terrible problems getting a letting agent to confirm whether a proeprty is managed by them or the landlord.
In the end, it is best to pay a small online fee to the Land Registry which will give you the property owners home address and you can then send a registered letter demanding repairs be made.
If you receive no response then contact your ward councillor and/or MP for help.
Also under the council's new HMO licensing which came into effect from November 5, all HMOs with three or more people must be licensed and there are standards which the property much reach.
Go on, make the landlords do some work. If they want to run a business then they must behave like a business.

I've always thought that the perfect solution to this sort of problem would be that if a landlord does not carry out repairs after a set period of time - say, a week, the tenant can then undertake to get the works done themselves (perhaps after three quotations, going with the cheapest), and the tenant is within their rights to deduct said amount from next month's rent! That would make the landlords jump - but I'm sure that'll never happen.

Or, even better, after a week, for each day the problem is not fixed in the property, a day's rent is lost by the landlord! Why should a tenant continue to pay full rent for ANY period whilst they live in a property that is in need of repairs? Landlord is not fulfilling their end of the agreement - tenant should not be paying for something they are not getting.

Sadly, B&H is a really old fashioned city where slum housing is still tolerated by a lazy council.
In the 70s and 80s many towns and city's were blighted by swathes of privately rented slums, also scabby student lets, but in the past decade many authorities have cracked down on them, but sadly this city really has allowed slum landlords to continue to operate.
However, hopefully the recent changes to HMO licensing will put an end to this and modernise the city's precious housing stock, because if it allows it to fall into further disrepair the council could be storing up serious housing problems in the future.

Good for her. I hope the landlord will be shamed into positive action now. And thumbs down to the letting agent, which seems to have excused itself from all responsibility. If, as the lady says, the place was "filthy" when she moved in, why did the agent approve it as habitable? They shouldn't only be a rent collecting operation, they would have inspected the house before signing their contract with the landlord and taken a deposit from the tenant plus a holding fee. Let's see the middle men being held to account as well.

OR just maybe the absent Landlord finally realised that the property needed a full renovation and the only way to do that was to have an empty property.
The only way to achieve that is to serve notice.

There may just be more to this story than the Argus has bothered to report....again.

I hope the argus does a name and shame campaign on all the scum landlords and freeholders they are hokstratton scum

To all landlords STOP scrounging taxpayers money with your greedy rents !!!

Exactly.
Private landlords do not provide a "service" they are greedy scroungers sucking at housing benefit like addicts.
Private renting is possibly the worst form of housing you can end up in.

Ahh the Argus with their usual sensationalist non story written purely to galvanise their overtly left wing readership.

I'm assuming the woman has been given the proper notice under Section 21 of the housing act so will have a minimum of 2 calender months to find alternate accomodation so she's hardly been made homeless has she?

Also I fail to see the issue with Paul Kendrick - he's stated his case and if he's only paid to collect the rent then that's all he and his firm will do. No win situation for him here - he'll either upset a temporary customer in the tenant or a longer term client in the landlord. No brainer really which one I'd choose if I was in his shoes!

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Sadly, B&H is a really old fashioned city where slum housing is still tolerated by a lazy council.
In the 70s and 80s many towns and city's were blighted by swathes of privately rented slums, also scabby student lets, but in the past decade many authorities have cracked down on them, but sadly this city really has allowed slum landlords to continue to operate.
However, hopefully the recent changes to HMO licensing will put an end to this and modernise the city's precious housing stock, because if it allows it to fall into further disrepair the council could be storing up serious housing problems in the future.

Sorry on this comment the HMO licensing would have no value in this case. First and foremost is not an area covered by the new licensing boundaries and also the new licensing only applies to non related sharers/students and therefore this family unit would be unaffected.

Palace of Wisdom wrote:
Ahh the Argus with their usual sensationalist non story written purely to galvanise their overtly left wing readership.

I'm assuming the woman has been given the proper notice under Section 21 of the housing act so will have a minimum of 2 calender months to find alternate accomodation so she's hardly been made homeless has she?

Also I fail to see the issue with Paul Kendrick - he's stated his case and if he's only paid to collect the rent then that's all he and his firm will do. No win situation for him here - he'll either upset a temporary customer in the tenant or a longer term client in the landlord. No brainer really which one I'd choose if I was in his shoes!

Maybe the agent would care to comment here himself, in that case. If an agent's role is simply to collect rent, what's the point - if you're a landlord - in employing someone to do something you can do perfectly well for yourself? Just asking ....

When one of my tenants got into arrears with the rent, and I am not saying that is the case here, because I don't know, my agent advised me not to enter into a new lease but leave things on a Statutory Periodical Tenancy which is how things go when an AST comes to an end. They usually last for 6 or 12 months so it may be that after 18 months there is no agreement in place so the standard 2 months notice applies.

runnergirl wrote:

Palace of Wisdom wrote:
Ahh the Argus with their usual sensationalist non story written purely to galvanise their overtly left wing readership.

I'm assuming the woman has been given the proper notice under Section 21 of the housing act so will have a minimum of 2 calender months to find alternate accomodation so she's hardly been made homeless has she?

Also I fail to see the issue with Paul Kendrick - he's stated his case and if he's only paid to collect the rent then that's all he and his firm will do. No win situation for him here - he'll either upset a temporary customer in the tenant or a longer term client in the landlord. No brainer really which one I'd choose if I was in his shoes!

Maybe the agent would care to comment here himself, in that case. If an agent's role is simply to collect rent, what's the point - if you're a landlord - in employing someone to do something you can do perfectly well for yourself? Just asking ....

I've let my properties through various agents myself for many years and the main reason I've used rent collection services is the legal protection it affords me and also not having to chase the tenants for arrears around my working day. Maintenance-wise I know enough builders and my tenants usually text with issues which I forward straight onto the builders with the contact details for them to attend to. Easiest way in my opinion and also allows me to keep an eye on bills so I don't get any unexpected nasties!

"voiceofthescoombe says...
11:48am Fri 23 Nov 12

Exactly.
Private landlords do not provide a "service" they are greedy scroungers sucking at housing benefit like addicts.
Private renting is possibly the worst form of housing you can end up in."

Well "Voice" if private renting is so bad, why do so many people do it? Surely this mother would have enough points for a 2 bed flat on the Knoll estate? Perhaps she didn't want to live there or in the Scoomb? Too many house blockers whose mum & dad got a council house in the 50's still live there now.

Palace of Wisdom wrote:

runnergirl wrote:

Palace of Wisdom wrote:
Ahh the Argus with their usual sensationalist non story written purely to galvanise their overtly left wing readership.

I'm assuming the woman has been given the proper notice under Section 21 of the housing act so will have a minimum of 2 calender months to find alternate accomodation so she's hardly been made homeless has she?

Also I fail to see the issue with Paul Kendrick - he's stated his case and if he's only paid to collect the rent then that's all he and his firm will do. No win situation for him here - he'll either upset a temporary customer in the tenant or a longer term client in the landlord. No brainer really which one I'd choose if I was in his shoes!

Maybe the agent would care to comment here himself, in that case. If an agent's role is simply to collect rent, what's the point - if you're a landlord - in employing someone to do something you can do perfectly well for yourself? Just asking ....

I've let my properties through various agents myself for many years and the main reason I've used rent collection services is the legal protection it affords me and also not having to chase the tenants for arrears around my working day. Maintenance-wise I know enough builders and my tenants usually text with issues which I forward straight onto the builders with the contact details for them to attend to. Easiest way in my opinion and also allows me to keep an eye on bills so I don't get any unexpected nasties!

You sound like a responsible and caring landlord. But when I rented a flat, briefly, a few years ago, I had to go through a number of checks with the agent first - paying an upfront fee, a deposit and 6 months' rent, as well as insurance. The agent (not Kendricks, obviously - wouldn't touch them with a bargepole) made sure the property was in good order before I moved in, so I assumed it was that also part of their role.

Hmmm I think maybe there might be a bit more to this story than what's being printed here.

Someone turn the hoses on those letting agents, and quickly!

Being homeless must be awful, but being a
responsible adult is difficult.

She got A CHEEP RENT.

Was this a cheap and nusty arrangement or a cheap and cheerful arrangement before it got nasty? It sure does not sound a proper arrangement.

I have never heard of a cheap house, so she want something which is just not possible.

People's expectations are so often unrealistic : The tenant as well as those writing here are so unrealistic.

Houses are in short supply and this is a capitalist country with market economy so they have to be expensive. Market was manipulated when councils sold off their housing stock, instead of maintaining it. Now they rely on private landlords but love finding fault and villifying them. Landlords are good or bad just as councillors are good or bad or doctors are good or bad or police are good or bad. Far from being a public menace they provide a service. I have been both a tenant and a landlord.

If buying a house is hard for you, how is it less hard for a landlord. The investment over the years has to be considered. Now the mortages are low but until not so many years ago they were up to 13% so that is another reason why the rents are high - you offer the tenant a share in your hard-earned equity. On the whole landlords should be respected.

The law is clear about maintaining the property and maybe this was an in-between let until the property could be brought up to standard and (as someone already ponted out) let at a higher rent, and maybe he was even doing her a favour. How many other properties did she look at before going for this grubby but CHEAP place?

Is this a mother or someone who needs a nunny herself? Did she respect her home? She couldn't even get a plumber in for £40 to repair the plumbing in her son's room. She could then carry on paying her low rent and have a cheap home. Have you seen council houses? They are no palaces either.

I don't think we are being told all the facts with this story, because it is not so easy to just evict someone without good reason. Letting Agents serve a variety of purposes, from simply collecting rent, to full management of the property, for an appropriate fee. This is not a party political issue, so it is not clever to pretend it is. We have no way of knowing whether this landlord is actually a Communist or member of the BNP, for example. Many people, including Labour supporters, are landlords, these days. Landlords do provide a service - they provide homes for people to live in for a fee (rent). It is up to prospective tenants themselves to decide whether the asked-for rent is worth paying for a particular property.

