Tenancies
When tenants ruled
Back in the seventies, before I ever got to the stage of applying for my first mortgage, I lived in a succession of bedsits in London, Newcastle and Leeds. The accommodation was mostly of a poor quality, perhaps because the tenancy laws at the time were so loaded in favour of tenants that many potential landlords were reluctant to enter the market. It was almost impossible to get rid of tenants unless they did something horribly wrong. Clearly, something had to change, but has the balance swung too far in favour of the landlords?
Just two months' notice
As things stand, a landlord can give a tenant two months' notice to quit and that's the end of it. The tenant has no choice but to leave within two months and move somewhere else if the landlord is determined to enforce the notice period. Personally, I think that two months is cutting it a bit fine even in logistical terms (three months would be better) but that's not my main concern. I certainly wouldn't welcome being told, completely out of the blue, that I have to leave within two months. I've got enough to worry about anyway, but providing I'm not on a New Deal placement at the time, I guess that I'd cope with the logistical aspects. Whether a family would be able to do so within the same time frame is another matter entirely.
Olympics
When the Olympics came to London in 2012, some tenants were evicted by unscrupulous landlords could cash in by charging exorbitant rents for the duration of the Olympics. Whether the landlords actually found tourists willing to pay the exorbitant rents, I don't know. Some didn't even bother with the statutory notice period, which of course is illegal.
Cash flow
My main problem is that, like many unemployed people, I don't usually have any spare cash lying around. Sometimes I do, especially if I'm saving up for something big (in which case that money can be diverted) but it's certainly not guaranteed. And because of the Bankruptcy from which I was discharged in September 2006, I can't borrow any money. So how do I fund the cost of a move? One possibility is the social fund, but will they agree to the loan? In a dire emergency, I might be able to borrow from relatives but I don't like that idea.
Six months, please
I certainly don't want to stay if the landlord doesn't want me, but I think that a notice period of six months would be perfectly reasonable. It would allow landlords to get rid of tenants (unlike in the seventies) but would allow those tenants a reasonable period to save up for and organize the move. Of course, if the tenant is bad, eviction laws for those tenants would apply as they do now. They'd still have to get out quickly, with only themselves to blame. For normal tenants, let's have a six-month notice period. In my case, given such notice, I'd want to get out as soon as possible (ideally within two months) but at least I'd have the leeway to go in a calm, measured manner. Two months, as a statutory law, is not enough.
If there are exceptional circumstances in which a landlord wishes to evict a tenant quickly, the law could allow for this providing the landlord is willing to compensate the tenant for premature eviction, perhaps by funding all or part of the costs involved. The devil would be in the detail, but I suspect that compensation would be on a sliding scale based on the notice period. Eviction within two months would qualify for higher payments than eviction within four months.
When landlords don't pay their bills
As of March 2009, tenants can be evicted almost immediately if the property is re-possessed to pay debts owed by the landlord. It seems that this, at least, may change. I'll be watching with interest, but as the landlords in trouble tend to be those that only have one or two properties, I'm not worried about my own situation. My landlord makes a career out of renting property and has a huge number of properties in the Leicester area. If his business hits financial trouble, it'll be a problem for a large number of people in Leicester. Evicting tenants probably wouldn't be the best solution anyway when such a landlord hits financial difficulties, given the number of properties involved. Come to think of it, my landlord might be snapping up a few bargains from among the properties repossessed from other landlords and owner-occupiers, if he can get them at the right price.
Rent rise
The new local housing allowance rules aren't yet applied by Leicester city council, so any rent rise could still cause me concern. When I started claiming housing benefit this time around, questions were raised about whether I should be allowed, as a single person, to remain where I am or be forced to move somewhere cheaper. These questions were dropped because of my Bankruptcy, it being acknowledged that I could not afford the costs of a move at the time even if they wanted me to move. If the question is revived and I am expected to move, maybe (since it will be Leicester city council rather than the landlord that wants me out), I'll be given more time to move. Alternatively, I'll probably have the option of staying where I am and paying the difference myself, in which case I may choose that option but I really don't see why I should have to.
Should councils be able to force people to move to cheaper housing? It's not as if I'm living in luxury. I have a bedroom, a bathroom and a combined kitchen / living room. That's all. Maybe if I were living alone in a big house, then I could understand. But then, the new local housing allowance rules will stop this nonsense. It will be up to the tenant to decide what accommodation is affordable. If I am forced to move and I remain in private housing, I'll be transferred from housing benefit to local housing allowance. Just one more needless worry.
No comments:
Post a Comment