Possible extension to ban on evictions

Reply to the comment left by WP at 05/05/2020 - 21:30
WP Good luck. It will all depend on the judge. I do hope they consider that your tenant's abuse occurred way before the new mediation imposition. It is said judges do not take kindly to refusal of mediation.
Not sure how they can call it mediation when the whole process is apparently all.about helping the tenant and not the landlord.

Reply to the comment left by WP at 05/05/2020 - 21:30
Best of luck. Indeed, tenants should be held more accountable. In my generation, we behaved oursrlves and had respect. Did not dare risk being thrown out.

Mediation has always been charged to both parties in any event. What a cheek to only force the landlord to bear the cost ,,, we are clearly deemed the guilty ones at the outset when it is the tenant's breach of agreement that is the cause of the problem in tge first place.

Indeed, tenants should be held more accountable. In my generation, we behaved oursrlves and had respect. Did not dare risk being thrown out.

Mediation has always been charged to both parties in any event. What a cheek to only force the landlord to bear the cost ,,, we are clearly deemed the guilty ones at the outset when it is the tenant's breach of agreement that is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Reply to the comment left by Rod at 05/05/2020 - 10:59
Quote : "We invest £1000s to earn £45 pw when a screwdriver cost about £2 to earn twice that! Silly me!"

Im sorry but I take umbrage with this comment, as someone that is a landlord but also getting into the electrical industry, I have spent somewhere in the region of £10k to get qualified, get tools (The testing tools are £1000 alone), insurance, join a CPS scheme. And that is before even getting a van, I am amazed how much it costs, you have to factor in travel time, loading the van, unloading the van, going to the wholesalers to replenish stock, invoicing and paperwork. A self employed person does not get paid holiday, sick pay or a pension.

When you factor in all those expenses what seems like a high hourly rate to infer anyone can buy a £2 screwdriver and go and earn £90 an hour is aiming your anger at the wrong people in the same way we complain people vilify us we should be careful not walk into that same trap.

We have always considered mediation and have on occasions been successful.
However, we offer a Free Advice telephone service where we analyse the potential for a successful mediation
( and its a fraction of The Property Redress Scheme, which for some landlords is more than a months rent ! )

Reply to the comment left by Possession Friend at 10/05/2020 - 08:36
Dear Friend
In my experience, Mediation by tradition is paid for in advance by BOTH parties.
How can this proposed new Landlord mediation serivice be equally and fairly served ... when just the landlord must pay at the outset and just the landlord owns the assets. He alone must commission the service as well as pay for it, whilst clearly, it would only arise because the TENANT has breached the lease and/or damaged the assets).

What possible motivation would a tenant have to respond to a mediation under these circumstances, (except to applaud the mandatory upfront £540 loss of the landlord ...
not to mention the extra time he can remain in the property due to an even further delay of court action.). .. Whilst all along he knows very well that he has either defaulted or broken the TA.

The situation is making a mockery of decent hardworking people who are trying to keep ahead and provide homes for renters at the same time as planning for the future of their own families.. Most landlords got onto the property ladder because they saved for deposits instead of spending on drugs, holidays and modern luxuries.

Many of the rogue tenants today have never had to think ahead, and have spent their money on immediate pleasures: cars, high tech appliances and the latest fashions, and resent having to pay for the roof over their heads.

We must not assume that a Landlord hasnt done his best to negotiate with a wayward tenant over his past few weeks of breaching the agreement. Small Landlords will generally try everything to avoid lengthy and costly court action, to a point of grovelling to protect at least his property from being damaged by a vengeful tenant .

Despite this, the female spokesperson for the proposed mediation "service" stated it as being a "telephone " service which will "force the landlord to speak more with the tenant"
Small landlords will generally be patient re late payments if a tenant has a good reason. They are left with no choice. A tenant can stay for months without paying before he can be evicted as it is.

The problem is the matter of total liability being thrust on the landlord whilst the rogue tenant can please himself. He is a above the law - can do exactly what he likes from start of the tenancy until the bailiffs come.

Mediators should be given powers to hold both parties to account. It would be excellent if they were given powers to evict rogue tenants because it would improve behaviour if tenants were seriously held to account. After all, the Council have powers to force landlords to conform and mortgage companies have powers if we default - even on our own home mortgages - we will be chucked out.
But it appears the rogue tenant wouldnt even need to face the mediator in this new telephone mediation system. The mediator probably wont even need his name as it is all about making us landlords communicate!!
As we know too well, the tenant has two choices - WITH or WITHOUT a mediator being involved (at a cost of £540 to Landlord).

1. He can directly offer a plan to landlord to clear the default over an agreed period.

2. He can sit tight for months until eviction or bailiffs and not pay a penny further.

If the problem is damage or anti social abuse (usually is accompanied by lack of payment as well) the tenant himself has nothing to gain by agreeing to mediation. He can either say sorry direct to landlord and put it right or he can, again, choose to sit tight for months until bailiffs arrive.

This whole mediation thing is a bad joke for small landlords and a tongue in cheek for tenants - who keep their keys even longer than before. Clearly, we small landlords are being treated as the offenders at the outset when we pay for this "mediation" . Either that, or as total idiots - both i think.
Am i missing something here again?
Would the mediation service that you mention above be able to provide a fairer and more balanced system - not hopeful with the grossly one -sided laws?

Reply to the comment left by Ingrid Bacsa at 10/05/2020 - 13:37
Ingrid, I entirely agree with you.
But don't confuse the Property Redress Scheme's Mediation at £540 with mine at a fraction of that cost. ( and if I'm not successful, I refund part of the fee ! ( The PRS don't offer that !!!)
One of the failings of the PRS's mediation scheme is the language used, and I quote from you ' proposed mediation "service" stated it as being a "telephone " service which will "force the landlord to speak more with the tenant"...
... Force the landlord ???? what landlord in their right mind is going to pay £540 to be forced to do something s/he's already tried.
The reason I consider if Negotiation might work, is that a 3rd party who's skillful and knowledgeable about Negotiation & Renting such as myself will have a different opportunity to succeed sometimes purely because I'm ' Not the landlord' and haven't been previously involved in any contact - dispute with the tenant. Also, I have a number of ' levers ' - motivators that I use to persuade the tenant
Doesn't always work, some tenants just don't want to engage, - which is why I assess the situation and likelihood of success before charging for the service.
The plus side is that IF I'm successful, its a major benefit for the landlord. Could save months of further lost rent, court costs etc

Reply to the comment left by Ingrid Bacsa at 10/05/2020 - 13:37
Totally agree Ingrid. For whats its worth send these comments to your MP and any landlord's support group if you haven't already. Of course most landlords mediate as it is and dont wish to lose yet more rent or further fees with this nonsense.

Reply to the comment left by Jaye at 05/05/2020 - 13:34
May very well Jaye
The result of the appeal in Arkin v Marshall ( against the effect of Prsctice Direction 51Z ) is due Monday afternoon.
I'm hopeful it will find against PD51Z.
Then there can be a discussion on merits of further action.

Reply to the comment left by Ingrid Bacsa at 10/05/2020 - 13:37
Dear Possesion Friend

In my scathing post I omitted to note the more favourable approach you have outlined:
assessing the feasibility of a mediation, not charging as much as the government will and offering a partial refund if it fails .

I hope landlords will be aware of this more thoughtful approach and the government scheme is forced to revise itself.

Thank you.