Lootman wrote:So it becomes a self-fulfilling pattern; a form of confirmation bias.
I think there is a general point that if you go into a situation expecting a particular outcome you are more likely to get that outcome.
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Lootman wrote:So it becomes a self-fulfilling pattern; a form of confirmation bias.
Lootman wrote:servodude wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:The slave is at the whim of the master.
And some really have a wide-on for that idea
Uncle certainly appears to display an ideologically-driven contempt for landlords, and perhaps for the entire concept of a private rental sector. The problem with that is if you take such a predisposition into a landlord-tenant relationship then it increases the chances of problems arising in that relationship. That in turns leads to another bad experience which feeds back into the bias.
So it becomes a self-fulfilling pattern; a form of confirmation bias. As a landlord I was very sensitive to any prospective tenant who displayed any such kind of ideological skew. I took steps to try and weed those people out early on.
.
Maylix wrote:5. We asked the Agent about the scenario in 2; he said he thought the property was an inheritance, so 'probably' no mortgage, and in any case 'tenant protection has increased a lot in the last few years, so you shouldn't worry about any eviction'. Since then we've had the answer from CK defining the risk, plus we've paid for a search with land registry and discovered there IS a mortgage on the property. You can draw your own conclusions about the reliability of the agent. (We still haven't figured a way of finding out if it's a btl mortgage)
UncleEbenezer wrote:Lootman wrote:Uncle certainly appears to display an ideologically-driven contempt for landlords, and perhaps for the entire concept of a private rental sector. The problem with that is if you take such a predisposition into a landlord-tenant relationship then it increases the chances of problems arising in that relationship. That in turns leads to another bad experience which feeds back into the bias.
So it becomes a self-fulfilling pattern; a form of confirmation bias. As a landlord I was very sensitive to any prospective tenant who displayed any such kind of ideological skew. I took steps to try and weed those people out early on.
You've created a strawman
Clitheroekid wrote:If the copy mortgage in your case doesn't contain any such indication then you could simply require an additional term to be inserted into the tenancy agreement - something like:
`The Landlord hereby warrants to the Tenant that the Landlord does not require the consent of any mortgage lender to enter into this Tenancy Agreement'.
If everything's OK then there could be no reasonable objection to such a term.
It's very unlikely that the landlord would agree to this if he was in any doubt, and if he did agree to it and it turned out that he had let without the consent of the lender you would be able to sue him for breach of warranty.
Clitheroekid wrote:If the copy mortgage in your case doesn't contain any such indication then you could simply require an additional term to be inserted into the tenancy agreement - something like:
`The Landlord hereby warrants to the Tenant that the Landlord does not require the consent of any mortgage lender to enter into this Tenancy Agreement'.
If everything's OK then there could be no reasonable objection to such a term.
It's very unlikely that the landlord would agree to this if he was in any doubt, and if he did agree to it and it turned out that he had let without the consent of the lender you would be able to sue him for breach of warranty.
UncleEbenezer wrote:Clitheroekid wrote:If the copy mortgage in your case doesn't contain any such indication then you could simply require an additional term to be inserted into the tenancy agreement - something like:
`The Landlord hereby warrants to the Tenant that the Landlord does not require the consent of any mortgage lender to enter into this Tenancy Agreement'.
If everything's OK then there could be no reasonable objection to such a term.
It's very unlikely that the landlord would agree to this if he was in any doubt, and if he did agree to it and it turned out that he had let without the consent of the lender you would be able to sue him for breach of warranty.
Something like that worked for me when I paid six months up front in 2013.
But that was a house that had been on the market for some time, strengthening my negotiating position. In many rentals, asking for any such thing instantly labels you as troublemaker, and the agent will just find another tenant. See for example this post, from someone whose other posts indicates him/her to be a reasonable landlord.
Maylix wrote:Charlottesquare wrote:If we insist on say six months up front it is usually because we have reservations re the tenant...
The only reason we're even talking about 6 months upfront rental is that the rental industry has a not-fit-for-purpose credit referencing system. The industry standard applies a multiple of 30 times the monthly rental and they want to see annual household income equal to this. The 6 months upfront is an alternative if you don't meet that threshold (we don't). Never mind that you have enough savings and assets that you could buy their rental property outright with cash, if you felt like it. (we do)
No,they are set up to rent to someone who crosses the earnings threshold, but has no savings and could lose their job tomorrow. Go figure!
Mike4 wrote:Now my interest is piqued. The solution to all this is in your hands. Why not buy yourself a house if you find the rental terms on offer hard to accept?
