Tenants Charter – Mr Pickles, have you gone completely mad?

Tenants Charter – Mr Pickles, have you gone completely mad?

11:16 AM, 1st October 2013, About 11 years ago 67

Text Size

Tenants Charter

Open Letter to Mr Eric Pickles – Communities Secretary – re Tenants Charter

Dear Mr Pickles

Have you gone completely mad?

I am reading in The Times Newspaper today that you are to announce a “Tenants Charter” which will allow tenants to demand two to five year tenancy agreements.

Do you realise that most buy to let mortgage borrowers would be in default of their mortgage contracts if they were to offer tenancy agreements with fixed terms longer than 6 or 12 months?

Do you realise that most modern leases (e.g leasehold flats) contain conditions on subletting not exceeding 12 months in term?

There is a very good reason why mortgage lenders have these conditions in their mortgages. It is because it is so difficult to obtain possession when a tenant reneges on a contract. Bad payers are regularly getting away with up to 5 months of rent free living. Theoretically a landlord can apply to obtain possession by serving two weeks notice once a tenant is two or months in arrears on rent. However, after that 10 weeks has expired it can take several months to get a Court date. Even when a possession order has been granted it then takes several more weeks before bailiffs can be appointed to enforce the order. If you want landlords and mortgage lenders to provide greater security of tenure to tenants then you are going to have to sort out the possession rules for landlords first.

Section 21 of the housing act transformed the UK Private Rented Sector which was in rapid decline until the 1988 act was introduced. Forcing landlords to offer long term tenancy agreements will force the PRS back into the dark ages and reduce incentive for further investment into the sector.

Does Government not recognise the need for a healthy PRS?

Does government not realise that a huge sector of the working population rely on the housing flexibility the PRS provides in terms of job mobility?

Do you have any idea of how your speech today could destabilise the Private Rented Sector?

I totally understand that good tenants, particularly young families with children of school age, need a fair deal and it cuts both ways in that most landlords want good tenants to stay long term. It makes economic sense for landlords to have quality long term tenants,

So why have you not even considered promoting the Deed of Assurance?

Perhaps you are unaware of the effectiveness and simplicity?

A Deed of Assurance is a document in which a landlord promises to pay an agreed level of compensation to a tenant if possession is obtained within a given time period. 

A Deed of Assurance is a relatively simple legal agreement which sits alongside an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement “AST”. It is a separate agreement between landlord and tenant which does not affect the landlords rights to serve notice or to obtain possession, therefore it does not affect the rights of a mortgage lender either. However, it does offer tenants peace of mind.

From a tenants point of view, a Deed of Assurance provides far more flexibility than a long term tenancy because they are only tied in for 6 months and can then move on if they need to. What a Deed of Assurance offers in addition to an AST is peace of mind.

The compensation amount offered by the landlord is negotiable but obviously the idea is to agree something which is meaningful to both parties. For example, I offer to pay anything between £1,000 and £5,000 compensation if I obtain possession within the agreed period, providing the tenancy conditions have been observed impeccably by the tenant of course. If tenants fail to pay rent on time or breaches other contractual terms within the tenancy agreement their right to claim compensation for being evicted during the Deed of Assurance is forfeited. I have been offering a Deed of Assurance to my tenants for a few years now and I am delighted to report that my relationships with new tenants have never been better.

I do not expect a reply from you Mr Pickles but I do hope you will consider the implications of acting on the advice of the people who have been influencing you up to this point.

Yours sincerely

 

Mark Alexander


Share This Article


Comments

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

11:03 AM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jacky Peacock" at "02/10/2013 - 10:44":

Hi Jacky

My response was based on the headline in The Times which read "Renters will get right to force longer tenancies".

Given that The Times received the Press Release in advance of public release one must wonder whether it was moderated at some point.

With regards to your other points, yes, I see where you are coming from but the sceptic in has to wonder where this is heading.
.

Jack Madethisup

14:44 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/10/2013 - 07:28":

Mark, I think your understanding of how the rental market works in most U.S. states is very flawed. While it varies, most anywhere has much stronger protection for tenants than the UK does.

You're right in that the Sheriff may enforce evictions, but that's the same function as bailiff's here. Or the Sheriff's in Scotland, looking closer to home. Still takes a court order and civil case.

Read up on the New York or California laws, those markets do word quite well, are profitable for institutional investors and corporates, and renters have security and actual rights too.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

14:53 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jack Madethisup" at "02/10/2013 - 14:44":

I don't own property in those states so I am unable to comment.

Jay James

16:12 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jack Madethisup" at "02/10/2013 - 14:44":

"profitable for institutional investors and corporates"

Jack and all, I was thinking a few days ago that's where the UK will end up given what may yet happen with mortgages and regulation.
Ie it will be the large organisations that can obtain financing for buy to let if the market for small investors and their mortgages are over regulated.

All very sad and frankly distasteful that it may end up being corporates making the money.

Jack Madethisup

16:31 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jay Jay" at "02/10/2013 - 16:12":

Frankly, I think most renters would prefer larger companies running lettings as a proper business.

Yes, there are lots of good smaller landlords, but also plenty who finance their whole life off only a few units: They can't tolerate any 'loss' so are pretty ruthless on minimising costs/maximising profits in every way.

Corporates can make a better value-consideration.

I've rented from both, and mostly much preferred dealing with the 2,500+ units for rent corporate: No letting agents, directly employed maintenance staff... etc.

The current stat of 6 units per landlord is a recipe for amateurism. Naturally, from the comments and thoughtfulness on this site, probably not among you guys!

Ed Atkinson

16:48 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Mark

What is the arrangement in your Deed of Assurance regarding rent increases? 5 years is a long time without an increase in a rising market and so if the Deed had no provision for increases, then it would be very valuable arrangement for the tenant.

This could the reflected in a higher rent, like a fixed rate mortgage which tends to have higher rate. But a tenant might be worried about accepting a higher rent for a guarantee they might not fully trust, as its novel. They also might not benefit if a change in circumstances means they won't stay for 5 years.

Jay James

17:21 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jack Madethisup" at "02/10/2013 - 16:31":

The idea of going to corporates for my housing rankles.
I'd like to be able to go to a professional LL and if they are small that doesn't matter, so long as they are professional and just plain good.

Conrad Vink

17:27 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jay Jay" at "02/10/2013 - 17:21":

How are tenants supposed to know if a small-time landlord is going to be professional? There's no TripAdvisor for landlords. At least corporates would be big enough to gain a reputation.

Jay James

17:29 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Conrad Vink" at "02/10/2013 - 17:27":

Don't mean to take up loads of your time so a quick yes / no would do:

1
do you generally believe that corporates are good because they are big / corporate?

2
would you be as eager for a tripadvisor for tenants?

Conrad Vink

17:33 PM, 2nd October 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jay Jay" at "02/10/2013 - 17:29":

Not necessarily, but I'd rather be an informed consumer. A larger organisation will lose trade and attract the attention of the authorities if it gets a bad reputation, so it has an incentive to behave. A small time landlord with a couple of properties can fly under the radar forever.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now