Tag Archives: Property Legislation

17Apr 2012

Current Property News: Landlord wins Judgement against bad Tenant.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Just occasionally matters come to the point where faith in the system is not only renewed but also rewarded! The news we received this week is one of those cases.  We have a Landlord who has had great faith in dealing with the situation that was presented to them in a professional and thorough manner through the courts. Thankfully to a good conclusion as this was after we advised the Landlord that it was a case worthy of legal judgement,  ensuring that the Tenant was not allowed to get away with the state that they left the Landlords property in at the end of the Tenancy.

Ignored instruction.

We soon realised at the start of the Tenancy whilst doing our property visits that the house was not being cared for in the proper manner. General untidiness was soon becoming harmful to both the inside and outside of the house. We did everything we could to get the Tenant to carry out the work required, but in the end under instruction from the Landlord, following our advice, notice was given to leave. Any effort to keep the property in order at that stage ceased.

Check out.

When we then came to check the Tenants out of the property, the work needed to return the property to good order was vast! We photographed, noted, gained quotes and spoke to the Tenant about getting the work carried out. They disagreed, refused and eventually ignored all communications until the Landlord had no choice but to instruct the work in order for the home to be available for the rental market again.

Options.

 At this point we spoke again at length and in the end after looking at the cost of the dilapidations advised the Landlord to take the matter to court. This is of course a big decision to make, not only for the inevitable risk that such a decision brings with it, but also because of the actual task itself which can of course be daunting. The Landlords stood by their conviction and filed papers.

Courts take time.

Never was a statement more true. The original hearing was cancelled twice initially after sitting around all day to be told the court did not have enough time to hear the case, then at the Tenants request until a third date was finally set for this month and only now has the Landlord finally received a judgement. This made all the more understandable when you realise that the Tenant actually vacated in June 2010!!

Award.

But in the end it was worth it! The courts awarded the Landlord the whole of the claim for damages, the deposit in full and two months loss of rent because of the length of time it took to get the property fit for the market again. This is made all the better with the knowledge that the Tenant who replaced the person claimed against still enjoy living there and are treating the property as it should be treated by any good Tenant.

Summary

And what do we take from all of this? Well first of all that currently the law does not move quick enough to resolve matters for Landlords under such circumstances; it does not make sense for anybody to be left waiting for two years for a decision to be arrived at and even if it had been heard the first time the case was cancelled it would still have been nearly a year. That the reasons why such a case can be delayed for a further year are too lenient, because it should NOT be possible to postpone a hearing with such ease as was the case for the further delays suffered  and that Landlords need better help from the Deposit holding bodies, as this was a substantial amount they should not have been made to cope without when you consider the amount awarded to the Landlord by the Judge was over £3000.

The good side!

But thankfully the biggest conclusion is that it does pay to take your case to the courts. I of course do not know for sure, but people who leave property in such a condition probably hope the problem will go away because of the trouble needed to pursue the matter to conclusion, but also in the end the courts have awarded correctly and it proves that errant Tenants can be brought to justice if the Landlords have the strength of character to hold true!

16Apr 2012

Property Landlord advice: Tenant Deposit should be viewed for what it is.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There is no doubt that the deposit paid by Tenant has been viewed differently since the introduction of the TDP Legislation which has of course famously been updated by The Localism Act which has been introduced this month. It is not surprising when you consider the legislation is all about protecting the deposit, that most Tenants now look upon this as an amount of money that should by rights be returned at the end of the Tenancy no matter what the circumstances, rather than a deposit to be used against any damage made at the property during the term of the Tenancy.

Wrong perception.

The worst case I have heard of happened to us only last week, where a Tenant using that time old well worn phrase, ‘my friend told me’ continued to inform us that she did not have to clean the property as that was now considered to be fair wear and tear!  Well that was a first for me, what next, Landlords who should supply cleaners for Tenants?

Immediate implications.

