end the ‘right to buy’ council housing

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Why is this idea important?

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Local Housing Allowance

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Why is this idea important?

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Ombudsman given powers to investigate housing associations

I think ombudman should be given the same powers to investige housing associations and other quango.s as they have to investigate maladministration or illegal activity ,   for  local authorities . If  you live in a housing association property and your service charge suddenly rises more than a hundred percent in one year, you suspect that some thing is not right, possible some thing illegal going on ,who can you turn to ,to check these are bodies acting legally , who are they accountable to?

Why is this idea important?

I think ombudman should be given the same powers to investige housing associations and other quango.s as they have to investigate maladministration or illegal activity ,   for  local authorities . If  you live in a housing association property and your service charge suddenly rises more than a hundred percent in one year, you suspect that some thing is not right, possible some thing illegal going on ,who can you turn to ,to check these are bodies acting legally , who are they accountable to?

Allow as many people as they want to share a dwelling without planning consent or license

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Remove all council tax exemptions for lazy landlords

Remove all the exemptions to the payment of council tax including those for keeping buildings empty. 

To complement this idea I recommend :-

+ Ensure that the property owner becomes liable for any council tax underpayment by tennants. 

+ Only the successful completion of the planning process can remove the requirement to pay council tax following demolition for redevelopment.

Why is this idea important?

Remove all the exemptions to the payment of council tax including those for keeping buildings empty. 

To complement this idea I recommend :-

+ Ensure that the property owner becomes liable for any council tax underpayment by tennants. 

+ Only the successful completion of the planning process can remove the requirement to pay council tax following demolition for redevelopment.

No more right to repair shenanigans

Repeal this anachronistic relic of the 1994 Citizen's Charter http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19940133_en_1.htm

It promises compensation to secure tenants where their landlord fails to repair their home. However the compensation is paid only after the landlord has had days, if not weeks to respond and goes up by £2 a day to a maximum of £50 – until or unless the repair is carried out.

Hardly anyone uses this right because it is so poorly defined and there are so many get-out clauses.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this anachronistic relic of the 1994 Citizen's Charter http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19940133_en_1.htm

It promises compensation to secure tenants where their landlord fails to repair their home. However the compensation is paid only after the landlord has had days, if not weeks to respond and goes up by £2 a day to a maximum of £50 – until or unless the repair is carried out.

Hardly anyone uses this right because it is so poorly defined and there are so many get-out clauses.

Replace the term “Service User” with “Tenant” in contracts

Currently the contract a disabled or elderly person has to sign when living in a home refers to them as "Service Users" rather than "Tenants". This means that they have no rights under the law from being evicted from the Care Home. The Care Home does not have to give any reason for the eviction or prove any change in the persons disability to an independant body, except that they, the Care Home owners, wish the person to leave.Sometimes this notice can be less than a month!! I know of disabled people who have lived in the same Care Home for over 25 years, who regarded it literally as their home, having been evicted as a result of a change of "management policy". They have none of the rights that a Council tenant would have living in a council house, although some Care Home places are paid for by the Council and under the Council "Duty of care". In this day and age the most vulnerable people in our society should be better protected by our laws. They should not be allowed to be thrown on the streets as a result of a Care Homes change of policies or an indiviual Care Home employees vindictiveness…… 

  

Why is this idea important?

Currently the contract a disabled or elderly person has to sign when living in a home refers to them as "Service Users" rather than "Tenants". This means that they have no rights under the law from being evicted from the Care Home. The Care Home does not have to give any reason for the eviction or prove any change in the persons disability to an independant body, except that they, the Care Home owners, wish the person to leave.Sometimes this notice can be less than a month!! I know of disabled people who have lived in the same Care Home for over 25 years, who regarded it literally as their home, having been evicted as a result of a change of "management policy". They have none of the rights that a Council tenant would have living in a council house, although some Care Home places are paid for by the Council and under the Council "Duty of care". In this day and age the most vulnerable people in our society should be better protected by our laws. They should not be allowed to be thrown on the streets as a result of a Care Homes change of policies or an indiviual Care Home employees vindictiveness…… 

  

Housing, Benefits & Jobs

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Why is this idea important?

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Tenant opt-out of Gas Safety Regulations 1998 – Annual safety check by Landlords. (Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451)

I am a tenant.

 

Every year my Landlord is forced to inspect my gas appliances in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

 

Each year I get strongly worded letters from my Landlord about legal action if I fail to comply and my landlord's "legal duties" to inspect my gas appliances.


These gas safety checks are an unwarranted invasion of my privacy. In all the years the checks have been happening, nothing unsafe has ever been detected therefore I suggest tenants should be able to opt-out of these safety checks if the tenant so desires. These safety checks are a waste of time and money. These safety checks invade my privacy without valid cause.


I am sick and tired of being told: “Failure to allow access may result in legal proceedings and issued, the costs of which you will be liable.”


If there is anything unsafe with my gas appliances I will be the first person to contact my Landlord. Instead of this nanny-state intervention I think tenants should be free to make their own judgements regarding when their gas appliances need servicing, or at least tenants should be able to opt-out of the annual: “SERVICE AND SAFETY CHECK OF GAS APPLIANCES.”


I simply want to protect my right to a private life.

Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm

 

See also "DUTIES OF LANDLORDS"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245104.htm#36

Why is this idea important?

I am a tenant.

 

Every year my Landlord is forced to inspect my gas appliances in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

 

Each year I get strongly worded letters from my Landlord about legal action if I fail to comply and my landlord's "legal duties" to inspect my gas appliances.


These gas safety checks are an unwarranted invasion of my privacy. In all the years the checks have been happening, nothing unsafe has ever been detected therefore I suggest tenants should be able to opt-out of these safety checks if the tenant so desires. These safety checks are a waste of time and money. These safety checks invade my privacy without valid cause.


I am sick and tired of being told: “Failure to allow access may result in legal proceedings and issued, the costs of which you will be liable.”


If there is anything unsafe with my gas appliances I will be the first person to contact my Landlord. Instead of this nanny-state intervention I think tenants should be free to make their own judgements regarding when their gas appliances need servicing, or at least tenants should be able to opt-out of the annual: “SERVICE AND SAFETY CHECK OF GAS APPLIANCES.”


I simply want to protect my right to a private life.

Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm

 

See also "DUTIES OF LANDLORDS"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245104.htm#36

Housing Court – quick action for residential tenants and landlords

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Why is this idea important?

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Private Sector Tenants’ Rights: End 2 Month Notice Period

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Changes to HMO and related private landlord regulation

An HMO licence for a three bedroom flat in Edinburgh costs over £300 annually.

THe HMO legislation obliges a landlord to fit 30 minute fire doors, door closers and fire alarms and supply a fire extinguisher and fire blanket. In addition all properties are subject to an annual inspection.

In particular I object to the door closers, the annual inspections and the cost to landlords.

Living in a property with door closers fitted is unpleasant  in its self. Tenants often wedge such doors open creating increased fire hazard.  I have lived in Edinburgh for over 20 years and  only ever seen one house fire. I only remember one fire in rented property, in Glasgow, leading to casualties and in that case, a basement flat, the windows were barred preventing  easy escape.

If this legislation has led to a significant improvement in fire safety, it's been around long enough for there to be evidence to support it and we must therefore accept that it is a good thing. However if, for all the legislation, there has been no significant change to  in the number of fires, or fire related casualties, then the legislation should be modified or scraped all together.

In addition landlords are obliged to have have an annual gas safety test, a  portable appliance test, a periodic inspection report and an energy efficiency certificate.

I would suggest that a higher degree of the responsibility for the safety of the occupants of a property should fall to the occupiers of that property. For example, good fire doors should be fitted, but the tenants can asked to take the responsibility of closing them appropriately. A more reasonable proposition would be that most of these issues could be covered by a five yearly inspection by the appropriate authority.

While property prices were steadily rising, the increased legislation and related expense were suportable, now more and more landlords are getting out of the market and a whole inefficient and possibly unneccesary bureacracy and related service industry has been created.

I propose that all this legislation is due for review and would hopefully become more simple and less expensive, without compromising on safety.

A review of this legislation would make the private rented sector more efficient and would take any inefficient testing and inspection out of the system. It would allow tenants to live more comfortably and just as safely in their homes.

Why is this idea important?

An HMO licence for a three bedroom flat in Edinburgh costs over £300 annually.

THe HMO legislation obliges a landlord to fit 30 minute fire doors, door closers and fire alarms and supply a fire extinguisher and fire blanket. In addition all properties are subject to an annual inspection.

In particular I object to the door closers, the annual inspections and the cost to landlords.

Living in a property with door closers fitted is unpleasant  in its self. Tenants often wedge such doors open creating increased fire hazard.  I have lived in Edinburgh for over 20 years and  only ever seen one house fire. I only remember one fire in rented property, in Glasgow, leading to casualties and in that case, a basement flat, the windows were barred preventing  easy escape.

If this legislation has led to a significant improvement in fire safety, it's been around long enough for there to be evidence to support it and we must therefore accept that it is a good thing. However if, for all the legislation, there has been no significant change to  in the number of fires, or fire related casualties, then the legislation should be modified or scraped all together.

In addition landlords are obliged to have have an annual gas safety test, a  portable appliance test, a periodic inspection report and an energy efficiency certificate.

I would suggest that a higher degree of the responsibility for the safety of the occupants of a property should fall to the occupiers of that property. For example, good fire doors should be fitted, but the tenants can asked to take the responsibility of closing them appropriately. A more reasonable proposition would be that most of these issues could be covered by a five yearly inspection by the appropriate authority.

While property prices were steadily rising, the increased legislation and related expense were suportable, now more and more landlords are getting out of the market and a whole inefficient and possibly unneccesary bureacracy and related service industry has been created.

I propose that all this legislation is due for review and would hopefully become more simple and less expensive, without compromising on safety.

A review of this legislation would make the private rented sector more efficient and would take any inefficient testing and inspection out of the system. It would allow tenants to live more comfortably and just as safely in their homes.

Repeal the Housing Act 1988

To abolish Schedule II of the Housing Act of 1988 where a court is required by virtue of the mandatory nature of schedule II to order possession of a property in favour of a landlord seeking possession with the aim to evict and permanently displace the tenant irrespective whether the tenant is disabled or vulneralbe.

To abolish the social housing regime and  close down registered social landlords as they are an impediment to the progress of 5 million people in England and Wales held hostage in social housing and preemptively arrested in development.

To abolish the 'one' and 'only' / principle home policy so to enable social housing tenants to live in and/or own several properties if they so wish to do so.

Why is this idea important?

To abolish Schedule II of the Housing Act of 1988 where a court is required by virtue of the mandatory nature of schedule II to order possession of a property in favour of a landlord seeking possession with the aim to evict and permanently displace the tenant irrespective whether the tenant is disabled or vulneralbe.

To abolish the social housing regime and  close down registered social landlords as they are an impediment to the progress of 5 million people in England and Wales held hostage in social housing and preemptively arrested in development.

To abolish the 'one' and 'only' / principle home policy so to enable social housing tenants to live in and/or own several properties if they so wish to do so.

Repeal HMO Licensing

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.

Evicting BAD tenants too Difficult for Landlords! Legal System Old and Outdated!

Obstrctions should not be put in-front of decent folk.

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!
 

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

Why is this idea important?

Obstrctions should not be put in-front of decent folk.

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!
 

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

Evicting BAD tenants too Difficult for Landlords! Legal System Old and Outdated!

There are far too many laws for the criminal than for the victim in the UK!

Most tenants are decent honest hard working citizens. Most 'Private' landlords are the very same.

That being said, when a decent landlord gives a notice to quit or a section 21 to bad tenants, who are often recking his/her asset/investment or simply not paying whislt single-handedly frustrating all those decent people trying to live their noraml lives with the blight of a ASBO waiting to happen next door in their neighbourhood, would have to wait two months before expecting to be able to legally take back his or her property.

Now. Here is were it gets legally bad for the honest but a help for the criminal!

Once the two months have expired the local councils (Merton Council in London/Surrey boarder is one such council!) advise the bad tenants or criminals to stay put and wait for the landlord to legally evict them!

This is the law I want to have reviewed. Landlords who have ALREADY GIVEN TWO MONTHS NOTICE should not have to go through the mire or atiquaited legal system AGAIN! landlords should have legal recourse to take back their rightful property and let the bad tenant take the landlord to court for legal recompence but not to stay where he or she is not welcome.

If the council are prepaird to help the bad tenants or criminals then the local council should house them!

SECTION 21 is all that should be required. No more legal loopholes for the decent lanlord.

TWO Months is enough for any tenant to get another place to live. In any case, it is not for the private landords to have to play games within antiquaited justice systems sucking up to old farts wearing wigs lookign to dot 'I's and cross 'T's whilst someones and sometimes manyothers lives sre being blighted by scum aided by the local council!!

Francis Hegarty

 

Why is this idea important?

There are far too many laws for the criminal than for the victim in the UK!

Most tenants are decent honest hard working citizens. Most 'Private' landlords are the very same.

That being said, when a decent landlord gives a notice to quit or a section 21 to bad tenants, who are often recking his/her asset/investment or simply not paying whislt single-handedly frustrating all those decent people trying to live their noraml lives with the blight of a ASBO waiting to happen next door in their neighbourhood, would have to wait two months before expecting to be able to legally take back his or her property.

Now. Here is were it gets legally bad for the honest but a help for the criminal!

Once the two months have expired the local councils (Merton Council in London/Surrey boarder is one such council!) advise the bad tenants or criminals to stay put and wait for the landlord to legally evict them!

This is the law I want to have reviewed. Landlords who have ALREADY GIVEN TWO MONTHS NOTICE should not have to go through the mire or atiquaited legal system AGAIN! landlords should have legal recourse to take back their rightful property and let the bad tenant take the landlord to court for legal recompence but not to stay where he or she is not welcome.

If the council are prepaird to help the bad tenants or criminals then the local council should house them!

SECTION 21 is all that should be required. No more legal loopholes for the decent lanlord.

TWO Months is enough for any tenant to get another place to live. In any case, it is not for the private landords to have to play games within antiquaited justice systems sucking up to old farts wearing wigs lookign to dot 'I's and cross 'T's whilst someones and sometimes manyothers lives sre being blighted by scum aided by the local council!!

Francis Hegarty

 

Make The Housing Act more fair for Landlords

I let out my property in good faith through a lettings agency. After the first month the tenant started to withhold the rent to buy furniture which I had never agreed to and had breeched at least 5 sections of the tenancy agreement. Under the current law my only option was to serve a section 8 notice to quit which took four months just to get to the hearing stage in the county court. During this time my tenant continued to breech the contract including changing the locks and refusing me access.

The case has now gone to trial and the tenant has been awarded legal aid. Under the current law I have to pay for my legal costs. Even when it goes to trail possession of the property is at the judges discretion and how can I prove that the tenant has damaged the property if I can no longer get in?

I have also under the housing act served a section 21 notice to quit as the tenancy agreement has a six month break clause. Considering the tenant has signed a tenancy agreement with a six month break clause this should be a simple case of issuing two months notice. However under the current law if the tenant decides to stay after the two months notice period the only option again is to take them to court which could take another several months to action.

Then once the case gets to court it is dependant on if the notice was served with the correct dates which, if you are unfamiliar with legal terms is extremely easy to get wrong in most cases. If the dates are wrong you will have to serve another two months notice thus repeating the process all over again. Even if the notice is correct you will get a possession order but the tenant then gets a further period of time to leave. If they refuse to leave then only then can you get the bailiffs to evict them at your cost. If you take the law into your own hands you risk a prison sentence.

I understand the law is there to protect the tenant but if the landlord has done everything by the book and the tenant has continued to breech the tenancy agreement, under the current law this is acceptable. Providing they owe you less that two months rent they can continue to stay there in breech of contract doing whatever damage they like to your property whist you wait for a court date. Should the tenant then get tax payers money to fight this? The process needs to be reviewed and made a lot simpler and fairer for both parties as too many bad tenants know their rights abuse the power they are given and set out to deliberately take advantage of the system. 

Why is this idea important?

I let out my property in good faith through a lettings agency. After the first month the tenant started to withhold the rent to buy furniture which I had never agreed to and had breeched at least 5 sections of the tenancy agreement. Under the current law my only option was to serve a section 8 notice to quit which took four months just to get to the hearing stage in the county court. During this time my tenant continued to breech the contract including changing the locks and refusing me access.

The case has now gone to trial and the tenant has been awarded legal aid. Under the current law I have to pay for my legal costs. Even when it goes to trail possession of the property is at the judges discretion and how can I prove that the tenant has damaged the property if I can no longer get in?

I have also under the housing act served a section 21 notice to quit as the tenancy agreement has a six month break clause. Considering the tenant has signed a tenancy agreement with a six month break clause this should be a simple case of issuing two months notice. However under the current law if the tenant decides to stay after the two months notice period the only option again is to take them to court which could take another several months to action.

Then once the case gets to court it is dependant on if the notice was served with the correct dates which, if you are unfamiliar with legal terms is extremely easy to get wrong in most cases. If the dates are wrong you will have to serve another two months notice thus repeating the process all over again. Even if the notice is correct you will get a possession order but the tenant then gets a further period of time to leave. If they refuse to leave then only then can you get the bailiffs to evict them at your cost. If you take the law into your own hands you risk a prison sentence.

I understand the law is there to protect the tenant but if the landlord has done everything by the book and the tenant has continued to breech the tenancy agreement, under the current law this is acceptable. Providing they owe you less that two months rent they can continue to stay there in breech of contract doing whatever damage they like to your property whist you wait for a court date. Should the tenant then get tax payers money to fight this? The process needs to be reviewed and made a lot simpler and fairer for both parties as too many bad tenants know their rights abuse the power they are given and set out to deliberately take advantage of the system. 

Reform HMO legislation

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.

Why is this idea important?

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.