Tag Archives: Tenant Information

26Apr 2012

Tenant advice: High expectations and Ball gazing.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 

Having been commentating on daily matters for two years now, you would think that I would have covered most things and indeed the subject of today’s post has been touched on before, but two situations that developed yesterday are both worthy of comment and one was a first for me!

 

Normal practise.

 

As Agents, we do everything possible to respond to repairs and breakdowns as soon as we possibly can, (or should I say as soon as our Contractors can) Not that some Tenants feel this is good enough, but we even advise Landlords who want their own contractors to deal with any issues surrounding their house, that unless they have worked for Letting Agents before, the only issue we are liable to have is the response time that our contractors understand we require. In reality though, we can of course only react to what we are told.

 

Phone call number 1 and 2.

 

Yesterday we received a call saying a heating system had stopped working and would we get somebody to sort it out. The answer was yes of course, but as we always do, we pointed out that should the problem be something like a dead battery or drop of pressure, because boiler instructions are always left at every house, it could be that any costs would be put to the Tenant. (Imagine if we did not and then told the Tenant they must pay) Contractor was arranged and before they arrived, we received a call saying the problem was resolved and we of course cancelled the call out.

 

Phone call number 3

 

We then received a call from the same Tenants partner suggesting that we should have allowed the call out to proceed because the heating still does not work and what were we doing cancelling the initial call out. We of course said because we were told too, and this Tenant then asked if we were blaming his partner for failing to repair the boiler!?

 

Star gazing.

 

The difficulty here apart from cancelling the initial call out, is the level of expectation from the Tenant. We would not wish to make any statement about where the fault lay, but the problem for the second Tenant was that we had cancelled the first call and could not arrange another visit on the same day, when his call was made at 4.45pm. It is of course unreasonable to have contractors standing ready to react. Like all Agents we build up relationships with our contractors, so they will react as quickly as they can for our Landlords, but nobody can reasonably expect to firstly carry on with the call when advised we need not and secondly get somebody to call that day with so little of it left!

 

Broken Lock.

 

The second instance was a Tenant who had both a locked door to her flat and a second external locked door to the outside. The door to the outside had a lock that failed, which resulted in a phone call to us about the lack of security. The problem here was that the call came on a Sunday evening and the door could still be locked by sliding the bolt. If a member of our staff had received the call, we would have said talk to the neighbour who shared the door and ensure all is safe until tomorrow, when we will get a contractor out. With a second lockable door that should have been sufficient.

 

Wrong number.

 

The problem arose when the Tenant phoned the emergency number they had been given when they moved in to the property, which we no longer relied upon, using our own staff to cover the phone for the last two years. We wrote to everybody at the time advising them to use the new number. The Tenant could not find the letter! The Contractor reasonably listening to a call from a single young Lady reacted and repaired the lock. The Landlord received an invoice for £65 and the Tenant had a good night’s sleep.

 

Who pays?

 

Technically we could have charged the Tenant, or refused the invoice from the contractor for reacting prior to instruction, but that would have upset somebody who reacted in good faith and is one of the people we do rely upon when true emergencies do occur. A no win situation for us, because from the Tenants point of view, she believed she was also asking the work to be completed and allowed the contractor to carry out the work in good faith! Luckily, the Landlord understood and accepted the charge.

 

Conclusion.

 

My conclusion is that no matter how hard we try, these things are going to continue to happen and Tenants will still feel they should receive a response when they wish and without delay. There are of course times when these matters are truly out of our hands such as unavailable parts. But we must keep plying our message taking every opportunity to explain the reality. That does not change my request, which would be that Tenants understand that they will receive a response that is quicker than most other scenarios and especially when compared to the average home owner requesting the same services.

 

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!

13Apr 2012

Tenant Advise: Problems finding a house to rent.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A letter recently published in my Local Stafford Paper, questioned the ability for some Tenants in difficult situations to be able to rent property in the town. The blame has been placed purely with the local Letting Agents, but takes a very simplistic view of the reasons why they have struggled. There are far more factors that need to be considered before any judgement can be made, and I am going to put the case for the agent through these pages.

 Law of Agency.

 Here it is again! But so many Tenants do not understand that we are bound by our (legal) agreement with the Landlord to give best advise under all circumstances. I offer a quote from a recent article by David Smith of Anthony Gold Solicitors, in The Negotiator magazine ‘this means that the Agent must act in his clients interests even where that produces a harsh outcome for the other party, in this case the Tenant’ I quote because I believe his words confirm the reality of our position better than any other description I have ever heard. So if a Landlord does not want pets, we would be breaking our legal agreement if we allowed Tenants with pets to move in to a house with express knowledge that they had. Equally, if a Landlord does not wish for Tenants in receipt of benefits then, we have to obey this instruction in exactly the same manner. We are not here to be judge or to offer succour to those in need, no matter how worthy the cause. We are here to follow our Landlords instruction, to the letter!

 The benefit system.

 There are several areas where the Benefits system fails to deliver for the Landlord, firstly, they pay four weekly in arrears. This means that the Landlord has to find more than a full month’s rent to keep his cash flow in order. Why, when we have sufficient Tenants who are able to pay rent in advance, should we suggest that the Landlord waits for their money and only gets a percentage of it (Yes it catches up eventually but not for a full year!) when they do receive payment. It is also paid direct to the Tenant now, and, as happened in our latest case, only when the rent was two months in arrears would the Council start to communicate with us as the Agent of the Landlord and only when the Tenant agreed, would the Council pay the rent direct to us. Please tell me why, under those circumstances should we encourage acceptance of Tenants in receipt of benefits. It would be good to say this was an isolated incident, and it would also be wrong to say that problems occur with all Benefit claimants. Unfortunately for those who do respect their commitment, most do not.

 Insurance.

 One of the (many!) benefits of using an Agent, is our ability to have the Tenants professionally referenced. All Agents should use a referencing Company whose acceptance of the Tenants automatically places the Landlord in a position to take Landlord Insurance to protect the Rent and pay Legal expenses should they be needed. Now because the system works well and because Agents know how to manage and control debt, the policies are still available in some instances for less than £100 per year (I only quote this figure as an example, because with FSA regulations in mind, I am not able to discuss the benefits of one Company above another!) If this was a policy that was relied upon again and again by Landlords it would cost far more, so it confirms without any doubt, that the referencing system works! Finally, no Agent worth their salt should, in my opinion, operate without the ability to offer Rent and Legal Expenses Insurance. Otherwise, how can it be argued that they are giving best advice to their clients?

 Guarantors.

 If a Tenant does not earn sufficient income, they may need a Guarantor; this is the natural manner in which income short fallings are balanced against the Industry standards used for income calculations. However, all Guarantors MUST be able to afford the rent. Look at the situation from the Tenants point of view, if a Tenant who could not afford the rent was moved in to a property without any check at all, it could be argued very easily that the Agent or Landlord had acted without due care to the Tenant, placing them in a position where they are unable to afford the commitment they have made. No different than being oversold items on Higher Purchase! Now, if they are able to provide a Guarantor, I can see no difference (and neither can the Industry) in what they should also be able to afford! Just because somebody agrees to be a Guarantor does not mean that the Tenant is automatically protected. The legal agreement clearly confirms that the Guarantor is responsible for the Tenants short fallings which includes all financial matters involved with the Tenancy. Now again, if we just accepted people on face value and they suddenly found themselves with a bill they could not pay, have we done our duty as Agents? Under such circumstances the Guarantor could easily claim to have been unfairly treated.

 Financial limits.

 Finally, the rates at which affordability calculations are judged, are not the responsibility of the Lettings Industry. They are developed and run by the financial referencing organisations, from whom Letting Agents are only responsible for using their services, not the manner in which they operate. We are all faced with rules that we have to abide by that we have input into the detail would be very rare. This is one such position. But as I have indicated before, such organisations and Insurance companies are subject to the law in the FSA regulations they must abide by. What we should NOT do is blandly allow people to be referenced for a property they cannot afford.

 Summary.

 So, it is very easy to blame the Industry and Agents in particular, but there are wider issues and pictures that need to be considered. That these people who were the reason for writing this piece have had difficulties because they are on Disability Allowance and Housing Benefit, I say they should look to the social organisations that are supposed to help them, rather than the Industry that on the face of it would have to break several codes of conduct to accommodate them. We are not able to move people in too a property against the Landlords wishes, we cannot ignore referencing and neither can we place our Landlords in a position where they cannot take the benefits of the most basic of Industry Insurance Policies. We cannot ignore the possible implications of accepting Housing Benefit Tenants and neither should we ignore what a Tenant and Guarantor can or cannot afford. Rather than being unfair, when you consider our legal position and to whom we are responsible, that is being Professional!   

 

12Apr 2012

Property Landlord advice: Choosing a Tenant – Landlords needs first – by law!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

One of the areas that crop up again and again when we are going about our job, is the relationship between ourselves as Agents of the Landlord and our prospective and actual Tenants. It is and always has been in our interests to have good relationships with our Tenants and we continue to promote that at all times, but when it comes to our position legally we have to consider the Landlord above the needs of the Tenant and it is this stance which is often mis-understood!

Tenant’s rights.

 We do of course give the Tenants duty of care, but two situations have arisen this morning which yet again could and possibly does leave us looking like ‘bad boys’ if we proceeded and made what we believe to be the best decisions in the interests of the Landlord. The first issue surrounds another Tenant viewing and proceeding with a property before a second prospective Tenant had viewed. There was a statement made about who was due to see the property first which we could not agree with as we do not give preferential rights of viewing as a Company Policy.  

I saw it first!

This is simple enough to understand, if the first person to phone cannot view for a week, do we stop others who can view today? No because it would not be in the interest of the Landlord and our decision is an easy one! In this case what has clouded the issue for the prospective Tenant, is that they felt they had been promised to be shown first but as we never do give such promises, because it is never in the interests of our Landlords, this would simply never be the case. It is more likely that there was a misunderstanding of what was being asked and promised, but it ended with an nasty phone call to myself and my staff which of course is not acceptable for either party.

Best Tenant.

The second problem was one where in asking for information to assist finding a property for a potential Tenant, nothing has been forthcoming since we asked from the Tenant. Now when they ask to view a property again, which we know will be impossible without the information, do we tell them no without delay? We are of course always charged to find the best Tenant at all times for our Landlords and that inevitably means making decisions. We have to otherwise we would not be doing our job.  But it is highly likely this situation will again end up with a disappointed party, but we are not bound to find property for all who contact us, just those we believe will be good Tenants.

Overiding facts.

In every situation we are bound to make the decision that is in the best interests of our clients and that is our Landlords. This means disappointing some who contact us. But until Tenants understand that we have a legal commitment to serve our Landlords and that overrides any duty of care towards Tenants  (unless that neglect of duty includes an illegal act or stance) such issues will continue to occur. What of course we can hope is that not every time someone does not get what they want it does not end up in aggressive phone calls.

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!    

 

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!

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!!

29Dec 2011

Tenant advice Rents falling?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Asking rents have dipped for the first time in ten months, according to a November rent index. The drop is only a tiny 0.4% and so hardly means upgrading the Xmas dinner from turkey to a leg of beef, and means that on average so far this year rents have gone up by 3.5%. This means the average UK rent is now £717 a month but this of course masks massive regional variations, especially in London where the average rent is now 1,033 a month in London. In the index from LSL there appears to be a slight improvement in tenant finances, with 9.3% of all rent late or unpaid at the end of November, compared with 10.1% at the end of October.  Again welcome though this improvement is it is a very small change.              

Interestingly the survey estimates average yields for landlords at 5.3% but warns that landlords stand to make a loss on their properties. The average total annual return per property in November was 2.2%, compared to 1.4% in October. In cash terms, this was an average of £3,726 – equivalent to £7,700 in rent with a capital loss of £3,974. More worryingly despite these times of apparently insatiable tenant demand as would be buyers find themselves frozen out of that market, if property prices maintain the same trend as the last three months, an investor could expect to make a total annual loss of 0.7% over the next 12 months – equivalent to £1,144 per property. In terms of the arrears position although there are fewer tenants actually behind with their payments in some shape or form this in part is almost certainly down to a tougher line being taken by Landlords who themselves are finding their finances under pressure, so they are taking action sooner to ensure any new arrears cases are dealt with promptly.   

But again the picture looks bleak with a deteriorating labour market and unemployment at a 17-year high and likely to rise further. As it climbs, a growing number of tenants’ household finances (and Landlords?!) will come under strain, and overall tenant arrears are likely to climb in the coming year. 

There is no doubt that life for landlords is not as sweet as it looks and although not as hard for buy-to-let investors to secure mortgages as it is for first-time buyers, it is still very difficult. Indeed the apparent increased readiness of lenders to fund BTL again with higher LTV mortgages only make that market look healthy when compared to the residential mortgage market which in historic terms is all but flat lining. But even allowing for a slightly healthier look on the BTL front lending to property investors is still very low by historic standards. There were 34,500 buy-to-let loans in the last quarter this year compared to the same three months in 2011.

14Dec 2011

Tenant advice: Guarantor roll in property Letting.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 

One recurring issue when problems occur with a Tenant who has failed to keep up to date with their rental payments, when a Guarantor is in place, is the sudden realisation that despite having had the situation explained at the beginning of the Tenancy and in our case at Castle Estates having signed a confirmation letter that clearly confirms the Guarantors role, that they may become liable themselves for the arrears and any additional costs generated by the departing Tenant at the house concerned.

Increasing requirement.

 

This is a problem which is not going to go away, in fact most reference Companies (with a mind to the current financial situation) are requesting a Guarantor to assist the Tenant being referenced in achieving a successful application, in probably twice as many cases as they were five years ago. This means that it is even more important that the Guarantor understands that should debt arise as the result of the Tenants actions, then they could be asked to make good the shortfall if the Tenant fails to do so after every reasonable effort has been made to achieve success with the Tenant, in a court of law.

For the lifetime of the agreement.

 

It is therefore important that the Guarantor is advised about any possible liability as soon as possible after it becomes clear that a problem exists. This is when we normally get asked for the Guarantor to be released from the agreement and of course without a replacement waiting in the wings who would also need to pass reference (and if a problem has occurred this is not a likely scenario) they cannot and should not be released. Signing your name to a legal document has implications and therefore should not be entered in too lightly. Indeed Guarantors need to understand fully their role, which is why we have a separate letter which we ask to be signed and wherever possible, have the Guarantor present at the check in to ensure they understand their responsibility.

End of Tenancy problems.

 

Of course most problems where a Guarantor has to be advised occur at the end of the Tenancy and just recently we have had a very serious abandonment, where the Guarantor was a close relative of the Tenant who seemed to be fully aware that the relative would have to face the consequences of the Tenants actions, of course such malicious actions are very rare, but it does serve as a timely reminder to ensure, as a Guarantor, you will still want to support the Tenant in possibly two or even three years time (average length of Tenancy is now close to two years) As Agents we have to be sympathetic, and make every effort to seek recourse with the Tenant, but legally the Guarantor will be required to stand in the Tenants shoes if the Tenant does fail and the reality of this should always be considered before the agreement is signed.

17Nov 2011

Tenant advice: Notice period and final days.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is a real advantage to be able to comment on situations which arise through the daily activity in our office as letting Agents, because it means that the Blogs are always relevant. This week is no different. Once again a theme which crops up on a regular basis has been discussed and I felt would make a good subject to advice Tenants about what to expect at the end of a Tenancy.

A full month’s rent?

It is rare for a Tenant to pay a full month’s rent for both the first month or the last month of their Tenancy and this would only happen, if for example, the Tenancy started on the 1st day of the month and ended on the last day of the month! There are two ways of dealing with rent payments and at Castle Estates Stafford, we opted for the system of taking a payment for the first month for the days remaining in that month and from then on rent is due on the 1st of the month for each calendar month in full. The other is to always take a full month’s rent due on the date that the Tenant moves in and the due date remains as that day throughout the Tenancy.

Matter of choice.

The problems are present for both systems, for example having the date a Tenant moves in as a due date, causes problems for any move after the 28th, because of February and months that only have 30 days. With our system, it is explaining why they do not just pay for a full month on the day the Tenancy commences. But as it is our job to look after Landlords first and foremost, we find that arrears are easier to control if all rents are due on the same day, then all arrears are of the same length and letters are all sent at the same time.

Monies due at the end of Tenancy.

The issue that does arrive though is not when Tenants leave at the end of a month, in line with the required length of notice, but when they leave at any other day in the month and for some reason feel that for example, if they leave on the same date they move in, the rent paid at the beginning of the Tenancy covers the extra days – is does not!

Best solution.

Has got to be good communications! It is important that Agents make it clear to Tenants what is due when and why, and of course systems in place to cover this ensure all Tenancies are treated the same. With the Tenants Deposit Scheme ensuring both parties to a deposit are happy prior to any return, it is doubly important to get this right. Bad communication in my experience leads to people digging their heels in and unless we as Agents can show clear instruction and reasoning, our customers, our Landlords, may lose out.

Proper dues.

Of course it is only what is legally due that Agents will collect and the best solution when all else fails, is to add up in total the number of days associated with any part months (only ever the first and last months) and with a daily rate to hand, calculate the rent due for both periods. Of course the daily rate has to be in line with the manner in which the courts approve daily rates to be calculated which should be confirmed as well, hopefully then as is the case with most Tenants the calculation is both understood and accepted. Unlike the Tenancy that ended badly because the Tenant expected a full month’s rent to be returned as well as the deposit, because he paid his rent in advance, even though his last payment was at the start of the month and he left on the last day!