As the person whom this article was written about i just felt compelled to comment, and im incredibly pleased so many people are interested and impassioned about the housing situation here in Brighton and Hove. The article departs somewhat from my actual account of events, i hasten to add there were no torrents, but thats the press for you. I rang the Argus and painted sheets because i have spent 18 months with a landlord who has failed, consistently to respond to maintenance issues. Who let a house with broken glass in the garden and bedrooms with cigarette burns all over the carpets. Who ignored my calls for eight weeks when the washing machine broke. It was an end of tether moment. I believe im not the only person in this situation, and i think it needs to change. I was given notice to quit 24 hours after informing my landlord by phone message that i would be contacting the council about the leak because he had not responded and it was in my sons bedroom. Until this point i was told the house was a long term let. There are no propertys i can afford in this area, and simply stated i cannot afford to move. Like any parent i just want a secure home for my children. We have a life here, a community we are part of, and being asked to leave, with one week or 8 weeks notice represents a terrible disruption to my children. This is the insecurity of private rental. i simply asked for my landlord to fulfill his contractual obligations as i have fulfilled mine by always paying my rent and looking after the house. Because rent is so ridiculous i do get some housing benefit, but surely that makes it more outrageous that tax payers money is going to landlords who do not then spend it properly maintaining a property.

Id also like to add, Kendrick have behaved in an exemplary way, beyond their legal obligation, to contact my landlord and remind him of his contractual obligations, they have supported me consistently. I have no issue with Kendrick and life would have been considerably more difficult without them advocating on my behalf. Anyway my intention is to draw attention to the situation for families in the area, hopefully for the better. What we all want surely is a strong community, support therein when we need it ( as i have found one hundredfold)and a security of place within it. uber thanks to everyone who has offered kind words or a hand .

Zorniza wrote:
Being homeless must be awful, but being a
responsible adult is difficult.

She got A CHEEP RENT.

Was this a cheap and nusty arrangement or a cheap and cheerful arrangement before it got nasty? It sure does not sound a proper arrangement.

I have never heard of a cheap house, so she want something which is just not possible.

People's expectations are so often unrealistic : The tenant as well as those writing here are so unrealistic.

Houses are in short supply and this is a capitalist country with market economy so they have to be expensive. Market was manipulated when councils sold off their housing stock, instead of maintaining it. Now they rely on private landlords but love finding fault and villifying them. Landlords are good or bad just as councillors are good or bad or doctors are good or bad or police are good or bad. Far from being a public menace they provide a service. I have been both a tenant and a landlord.

If buying a house is hard for you, how is it less hard for a landlord. The investment over the years has to be considered. Now the mortages are low but until not so many years ago they were up to 13% so that is another reason why the rents are high - you offer the tenant a share in your hard-earned equity. On the whole landlords should be respected.

The law is clear about maintaining the property and maybe this was an in-between let until the property could be brought up to standard and (as someone already ponted out) let at a higher rent, and maybe he was even doing her a favour. How many other properties did she look at before going for this grubby but CHEAP place?

Is this a mother or someone who needs a nunny herself? Did she respect her home? She couldn't even get a plumber in for £40 to repair the plumbing in her son's room. She could then carry on paying her low rent and have a cheap home. Have you seen council houses? They are no palaces either.

Is a 'cheap' rent justification for neglect of contractual obligation. I don't think so. Neither does the law. This 'cheap' rent of £1200 is greater than most peoples mortgages.

runnergirl wrote:

Palace of Wisdom wrote:
Ahh the Argus with their usual sensationalist non story written purely to galvanise their overtly left wing readership.

I'm assuming the woman has been given the proper notice under Section 21 of the housing act so will have a minimum of 2 calender months to find alternate accomodation so she's hardly been made homeless has she?

Also I fail to see the issue with Paul Kendrick - he's stated his case and if he's only paid to collect the rent then that's all he and his firm will do. No win situation for him here - he'll either upset a temporary customer in the tenant or a longer term client in the landlord. No brainer really which one I'd choose if I was in his shoes!

Maybe the agent would care to comment here himself, in that case. If an agent's role is simply to collect rent, what's the point - if you're a landlord - in employing someone to do something you can do perfectly well for yourself? Just asking ....

My partner and I rented a property through Leaders and all they were employed by the Landlord to do was collect the rent - whenever we needed to contact him for something it was a nightmare, he rarely answered the phone and never returned calls unless we stated that if we didnt hear from him, we would go ahead with whatever it was we wanted to do (install Sky / get a plumber in etc) Bizarrely, he seemed to rent out a number of different properties with a number of different agreements as the one time he did answer the phone, he told us to speak to the agency, who promptly referred us back to him! The day we bought our own house was the best day ever.

So the facts are the house is obviously in desperate need of repair. In fact it sounds dangerous if water is leaking. The landlord has decided to be responsible and refurbish the place which as she claims it is so dreadful sounds like the right thing to do. However in the middle of building work with a baby she expects to both a) Remain in the house.
b) Not pay increased rent even though by the sounds of it it was priced cheaply because of the state it was in and as I am assuming the landlord needs to cover his expenses this money needs to come from somewhere.