The problem here of course is that because this person has been badly advised, the Deposit will immediately go into dispute if negotiation does not achieve agreement, and when you consider that one of the approved schemes actually charges their Agents dependent upon how many claims are made, it leaves us in a ridiculous situation that would, should we still be with that supplier, cost us money for a totally unnecessary case. Whatever happens, it would leave a bad taste in somebody’s mouth and as the Agent we would probably be the subject of the Tenants wrath. Fortunately, we have managed to explain the correct procedure and the Tenant has agreed to pay for the property to be cleaned.

Bad advice.

Of course once bad advice has been given, when we meet the Tenants at the property, where no cleaning has been done, it is too late to put right, as officially, the Tenant will have no access  after we have taken back the keys, otherwise they remain liable for the rent as well. Frustrating for us, especially as we write beforehand clearly pointing out the work that needs to be done prior to the check out appointment, which includes all cleaning and even state if the Tenant needs further assistance that they should not hesitate to be in touch (Of course we know if there is liable to be a big issue because of our property visits beforehand)

Perception.

For me it is clear that the legislation has meant that the deposit is perceived as something that should be returned if rent has been paid and the Tenant has been reasonable in their conduct whilst at the property. This is simply not the case. The deposit is present should rent not be paid yes, but also to ensure the Landlord has a fund to fall back on should the Tenant damage the property. What we should all realise (and I speak as a Tenant myself ) is that the longer we live at a property the more chance there is that damage will be caused. That is just a fact of life, not damaged on purpose, just a by-product of living in a home!

11Apr 2012

Current Property News: Landlords to address Legionnaires disease as well!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There are times a as a Letting Agent that it feels as if the whole world is looking to upset your apple cart. No sooner do we get to grips with the Localism Act when along comes the HSE and offers up another tasty treat for Landlords and Agents to comply with. This time it is Legionnaires disease and the implications of removing the size limit in water tanks that has bought every rented property in the country in line with the new Code of Practise issues by the HSE.

What Next!

I am not suprised that the Industry has read the detail and asked open mouthed what else are we liable to be asked to take on board? There are cases of Legionnaires found in residential homes, but if we start looking at statistics for the reasons why people fall ill in the home, or have accidents, then Legionnaires falls way down the list of matters that need addressing! The problem is that the HSE are the organisation responsible for controlling the disease, so as soon as the 300litre tank size restriction was removed, they have no option but to advise Landlords and Agents accordingly.

It’s a silly world.

It would of course be easy to look at other areas of concern and suggest for example that stairs are banned; all glass is covered by wire protection; cookers are limited to low temperatures; kettles are banned; children are banned from kitchens and treat all areas of danger in the same manner. There are times when we all think that such matters are treated with overkill, I am no different!

Deal with the facts.

 And those facts are that the industry is now evaluating the situation and dealing with the new Code of Practise. On the face of it and the initial reaction from the Industry suggested that there would now need to be further costs generated by regular inspections of all internal water systems. But I believe that those looking at the situation will be able to give us clear guide lines as we look to take the Code of Practise on board in a practical manner.  

Tenant responsibility.

Before and between tenancies, we will ensure systems are in place to deal with the requirements. Where a Tenancy exists, we will probably develop a strategy to deal with instructing the Tenant on how to ensure the problem is dealt with during the Tenancy by following prescribed instruction at regular intervals, such as heating the water system to required temperatures especially in modern property where the system can be easily dealt with. In older properties, it may well be a requirement that any areas of concern are highlighted and dealt with through an inspection.     

Professionals.

At the end of the day, we will deal with this as we have dealt with the numerous changes in legislation introduced in the last ten years, in the right manner. As I have always said if we call ourselves professionals, we deal with matters professionally. Even though it still seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut! I once had a Health and Safety expert as a Tenant, who questioned the standard of fence between gardens at a newly built property, because his neighbours had a dog that barked at him every time he went in the garden. His take was that it is our responsibility to protect him as our Tenant from all eventualities.

Sensible solution.

 I wondered at the time if that would include building gates at the end of the drive, chopping down the trees across the road and installing conveyer belts for use instead of the stairs. What we do do as a matter of course is address these issues in a sensible and practical way. We ensure fences offer security, dog or no dog, trust people to be able to drive on the road and not crash in too the house, have people take responsibility for tree safety, in this case the local council on an adopted road and ensure that a hand rail is in place to assist everybody using the stairs. No doubt the solution for dealing with Legionnaires disease in the home will also prove to be just as practical!

10Apr 2012

Property Landlord advice: TDP paperwork plans finally in place.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There are times as a Letting Agent that a job of work comes on the horizon which was unexpected but you know from day one, is going to take quite some time to research and complete. This has been the case with the legislation surrounding the Tenants Deposit Protection introduced in the Localism Act. We could see as soon as our advisors started to inform us of the upcoming release that this was going to be one of those times.

At the coal front.

It is still a saying that explains what has been needed to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act and the arranging, writing, collating, printing and posting has taken the best part of two weeks to complete. Not so surprising when you consider that every Landlord and Tenant has had to be contacted, but not only this but Tenants fell in too differing categories of action and therefore we have had to confirm where all of our Tenants sat before getting in touch. Being part of the day to day office means that I have been involved with dealing with most of this and that is why I use the coal face expression.

Understanding.

But by being the person who has written the letters, organised who needed to be placed in too what category, decided how each category has had to be dealt with (and physically collated the information and put the envelopes through the franking machine!) you end up with an understanding of not only what is being done but also why.

Implications.

Now we understand better the implications going forward and how it changes as our Tenants situation changes. For example, those who leave prior to the 5th of May, should only be concerned with how their next Tenancy is dealt with. But how many times have we known a move to break down just before it is completed! To counter this we have served paperwork on every Tenant, immaterial of when the Tenancy ends, because as we are a large Agency, there is more chance that at least one of those moving out will fall through and having worked so hard to ensure all the Tenants are dealt with correctly, this is not the time to let one slip through our net!

Revised procedures.

Getting to grips with these changes also means we have changed our procedures to ensure that the paperwork is correct now and every time. It has been discussed that Landlords and even some Agents would be better without a deposit as they will not be risking falling foul of the legislation in the first place if a deposit does not exist. I would disagree. As Agent of the Landlord, we are duty bound to give best advice about all scenarios and I cannot see a situation where no Deposit helps the Landlord. That means that we as Agents should be professional enough to deal with the paperwork correctly through our own systems.

Now is the time.

So what we have done is write to the Landlords two weeks ago, write to the Tenants last week and change our paperwork systems now, a full month before the legislation dictates that matters should be dealt with in line with the legislation. This will give us a full month to ensure our safeguards work and allow us to continue to offer a full professional service to our Landlords. Such changes and the work that they generate are not always welcome, change never is, but we must continue to embrace them, roll with them and adapt. Then and only then can we be in a position to call ourselves Professional Agents. Those who read my blog  regularly, will know I believe there is no other way!

09Mar 2012

Current Rental News: Localism Act shakes up the paperwork for TDP Legislation.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Well it would seem we have reached the ‘All of the votes are in’ stage of the Localism Act and the changes in Law and its effect on the Tenants Deposit Protection legislation . These changes are now imminent, I have written before about the impact as charges were first of all discussed and then debated for the work which this act now confirms need to be carried out for virtually all Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the UK. Yes that’s right, all agreements entered in to that have now passed the initial six months (or longer?) fixed term, now need to be checked.

Clarity.

To be fair, this change in the Law clarifies the initial legislation. It has also been described as a way of closing all the loopholes, but without doubt, you need to add the judgement in the Swrpere case of last summer to the effect on what now needs to be done.

1988 Housing Act.

All Assured Shorthold tenancies that have passed their initial fixed term become periodic tenancies.  The Act itself does state exactly this as Section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 reads ‘A new Tenancy arising at the end of the fixed term’. So although no new tenancy agreement is entered into, the Law states a periodic is a new tenancy and therefore the necessary steps under the TDP provisions – deposit protection and PIN service – must be completed. The deposit will already be protected of course, but action may still need to be taken in respect of the two insured schemes. But what really matters and especially in the light of the much focused comments in the Swrpere v Nice 2011 judgement, is the serving of another PIN form within 30 days of the tenancy going periodic from now on, or by 5th May for existing periodic tenancies. This has always been ignored before the Localism Act 2011 for two reasons. First it was overlooked simply because no new Agreement is signed.  Secondly under the original TDP legislation and Court decisions it was always possible to protect the deposit and serve the PIN late. But The Localism Act 2011 closes off all these escape routes – protect AND serve later than 30 days, either of them, and you have committed an offence with no escape.

Correct procedure.

The act becomes law on the 6th of April and allows all details to be corrected by the 5th of May. So action will need to be taken sooner rather than later. All of our Landlords and Tenants will be receiving letters confirming how we will deal with the corrected procedures next week, as we look to deal with the issue at the first possible opportunity. It is centred on the Prescribed Information that all Tenants complete at the commencement of an agreement (The PIN Form) and ensuring this, as well as the Terms and Conditions of the scheme the Deposit is registered with, are served again in the case of the PIN and have been served correctly in the case of the T&C’s.

Not stopped there!

For the first time, the legislation will also apply to ALL AST’s as it looks to ensure that ALL agreements even if they pre-date the TDP Legislation, will now have a protected deposit. This of course means ensuring Tenants who will have now occupied a property for at least five years will have to be considered, have the scheme explained and dealt with by May 5th this year. There is no doubt that should this not be done, then it will be an offence under the Localism Act punishable by fine. It also needs to be said, that I am aware of enquiries by the ‘No Win – No Fee’ Solicitors as to the implications and procedures – could this be the next wave of adverts?

Summary!

Not easy, but suffice to say a broad brush approach should be taken and all Tenancies should be reviewed without delay. The whole Industry will need to get this right, and that means many questions will be asked and an understanding of the new legislation and the procedural changes this introduces will be needed by all concerned. We are fortunate to be associated with Companies who evaluate and advise about the impact such matters bring with them, which I believe will not stop with this topic alone. A case of watch this space, as further parts of the Act are clarified over the next few days with what defines a deposit next on the agenda!    

 

24Feb 2012

Duty of Care liabilities incurred when instructing a contractor

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Late last year a letting agent was hit with £4,000 of fines and costs after a self-employed handyman was exposed to asbestos while carrying out work on a client’s property. The case highlighted health and safety legislation responsibilities for agents and indeed Landlords instructing self-employed contractors, in particular preparing risk assessments of properties and checking the competence of those who carry out maintenance jobs. All too often the concern is that the contractor is qualified and won’t blow up the property – but there is a Duty of Care at Common Law on those instructing contractors in terms of their safety.       
 

This would apply to obvious issues like asbestos and other suspect materials, but could also involve working at heights or even, as in a case only last month, safety  and appropriate equipment for working across car port and conservatory etc rooves. An elderly handyman fell through a carport roof and the agent was prosecuted by H&S Executive and were fined £76,000 because the incident involved a fatality.              

In last year’s case the handyman, who does not wish to be named, regularly carried out work on properties managed by agents in Cardiff.  In October 2011, the handyman was sent to a domestic property to fix a leaking porch roof. 
As he was removing a sheet of material from the underside panel of the damaged roof, he realised the insulation board contained asbestos. The sheet was broken during removal and the surrounding area was contaminated with asbestos debris. The Health and Safety Executive, prosecuting, told the Magistrates’ Court the removal of the panel and the sweeping up and bagging of the debris would have resulted in a significant release of asbestos fibres into the air. The handyman wore two dust masks while removing the board, but did not undergo any decontamination procedures and was not wearing a protective, disposable suit. The court heard the fibres could have contaminated his hair, skin and clothing and may also have been inhaled.        
 
The HSE investigation found the handyman had not been given any indication that asbestos was present in the property. Nor had he attended, as all contractors would be well advised to, a regionally based asbestos awareness training day. No risk assessment was carried out, and the agents were unable to demonstrate they had made any attempt to ensure he was competent to identify or work with asbestos. A licensed asbestos contractor was later called in to decontaminate the area. Meanwhile the agent  was found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and fined £1,500 with £2,500 costs.

 
HSE said: “There are specific rules and laws regarding hazardous substances like asbestos. If we do not enforce these laws, people’s health can be put at serious risk. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and should be treated with extreme caution. “Those in charge of maintenance and repair of buildings must ensure work is carried out by competent tradesmen, and that consideration is given to the presence of hazards such as asbestos.”

Agents should be aware of these risks, and act accordingly. You don’t need to be a building surveyor to understand that asbestos was widely used in old properties, and that it is extremely hazardous if disturbed. If you’re taking on a property that potentially has asbestos in the construction then you should carry out a risk assessment either when listing it, or at least prior to any work being carried out on it. Making yourself aware of the legislation and risks involved surrounding asbestos is a small price to pay for the sake of a contractor’s life.

22Feb 2012

Current Property News: New PIN documents for new Tenancy – the corrected story.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Last week I posted a Blog about the changes to the way in which any Tenancy is viewed once it becomes a periodic agreement in relation to the Tenant Deposit Scheme and the various protection schemes that exist. I made a very simple mistake, because I did not take into account the initial legislation, which stipulated that the Tenant could not be charged for the procedures required to register the deposit in any way. My post, which has since been removed, suggested they could, so it is now time to correct that statement.

The changes.

The changes as brought about by the Localism act 2011 and a court case (Suupere v Nice) from July last year. They are clarification of what has always been the case, as far as what needs to be done with paperwork once an agreement becomes periodic. (Passes the fixed term without signing a new agreement) As far as the legislation is concerned, it now makes it clear that the best advice and therefore the only way to deal with the matter to hand, is that a new PIN form will need to be issued and signed, confirming that as far as TDS legislation is concerned, a periodic agreement becomes a new agreement the moment it passes the last day of the fixed term.

Cover all matters.

It therefore also makes sense to issue a new set of Terms and Conditions at the same time, to ensure there are no errors in relation to any changes that have been made to Terms and Conditions during the initial Tenancy. This is of course dependent upon the scheme with which the deposit is protected and can change from scheme to scheme.

Timing.

The one area which is still under consideration is from when it is best to issue new PIN and T&C’s from? The court case was heard last July, the legislation becomes law in April, but was entered on to the statute books last November. The jury is still out on this one, but it seems a date of the turn of the year would be a good date to start from. This means retrospectively issuing new documentation and ensuring all new agreements are dealt with from now onwards as they become Periodic. It also means ensuring that Tenants are made aware of what they will be required to do within our information packs (given to Tenants at the beginning of their Tenancy) from now on as well.

Landlords to pay.

Now to correct my mistake from last week, of course Landlords will have to pay for this service, because the initial legislation, which this interpretation of requirements is based upon, does not allow Tenants to be charged for the service. In retrospect (how easy that is!) we do of course understand why, but I have a feeling many of our Landlords will need to be convinced of why. Not the physical why, but why once again they are being asked to bear more costs!

Effect in the market.

We will now discuss how this will proceed and will be writing to Landlords whether they be Full Management or Tenant Find, to explain what they must do and what our costs will be for carrying out the role. No doubt Landlords will wish to push longer fixed term agreements on Tenants now which some could argue is not in the Tenants interest, but that is a small matter when considered against what may happen to self managed properties should Landlords ignore the requirements. So overall, another gentle nudge towards Full Management may well be the outcome, a situation we are not going to complain about! Oh and the costs, as far as we are concerned will not change whether paid by a Landlord or Tenant, so we can clearly state that we had no intentions of charging the Tenants any more than we will now have to charge our Landlords!

21Feb 2012

Property Landlord advice: Standards and Legislation still not getting through.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

As a Letting Agent I looked at three houses yesterday, all at the invite of the Landlord and all for evaluation. Three Landlords who were all asking for my opinion on the readiness and valuation of their property in the current market place, and all three were due differing responses for varying reasons but the issue that stood out was that the message about legislation and property readiness is still not getting out there and we still need to preach to either the unconverted or the unknowing.

House of Mulitple Occupation.

The first was a terraced property which had been lovingly restored by the owners. The Gentleman had made a really good job of renovating the property and had managed to change a property so much that it no longer felt like a traditional terraced house, even though it was. The issue for this Landlord was whether the property would take three or four Tenants as a room let. What came as a surprise to him were the requirements for a House of Multiple Occupation that he had to adhere to, because even though he had been carrying out the work for several years, he was not aware of what was needed. He will now speak to the Council, because even though the property did not need a License, the regulations surrounding safety, once more than two family groups occupy the home, remain the same. He will then be able to decide between renting per room, or renting to a Family.

Property in fit condition.

The second was a house that had been purchased cheaply and the new owner, having started some work, was looking for advice as to a valuation. Unfortunately, I had to confirm that in my opinion it needed far more money spending on it before it was even fit for purpose. This concerned a new RCD fuse board, new carpets, all of which were badly fitted, new decoration, all of which was multi prime colours, repair and make good to several areas such as stair rails, chipped tiling, poor flooring and a general electric check because of the obvious additional wiring installation that had been added to the original for what looked like several years. Not forgetting what looked like unvented wall mounted gas heaters and we had a property which was far from fit for purpose.

Unwanted information?

 I certainly felt that the Landlord did not feel the property was far from ready once he had completed the new bathroom, and my sincere hope is that some other agency does not take the property on without the work being carried out, but such calls do become one of the hardest things we have to do as Agents.  Hopefully my message set around my central point that with such choice of quality housing about, why should a property in this condition be rented out in competition with the rest of the market was understood. The worry is why both of the properties above should get to the stage of what we saw yesterday without knowing what was needed before this stage?

Good advice.

Perhaps it is that people do not really want to hear? But this is not the case with the first Landlord, because we have already looked after two of their houses and they are good Landlords, so it is a fact that the legislation message has not got through, which is doubly compounded, when we heard of just how much time the Landlord had spent negotiating with the local council over matters surrounding access to the property over the last three years? There is a lesson to be learnt here, even for us as Agents, for whilst we knew the Landlord owned the property and was carrying out renovation, we were not aware of its intended use until yesterday and I definitely feel we should have had a conversation prior to the properties completion. As Tenant Find Landlords, we have assumed they knew and the lesson is clear for us to see, enquire ask and speak at every opportunity and what came as a surprise could have been avoided.

Third time lucky.

The third visit came as an absolute pleasure, here was a Landlord who had moved back in too his home, between Tenants whilst he bought a new house for himself having sold his last house before buying again. In the meantime, he had taken the opportunity to refurbish the house again, fitting new carpets, re-decorating and fitting a new Bathroom. Every task he got spot on, using clean fresh schemes with neutral colours, taking the opportunity to tidy up the garden, laying slate along the edges of paths to reduce the burden of weeding for the next Tenant and improving the appearance. Seven years ago, when the house first came to the market, it looked just as it does now and all the time we have been asked for comment and opinion as to what was being done. And therein lies the answer, no matter if we feel we are interfering, to do our job correctly, we must speak and spread the word to Landlords as much as possible.

Lesson learnt.

Of course we cannot speak if we do not get the chance to speak as with the second Landlord, before we are invited to the property, so to put that right, apart from just offering it to the people we do speak with, we are going to physically advertise free advice to Landlords for the next three months. That way, we might just save a Landlord on another day, being so surprised about what was needed from him in presenting his property to the market in a fit and proper state in the first place! 

02Feb 2012

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: LVT wash their hands.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Before Christmas this year, I wrote about an LVT case where having proven that the RMC we were acting for were correct in their actions, the remaining Leaseholders had been left to pay the not unsubstantial costs for fighting the case bought by one Leaseholder against the RMC. These costs, as pointed out at the time, were mainly bought about because of the manner in which the LVT instructed us to respond to each and every point raised by the Leaseholder, both in substance and number of points raised.

No recourse.

I have spent several weeks, again making sure no further costs were generated in investigating the situation and without charging for my own time, discovering, that even though the case brought against the Management Company failed in every point, that there is no re-course what so ever to the leaseholder responsible, at all. I am staggered by this, because it now means that the remaining Leaseholders will all share the resulting liability between them and be forced to pay for one persons inability to understand the Landlord and Tenant act and its implications when applied to accounting methods.

Wring case, wrong time.

It would be impractical to list the case as presented to the LVT, but I really cannot understand how, with the knowledge of what the case was based upon, we were instructed by the LVT to have to go to the lengths we were instructed to go to, when had they insisted upon a pre-trial hearing, which is in their power to call, the facts behind what the Leaseholder wanted from the action bought, did not fall within the remit of the LVT in the first place. Having requested such a hearing, I do not believe it fair either to hide behind any lack of request ‘with specific detail listed’ as the LVT should direct in these matters, exactly as they did during the three day hearing!

This is a result?

So the LVT instruct us to put a great deal of time and effort into answering to the case, which has the effect of generating cost that the LVT awarded, so they can be recovered, but not from the Leaseholder who brought the case in the first place, apart from their equal share, but from the remainder of the Leaseholders on the site, when the actual wishes of the Leaseholder who brought the action, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the LVT !! We have done our best to gain instruction from the LVT of our options to seek direct recourse, but rather than tell us the law will not allow such actions, we were again advised to seek the information elsewhere, which, if not for relationships called upon from our contact base, could have caused further cost in discovering the RMC is powerless under these circumstances.

Some may call that justice; some may say that the LVT exists to protect Leaseholders, not by my book, not in this case!

13Jan 2012

Tenant issues: Notice to leave must be correct.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

One issue which happens again and again is the need for a Tenants notice, to be in line with the rental payment period and time and again, we receive notices which do not reflect the correct timescale. The problem that has arisen in our offices this month, highlights another way in which this occurs and despite the fact that I have written about this before, I feel that there is an additional point here which could help to both clarify and assist in enabling Tenants to get this right.

Last person to hear.

The problem this week, in both cases, was that we ended up being the last person to hear what the Tenant was planning, and it has struck me that the reason is because it is highly likely (confirmed in one of the cases I am referring to) that the Tenant feels that when notice is given, it is not what we wish to hear and will be looked on as bad news. This is of course, not the case. In fact, when available property stocks for marketing are low, exactly the opposite!

Minds at rest.

The issue for the Tenant is to be assured that when they advise us of their intention to leave, it will not be bad news and that by being involved from day one we may be able to assist the timing and circumstances surrounding the move to the benefit of all concerned. Certainly advance notice as far as the Landlord is concerned is always good news and should we be able to allow the existing Tenant to leave early (only of course when a new Tenant is moving in to replace them) nobody is disadvantaged.

Keeping people informed.

The media is quick to jump on any situation where Tenants are ill informed and rightfully so, but if we can re-assure our Tenants from day one that any news, including the desire to move on, is welcome, then perhaps we can save ourselves and all involved the problems that occur when we have to point out that the notice, which normally coincides with the date they have already arranged to move, is not actually in line with the payment dates and (at times) still has a further three weeks to run for which they remain liable!

Communication.

So, not so much Location, Location , location – more Communication – well you can see where I am going. At Stafford we will be introducing notification which tries to assure the Tenants that any news will be treated equally by our office, no matter what and try to encourage them to advise us as soon as they are able when they are considering moving, so at the very least, they understand the existing liability and need to serve notice in the correct manner. But the issue here is not what we say to Tenants, rather what Tenants say to us, because it is they who need to improve their communications and all we can do is encourage them to speak to us.

Point of contact.

How we deal with this, because we have a busy office where any tenant may find themselves speaking with any of our different Agents, is ensure that the person who originally moved them in to the property, deals with them through to and including the Check in and out. Therefore they will be referred to somebody they already know and that, hopefully, makes it easier for Tenants to speak with us!!