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.

Change Laws Concerning Multiple Occupancy.

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

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 

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…… 

  

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.

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.

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

 

Rented Housing: No Dogs, No Smokers, No DSS

In a supposed age of equality, why are Landlords/Letting Agents allowed to discriminate against the disadvantaged? With housing stock at record lows, and rising unemployment I suggest the mantra's "Proffessionals Only" & "No DSS" be outlawed.

Because Social housing is allocated on a strict 'needs'basis, the vast majority of people find themselves homeless or at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. Unless legislation is introduced to force Councils to house people based on a fair queuing system, private housing needs to be available for all, and not merely for the select few who have access to large deposits, references and jobs.

In a so called fair society, discrimination cuts both ways and cannot be dismissed on a spurious basis of Council bureaucracy, payment delays and or BTL buildings insurance exclusions.

Once an applicant qualifies for social housing/benefit, a deposit and first months rent should be paid directly to the landlord via the Council and recovered through the benefits system. Any subsequent payments should also be managed through the Council.

Why is this idea important?

In a supposed age of equality, why are Landlords/Letting Agents allowed to discriminate against the disadvantaged? With housing stock at record lows, and rising unemployment I suggest the mantra's "Proffessionals Only" & "No DSS" be outlawed.

Because Social housing is allocated on a strict 'needs'basis, the vast majority of people find themselves homeless or at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. Unless legislation is introduced to force Councils to house people based on a fair queuing system, private housing needs to be available for all, and not merely for the select few who have access to large deposits, references and jobs.

In a so called fair society, discrimination cuts both ways and cannot be dismissed on a spurious basis of Council bureaucracy, payment delays and or BTL buildings insurance exclusions.

Once an applicant qualifies for social housing/benefit, a deposit and first months rent should be paid directly to the landlord via the Council and recovered through the benefits system. Any subsequent payments should also be managed through the Council.