No-fault Eviction

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
This is Legal Issues - Practical. This is for discussing practical legal issues, not opinions as to what the law should be, or similar debates. Please take that elsewhere. (chas49)

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
I have split the posts which followed my previous warning about off-topic discussion onto a new topic on CAN. Those wishing to follow that topic can find it there. Further off-topic posts here will be deleted without warning. (chas49)

[modellingman]

I think the mechanism is the rent tribunal. Although there are to be no formal 'rent controls', this is (and had been for years) the mechanism where a tenant can appeal to the "Rent Tribunal" against an unreasonable rent rise. The tribunal has so I understand, the power to impose an enforceable' fair market rent' on tenant and landlord.

So if a landlord tries the trick of raising the rent above local market rents, the tribunal can intervene and stop the abuse.

I might have some details wrong as I've never actually seen the tribunal in action first hand. I've no idea how it goes about deciding the 'fair rent' or what happens a year or two later if the local rental market has risen (or fallen).

Are they called Rent Tribunals? The phrase sounds like something from the era of the Rent Acts and paternalistic markets. Not that the name really matters!

Yes, they're something I've long been vaguely aware of but never used. I guess their mere existence could serve to deter many abuses. Though some reports (pinch of salt may apply) tell of huge rent rises that raise a question over whether they have dentures, at least in some areas.

The "Rent Tribunal" is actually the First Tier Property Tribunal. Here's a random example of a rent determination case. It explains the how the tribunal determined the 'fair rent'.

This should not be confused with 'Market Rent', which is used in determining levels of Housing Benefit (which I understand is the 30th percentile value of the distribution of rents for a particular size of accommodation in a particular area). Market Rents are determined by the Valuation Office.

modellingman

[Lootman]

The "Rent Tribunal" is actually the First Tier Property Tribunal. Here's a random example of a rent determination case. It explains the how the tribunal determined the 'fair rent'.

This should not be confused with 'Market Rent', which is used in determining levels of Housing Benefit (which I understand is the 30th percentile value of the distribution of rents for a particular size of accommodation in a particular area). Market Rents are determined by the Valuation Office.

That is interesting because I thought that their job was not to assess a "fair" rent but rather whether a proposed rent increase is "fair".

Perhaps that is a moot distinction but the old regime of Fair Rent Officers was dismantled by Thatcher.

As for Housing Benefit, a lot of LLs will not take on HB tenants precisely because a HB rent is not a market rent!

[Mike4]

Are they called Rent Tribunals? The phrase sounds like something from the era of the Rent Acts and paternalistic markets. Not that the name really matters!

Yes, they're something I've long been vaguely aware of but never used. I guess their mere existence could serve to deter many abuses. Though some reports (pinch of salt may apply) tell of huge rent rises that raise a question over whether they have dentures, at least in some areas.

The "Rent Tribunal" is actually the First Tier Property Tribunal. Here's a random example of a rent determination case. It explains the how the tribunal determined the 'fair rent'.

This should not be confused with 'Market Rent', which is used in determining levels of Housing Benefit (which I understand is the 30th percentile value of the distribution of rents for a particular size of accommodation in a particular area). Market Rents are determined by the Valuation Office.

modellingman

Thanks for that example.

Curious that 'Market Rent' has defined meaning, different from that which the man on that apocryphal bus would assume. I note in your example the tribunal looked at rents for comparable flats and used that information to set what I and the bloke on that bus would call 'market rent'.

I note also they adjusted the rent only after the tenancy had started. So presumably, if a LL issues a section 13 raising the rent above that of comparable local properties, the tenant can apply to the tribunal to have the rent adjusted to match comparables, but must not call it "market rent' in order to avoid confusion!

[Lootman]

I note also they adjusted the rent only after the tenancy had started. So presumably, if a LL issues a section 13 raising the rent above that of comparable local properties, the tenant can apply to the tribunal to have the rent adjusted to match comparables, but must not call it "market rent' in order to avoid confusion!

I think what would worry me is the idea that a LL and TT could agree a rent and them the TT could go to the council and ask for it to be reduced.

This should apply only to increases in rent and not to the base amount.

[Mike4]

I note also they adjusted the rent only after the tenancy had started. So presumably, if a LL issues a section 13 raising the rent above that of comparable local properties, the tenant can apply to the tribunal to have the rent adjusted to match comparables, but must not call it "market rent' in order to avoid confusion!

I think what would worry me is the idea that a LL and TT could agree a rent and them the TT could go to the council and ask for it to be reduced.

This should apply only to increases in rent and not to the base amount.

Peculiar innit.

Only a small step away from full on rent control.

[Lootman]

I think what would worry me is the idea that a LL and TT could agree a rent and them the TT could go to the council and ask for it to be reduced.
This should apply only to increases in rent and not to the base amount.

Peculiar innit. Only a small step away from full on rent control.

If that it true than yes. But it does not seem clear yet.

Consenting adults should not be second-guessed by the legal system, in my view.

[Mike4]

Peculiar innit. Only a small step away from full on rent control.

If that it true than yes. But it does not seem clear yet.

Consenting adults should not be second-guessed by the legal system, in my view.

But did you read the link? Because that is exactly what happened, as far as I can see.

The LL and tenant jointly and voluntarily signed an AST with tenant not having seen the place, then on seeing it they (correctly in my view) realised the rent was 'too high'. The place was a badly maintained dump but this is a red herring. Skip through all that stuff. The flat next door had also just been let for £500 a month less, so they appealed the rent. Successfully.

[Lootman]

If that it true than yes. But it does not seem clear yet.

Consenting adults should not be second-guessed by the legal system, in my view.

But did you read the link? Because that is exactly what happened, as far as I can see.

The LL and tenant jointly and voluntarily signed an AST with tenant not having seen the place, then on seeing it they (correctly in my view) realised the rent was 'too high'. The place was a badly maintained dump but this is a red herring. Skip through all that stuff. The flat next door had also just been let for £500 a month less, so they appealed the rent. Successfully.

If I had been the judge then I would have ruled that the problem was that the tenant had failed to do his due diligence (by not seeing the place before signing a lease) and so could not complain if he later was unhappy with the deal. Unless the place had been dishonestly misrepresented anyway.

But you are right: as stated this is de facto rent control.

[Mike4]

But did you read the link? Because that is exactly what happened, as far as I can see.

The LL and tenant jointly and voluntarily signed an AST with tenant not having seen the place, then on seeing it they (correctly in my view) realised the rent was 'too high'. The place was a badly maintained dump but this is a red herring. Skip through all that stuff. The flat next door had also just been let for £500 a month less, so they appealed the rent. Successfully.

If I had been the judge then I would have ruled that the problem was that the tenant had failed to do his due diligence (by not seeing the place before signing a lease) and so could not complain if he later was unhappy with the deal. Unless the place had been dishonestly misrepresented anyway.

But you are right: as stated this is de facto rent control.

There was no judge, it was a tribunal! A tribunal of two people. One a surveyor of some sort, the other a JP.

But yes, natural business practise would be for a contract to be enforced no matter how 'unfair' it appears on the face of it. But as I said, this is a red herring. The ruling would have been the same even if the tenant HAD viewed it first, and rented it with eyes wide open.

The whole thing is open to abuse I reckon.

View a property, outbid everyone by a large margin to secure it, then complain to the "FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)" that your rent is too high, and ask them to reduce the rent to 'fair rent'. A rent which had you offered it in the first place, probably would not have secured you the property.

[Lootman]

The whole thing is open to abuse I reckon.

View a property, outbid everyone by a large margin to secure it, then complain to the "FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)" that your rent is too high, and ask them to reduce the rent to 'fair rent'. A rent which had you offered it in the first place, probably would not have secured you the property.

All I can say is that I do not think many tenants are that petty and snide. I had over 100 tenants in total and none of them did anything like this. And as I stated before, they would move out if I told them to.

So either the percentage of tenants who are spiteful and manipulative is very low or I was good at spotting the troublemakers at the application stage. I had a set of rules such as not renting to lawyers and certain other occupations, people with a political agenda, and anyone whose story did not add up for some reason. I generally avoided tenants over the age of 30 as younger tenants are more likely to move out on a reasonable timetable. I probably would not have rented to someone like me.

And I had better luck with female tenants. The worst tenants I had were a gay male couple with a dog, who constantly complained about every little thing. I inherited them when I bought a small block of flats so my application process was bypassed. Luckily they moved out on their own and then I adopted a no-pets policy.