Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Sneaky Landlords

including wills and probate
johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335830

Postby johnhemming » August 25th, 2020, 4:00 pm

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.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335834

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 25th, 2020, 4:10 pm

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.
.


Your self-fulfilling biases are showing. The fact that I continued renting between 2005 (when I could've bought - Northern Rock were very keen to give me a mortgage) and 2019 when I did buy speaks of my attitude to a market that's hugely improved in my time, but could still use further improvement. Two tenancies in fourteen years, and both landlords were happy. You've created a strawman enemy, and (judging by your posts in this thread) abused your power to punish him.

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1384 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335838

Postby Clitheroekid » August 25th, 2020, 4:12 pm

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)

You can obtain a copy of the mortgage deed from LR, which may specify whether or not it was BTL. For example, I'm looking at a copy of a Sainsbury's Bank mortgage that I downloaded earlier, and in the definition of `Terms' it helpfully says `Sainsbury's Bank plc Buy to Let Mortgage Conditions 2018'.

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.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335840

Postby Lootman » August 25th, 2020, 4:24 pm

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

With all due respect I think the straw man was born with your analogy that being a tenant was like being a slave.

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.

Some landlords work off boilerplate leases that are not easy to amend. I was always reluctant to make any changes in the standardised leases that I used.

What I would do however is append a separate document to a lease and that could include other items. I would typically do that with things like "house rules". The assertion you suggest could also go there, and be initialled or signed by both parties.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335841

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 25th, 2020, 4:28 pm

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.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335847

Postby Lootman » August 25th, 2020, 4:43 pm

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.

Yes, how picky a tenant can be is really dependent on whether locally it is a landlord's market or a tenant's market.

My units were mostly in London and so demand always exceeded supply. I recall one time getting 150 applicants for one vacancy. Obviously in that case a tenant can very easily rule himself out of contention.

But in some other areas of the country it may well be that tenants are in short supply, and then they can be picky. I was in Las Vegas during the sub-prime collapse where there was a 20% vacancy rate and landlords were desperate. They would offer "first month free" and throw in new appliances and other sweeteners.

The beauty of a free market, huh?

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4349
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335859

Postby GoSeigen » August 25th, 2020, 5:18 pm

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!


Maylix, we have been in exactly the same position as you several times over the past 15 years. My comments earlier in the thread were based on those experiences. Agents have been a nightmare; all our best experiences have been directly with landlords, that's why I'd use particular caution before parting with possibly upwards of £10,000 in one chunk.


GS

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4349
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335860

Postby GoSeigen » August 25th, 2020, 5:25 pm

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?


Why would liquidate your investments to buy the house when the gross rental yield on the purchase price is 2.5-3%, while the annual return from the capital investments is something like 10-15% tax free?

GS

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335861

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 25th, 2020, 5:46 pm

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
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335866

Postby Lootman » August 25th, 2020, 5:57 pm

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
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1775
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 560 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335871

Postby Charlottesquare » August 25th, 2020, 6:17 pm

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.


Yes, we built to rent before it was fashionable, in both cases converting brownfield buildings. We actually got planning on circa 250 others in the period 1995 to 2008 but only 100 of these were conversions, the rest were new builds on brownfield sites and as we did not have deep enough pockets to do all the projects ourselves we sold the sites to others who did the building work and the selling (they mainly built to sell) . So when I drive round Edinburgh my legacy is I can point to buildings and say, "I got the finance sorted for that one", or "I had some input to the planning on that one"
Given an accountant's usual legacy is a pile of accounts and tax returns having a tangible product is very refreshing.

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.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1775
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 560 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335873

Postby Charlottesquare » August 25th, 2020, 6:21 pm

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.


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.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335881

Postby Lootman » August 25th, 2020, 7:03 pm

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.

Yes, for the total housing stock you are correct. That only changes because of new build, conversions or demolitions.

But I always took the view that the pool of renters is different from the pool of owner-occupiers. And within that division then one can add to availability by offering a unit for rent just as much as by building a new unit for rent. And the former is much quicker and easier.

I would like to think that public policy is informed on the basis that the provision of rental housing is desirable and to be encouraged.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335907

Postby Mike4 » August 25th, 2020, 8:41 pm

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.


This is exactly how I see it too. In fact back in the day I remember learning at school in elementary economics how important is for an economy to have a flexible and mobile workforce, and how fundamentally the supply of rental accommodation supports an agile mobile workforce. This was in the days when there was virtually no private rental market to speak of and even then, aged 15, it was clear to me the UK economy needed some short term rental housing stock as virtually all the stock was long term council housing or OO.

Now we have what I think is probably about the right proportion of OO to rented accommodation, but of course no matter what the proportion ever changes to, there will always be plenty of people resentful of that proportion, whatever it is.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335985

Postby didds » August 26th, 2020, 9:00 am

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
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335990

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 26th, 2020, 9:12 am

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

(eh?)

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?

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#335997

Postby didds » August 26th, 2020, 9:27 am

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?



Oh yes. No disagreement there. These buildings havent been designed/built for residential use so there are undoutedly issues surroundign conbversion. However with the lack of affordable housing, and homelessness rates what they are, it cant be ignored as a starting posint possibly.

Clearly the water and sewage infrastructures would need to be implemented so a full gutting of each floor must be a bottom line. Whether existing windows would work is ionded a valid issue to though maybe that may be more bricking up some windows given the standard large plate glass window provision.

It wont happen of course. its oprobably easier to flatten and start from ground up... (IANA Builder!)

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#336000

Postby Mike4 » August 26th, 2020, 9:44 am

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.


And PUBS! You missed pubs from your list. Pubs are often excellent buildings for easy conversion into a few flats or one really big residence. They often have a fair bit of land (car park and gardens) which can be partially built on too.

There are loads of closed and bust pubs around which I suspect are making excellent business opportunities to make some really good money out of easing the housing shortage.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#336011

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 26th, 2020, 10:17 am

Mike4 wrote:And PUBS! You missed pubs from your list.

Indeed I did. And Victorian schoolhouse. And (continued on page 94 - I wouldn't aspire to think through a comprehensive list).

TwmSionCati
Lemon Pip
Posts: 54
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Sneaky Landlords

#338478

Postby TwmSionCati » September 6th, 2020, 9:39 am

Arborbridge wrote:Jaundiced, distorted, leftist nonsense! ... It is depressing to read such socialist driven claptrap.


Here's some more:
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.
[The Road to Wigan Pier, 1.4]

Mind that blood-pressure!

TSC


Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests