Help Legal advice about tennants rights

[DaGaffer]

1)Entry to the property:
A considerable number of tenant agreements will, within the bounds of the initially signed contract, stipulate a minimum notice timeframe, after which the landlord can enter the property you are letting, even without you present. I'm not saying that they will simply let themselves in if you decline their proposed time but there are ways around this... e.g. knowing when you're going to be away from the house and sending a letter at this time. Not all landlords do this of course, in fact I'd say that very few do. The few who do however are the kind of people who will be pissed off with the tenant for whatever reason (or are just dicks) which is the context with which I meant this and subsequently the point I was attempting to make, even if it was worded badly (and maybe still is).

This simply isn't true. The Landlord can demand access and usually there will be inspections written into the lease, but they're actually exposing themselves to risk if they enter the premises without the tenant being present. No self-respecting management company will take the chance these days. On the flip side, the tenant should expect inspections (I have the opposite problem with the place I currently rent, they should inspect it more than they do; we've flagged a minor damp problem in the bathroom but they didn't check - in they end I called the owner in the US and got him to kick the agency, its his house that'll get damaged after all), and not get pissy about it when they happen.

2)Taking the deposit for no reason:
Worded badly. I didn't mean to imply the only conclusion which you could realistically draw from what I had written, sorry... I'll try and word it better. Stain on the carpet? Scratches on woodwork? Even if you've forgotten to clean behind the oven when you eventually leave the property, these can all be used as excuses for partially taking your deposit which some landlords would ignore, others would go mental about and milk you for as much as they could... I'd go as far as to say that anyone who stays in a property for any meaningful length of time will give the grounds for their deposit to be taken away, dependant on how much of a bastard the landlord wants to be about 'reasonable wear and tear', that's why I like to keep in landlords good books.

As Chet says, the power is all with the tenants these days. I couldn't even hold back money to fix the mould problem my tenants caused by their neglect. The managing agent basically told me it wasn't worth pursuing because the arbitration process in the protection scheme is so slow and they rarely favour the landlord unless there's evidence of "deliberate intent to damage the property". Wear and Tear doesn't cut it anymore, and neither does leaving the place filthy, which fucks me right off.

3)Flexibility with regards to payments:
Again, worded badly, sorry. I meant only to provide an example with which having a landlord on good terms can be of benefit during times of strife. I've been lucky enough to have good landlords who, when I've been stretched for cash, have allowed for a little flex with regards to payments during times when my cashflow has been uneven. Requesting that payment dates per month be changed or even an individual month payment being changed are a couple of the benefits of having a very nice landlord. Of course they can reject (rightly so) and taking the piss with this is another way to get in their bad books... again, it's just another stated benefit of being on good terms. The time in question I did this was a matter of two days by the way, after which time the landlord came to my door and I had the cheque ready with a crappy bottle of wine (student at the time). Token gesture but it showed appreciation of something which he could have declined to help me with... I didn't have any problems with him for the rest of the year.

Based on bitter, bitter experience, I'm now completely inflexible about this. Give people an inch and they take a fucking mile. But the irony is, if the tenant fucks your around on money, the process to do anything about it is painfully slow.

4)Randomly(ish) hiking payments:
Again, part of an initial tenancy agreement, landlords can change the amount you pay, dependant on the contract you've had drawn up. Perhaps it's fixed, perhaps it has a percentage 'give' on a yearly basis, it all depends but I'd suggest reading about this before signing anyway. Surely all landlords should at least have flex in preparation for inflation? Of course you can dispute any rises with the RAC but then it starts to get more complicated and less peaceful...

You can only change the rent with a new lease agreement. Generally no-one signs multi-year leases anymore (quite the contrary most tenants want six month leases max and you have to insist on annual), so there's no mechanism for writing in percentage hikes. Its a renegotiation every time, and in the current market that can mean negotiating down as well as up. NB. A tenant doesn't have to sign a new lease after two years, they're entitled to stay put without a lease.

5)Kicking you out with minimum notice:
Dependant on the type of tenancy agreement again. Of course you can dispute eviction, hire yourself a lawyer, go to court and perhaps win, perhaps loose a case. I personally can't think of any time in my life whereby a court appearance, legal fees and potential eviction, even 6 months down the line, wouldn't have been a daunting prospect. Yes it's possible and perhaps that route is the lesser of two evils in some case but with relation to the opening post with which I had in mind while writting this, good relations would avoid this possibility.

And yet I was very nearly in this situation. I had a tenant who was served normal notice (he was actually told the day he'd have to be out on the day he moved in), who refused to move at the last minute. Its was only when we found out he'd been claiming housing benefit when his live-in girlfriend was in full-time work, and we threatened to shop him to the DSS that he got his fat arse out of the flat. Without that, I was legally advised it would be three months minimum to get him out, and that was only because the flat was my main residence so I could show personal need. If it had been a second property, it would have been six months minimum. (I was also advised by a policeman to let myself in when he was out and dump his shit on the street; the police wouldn't get involved and he'd have to pursue me through the civil court, which apparently tenants in this situation almost never do. Which shows have farcical the law is).