Charlottesquare wrote: (we had 61 flats we built in the 1990s that we rented to tenants, some for a long time)
UncleEbenezer wrote:Charlottesquare wrote:(we had 61 flats we built in the 1990s that we rented to tenants, some for a long time)
Given where this thread has gone, I think that deserves further comment. The crucial part was that you built those flats. So in sharp contrast to some, you were genuinely providing accommodation, rather than profiteering by depriving would-be buyers of an opportunity.
UncleEbenezer wrote:Charlottesquare wrote: (we had 61 flats we built in the 1990s that we rented to tenants, some for a long time)
Given where this thread has gone, I think that deserves further comment. The crucial part was that you built those flats. So in sharp contrast to some, you were genuinely providing accommodation, rather than profiteering by depriving would-be buyers of an opportunity.
Lootman wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:Charlottesquare wrote:(we had 61 flats we built in the 1990s that we rented to tenants, some for a long time)
Given where this thread has gone, I think that deserves further comment. The crucial part was that you built those flats. So in sharp contrast to some, you were genuinely providing accommodation, rather than profiteering by depriving would-be buyers of an opportunity.
I do not see any meaningful distinction there. The key is that someone is providing rental housing i.e. is making available a home to rent.
If I choose to rent out a housing unit that I own, then that adds one unit to the available vacant rental stock in much the same way as if I built a housing unit.
And in my case I did create new housing units by splitting up a large property into several flats.
Perhaps a cause of the housing shortage in this country is that those who take risks to provide homes are not held in the high esteem that they should be, given what a vital and valuable service they voluntarily furnish. Punishing BTL landlords is not the path to increased rental housing availability.
Charlottesquare wrote:Lootman wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:Given where this thread has gone, I think that deserves further comment. The crucial part was that you built those flats. So in sharp contrast to some, you were genuinely providing accommodation, rather than profiteering by depriving would-be buyers of an opportunity.
I do not see any meaningful distinction there. The key is that someone is providing rental housing i.e. is making available a home to rent.
If I choose to rent out a housing unit that I own, then that adds one unit to the available vacant rental stock in much the same way as if I built a housing unit.
And in my case I did create new housing units by splitting up a large property into several flats.
Perhaps a cause of the housing shortage in this country is that those who take risks to provide homes are not held in the high esteem that they should be, given what a vital and valuable service they voluntarily furnish. Punishing BTL landlords is not the path to increased rental housing availability.
Taking one house from "house available to purchase heap" and moving it to "one available to rent heap" makes no difference to total housing stock, it is Peter and Paul. Having said that it to me does a valuable service, it allows a mobile workforce; without rental properties our economy could stagnate as individuals would find it difficult to move for work.
There is a happy blend somewhere.
Charlottesquare wrote:
Taking one house from "house available to purchase heap" and moving it to "one available to rent heap" makes no difference to total housing stock, it is Peter and Paul. Having said that it to me does a valuable service, it allows a mobile workforce; without rental properties our economy could stagnate as individuals would find it difficult to move for work.
There is a happy blend somewhere.
Charlottesquare wrote:I actually suspect some more over the next 7-10 years, if the office market slackens, as we suspect it might, we have a fair few offices that will make decent flats- catch is I suspect I will be retired before that all happens.
didds wrote:Charlottesquare wrote:I actually suspect some more over the next 7-10 years, if the office market slackens, as we suspect it might, we have a fair few offices that will make decent flats- catch is I suspect I will be retired before that all happens.
I think that has been the case for years already if not decades. Business parks near my employers' offices have office spaces that have been empty for a decade - and that on the M3 corridor inside the M25 ring.
Though possibly the WFH during Covid thing has of ciours eabnd indeed exascerbated that situation wrt office space.
didds
UncleEbenezer wrote:I would agree in principle there's potential to convert a range of preexisting buildings into homes. Former village shop or post office, barn conversion, old warehouse, former industrial building (my house), former military building such as Palmerston forts, and indeed office buildings.
At the same time, there are horror stories floating around of some office conversion projects. Such as tiny flats with no windows. Wouldn't it be nice to think of the classic student room as a minimum, rather than an aspiration?
UncleEbenezer wrote:would agree in principle there's potential to convert a range of preexisting buildings into homes. Former village shop or post office, barn conversion, old warehouse, former industrial building (my house), former military building such as Palmerston forts, and indeed office buildings.
Mike4 wrote:And PUBS! You missed pubs from your list.
Arborbridge wrote:Jaundiced, distorted, leftist nonsense! ... It is depressing to read such socialist driven claptrap.
[The Road to Wigan Pier, 1.4]the small landlords are usually the worst. It goes against the grain to say this, but one can see why it should be so. Ideally, the worst type of slum landlord is a fat wicked man, preferably a bishop, who is drawing an immense income from extortionate rents. Actually, it is a poor old woman who has invested her life’s savings in three slum houses, inhabits one of them, and tries to live on the rent of the other two—never, in consequence, having any money for repairs.
Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests