Tag Archives: Tenant Information

17Jun 2011

Rental Issues: Tenant Notice in periodic agreement.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

This is one of those subjects that always causes problems when Tenants wish to end a Tenancy but do not understand the manner in which the agreements have to be handled once an agreement has become periodic, so I would like to clarify, without giving to many ifs and buts, which is what you find whenever you research this issue, in simple terms.

Periodic agreement.

Firstly, let’s confirm what a periodic agreement is. This is when an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement has gone past its original fixed period and whilst the agreement still applies to both parties, it has not been superseded by another agreement and nobody has given Notice. This is a very common form of allowing Tenants to stay in the property, but without having to tie them down to another fixed period. As I have stated before, flexibility is usually the choice of the Tenant in reality and Landlords who wish to have fixed terms only, can cause Tenants to move on anyway, because they feel they no longer have the freedom to move when they wish.

Notice when they choose.

And this is why it is popular with so many Tenants, because the opportunity to move when they wish ensures they can make that move when it suits the Tenant. In reality, it is my experience, that just to have the flexibility does not mean that they will then leave. Rather being given a choice to make about committing to another period of time actually forces a decision as against moving when a Tenants agreements become periodic after the initial term, but it is when that notice is given, that problems can occur if the manner of notice is not followed correctly.

Correct Notice.

The correct way to give notice on a periodic agreement is firstly to do so in writing (some agents will accept e-mail, but always check rather than assume) and then if a problem occurs it is because of the timing of this notice. Any notice on a periodic agreement must be in line with the payment dates of the agreement. Therefore, if rent is paid from the first to the last day of the month, as the easiest example, whatever day notice is given, the Tenant will be responsible for the rent and property until the last day of the following month the notice was produced and handed over. To clarify further, no matter what date the notice is handed in, from the 1st to the last day, when the payment period is the 1st of the month to the last, the Tenant,’s notice will end on the last day of the following month, ensuring that the notice served covers a complete payment period from the 1st to the last day.

Varients.

The situation can alter if rent due date continues to be from the date the Tenancy started. In my case we always make the payment date the first, ensuring Tenants always leave on the last day of any calendar month. But if you moved in on the 10th, then your payment period is from that day until the 9th and your Tenancy will end on the 9th, and your notice will therefore always cover a full monthly payment period between the 10th and the 9th.

Knowledge.

Of course, knowledge is everything and hopefully your Agent/Landlord would have explained this at the start of the Tenancy, but because it is complicated and so many people believe that notice is just a four week period starting from the day notice is given, this so often becomes a confusing situation at the end of what has hopefully been an enjoyable stay. Again from personal experience, even when this is explained at the beginning of a Tenancy, if the Tenant has lived at the property for two to three years, then of course remembering becomes very difficult. So please bear with your Agent or Landlord when they explain this situation, they are after all, only explaining how the law works!

03Jun 2011

Property Landlord advice: Student Accommodation and Council Tax for part time Students.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have recently come across a situation that I would both welcome comment on and happily post as a warning to all Student Landlords that possession of a Student card does not always mean that as far as the local Council are concerned, the person you are dealing with is not necessarily considered to be a Student. This has specific impact on the Council Tax status of your property.

Large Student accomnodation.

The situation we have just found ourselves in is somewhat complicated by the building in which the students reside. We manage a converted ex County Council building in the middle of Stafford, which comprises of two sets of accommodation, split by a central corridor. To maximise the Landlords return, one half is for Students and one half used for normal Council Tax paying workers. The Student half, comprises of 12 flats, with anywhere between four and ten rooms per flat. They have centralised kitchens, en-suite facilities and they all share one large common room on the ground floor. So not the usual Student accommodation, more purpose built.

Not enough hours.

The problem we encountered with the Student concerned was that they were only a part time Student, on a course which was for 16 hours per week. The problem arose when the Student concerned approached the Council for financial assistance, even though we had advised they would not be eligible. They were not, but the Council then questioned the Student status and quoted from their own web site that: ‘To qualify as a student, the course must be over 21 hours per week and last for at least one year’

Caught out.

I am sure we are not the first to have fallen foul of this ruling and because it is on the Council web site we cannot complain too loudly. But this does show one very alarming hole in what we normally accept as proof of status. This is that the Student card issued by the College is not sufficient proof for the Council to agree. In future we will be insisting on seeing the appointment letter as well as the Student card, because as usual in these situations the consequences are financial!

Consequences.

In the Councils eyes, any property which has been used as their main residence by a person who is not a registered Student (to their own translation) no longer applies for full Student discount. The end result is that the Council have asked for Council Tax for the whole flat for the period that the person lived in this accommodation. This totalled a period of six months. Now many people would already be aware of this rule, but obviously we were not and this is why I have chosen to post this information in this manner. It just proves the old adage; you are never too old to learn!

24May 2011

Current Porperty News: TDS Legislation under threat.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming  Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.

Joint action required.

The case failed in the full award of the penalty as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!

Part returned Deposit.

Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.

Further appeal.

I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government 

There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming  Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.

Joint action required.

The case failed in the full award as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!

Part returned Deposit.

Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.

Further appeal.

I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government

17May 2011

Rental Issues: Reserving a rented property whilst a Sale completes.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Rental Issues: Reserving a rented property whilst a Sale completes.

This is one of those issues that whilst rare does occur now and then and always causes confusion. I think clarity would help so that potential Tenants understand where Letting Agents are positioned and why we have to do what we do. It has happened at our office in Stafford again recently and it is the matter of how long we are prepared to hold a property before Tenants accept responsibility (sign a Tenancy agreement) that is nearly always at question. Under normal circumstances and with so many Tenants in the market at present, this problem does not and need not occur.

Legal position.

Tenants are only legally bound to pay for a property from the day they actually sign the agreement and of course Tenants do not wish to do so if they are subject to a sale which has not completed or could indeed collapse which seems to happen more often in recent years. Nobody would want to accept a minimum of six months liability for a property that should the sale collapse, you could neither afford or equally wish to use as your home. This is why Agents will quite often ask for payment from a date in time without signing the agreement as a payment in good faith but without committing the Tenant to legal documents which have far more lengthy implications.

Holding a property.

What needs to be realised is that Letting Agents have a legal responsibility to provide the best service and advise to the Landlord because of our legal position (as Agent of the Landlord) What also needs to be considered is that the Landlord will need to earn income from the property for as many days possible. Agents will do whatever they can to avoid void periods for Landlords, it is easy to see why anybody who owns a property as an investment, which is of course exactly what rental property is wants to earn rental income for every week possible. This is why once we have found a Tenant we will (in most cases?) confirm that we allow a four week period under normal circumstances for the move to be completed.

No similarity with sales.

This of course is the rub, there is nothing in the two processes which are alike, indeed the only comparison would be to expect Building Societies to allow payments to be suspended during the same period, so you can see how one sided the effect of waiting for a sale to complete now sits! Therefore we have to proceed in the best way possible for our Landlords and during a period where the rental market continues to improve, people who are renting after selling are not necessarily so attractive as prospective Tenants. I have known situations where sales collapsed after a seven week wait and resulted in the Landlord having a three month void period. Position this with our legal responsibility to give best service and advice to our Landlords and perhaps the situation becomes more understandable!

Co-operation required.

It is of course an emotive subject as anybody who has gone through a house sale nowadays would know. So we have to ask for co-operation from prospective Tenants under these circumstances and interim payments to reserve the property without asking for a legal commitment by signing the Tenancy agreement are a half way house which I believe offers both parties the ability to proceed and still deal with whatever the legal process of house selling throws at us, what we ask is that Tenants understand our liabilities and can co-operate in the same way.

12May 2011

Current Property News: Shelter Campaign launched supporting Licensed Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone.

Shelter have produced a video in support of their call for action for the licensing of Landlords. It is an over the top production in the picture that it purveys, but there is no doubt that it does get the message across very well.

Dodgy practises.

It manages to cover several dodgy practises in a very short time, including illegal eviction, lack of proper procedure, unfit housing to name but a few, I would recommend all to watch it not just because of the content, but because as an industry we should think how Shelter feel they need to promote this issue to highlight the trend they report to have witnessed in recent times. Please note carefully, that during the video, Agents are added to the situation as being part of the problem!

Several messages.

At times it feels like those of us who are constantly calling for legislation to support us in our professional aims are knocking against closed doors, so I am grateful of any action that highlights the need for Registration of both Landlords and Agents. But it is a pity that it is not our own Industry professional bodies that are not the ones shouting the loudest! We need to recognise that many would see this video as a true representation of our Industry and not that farfetched. Agents, Landlords and bodies that truly care should be joining the call for the Government to take up the recommendations of the Rugg review of 2009. Otherwise, whilst rogue Landlords still exist and the evidence is still present for all to see, this tardy image will never go away.

Hard Times.

We should all be aware that during harder financial times for us all, the temptation to cut costs and corners is high, so whilst I feel Cambell Robb’s (Shelter CE) comment that ‘Landlords are cashing in’ a bit too simplistic and an easy jibe to make, we cannot hide from the fact that Shelter’s Campaign casts a very poor shadow across the whole of the rental market and it’s effect will touch us all one way or another. Follow the link above and you will not find one shred of comfort in the headlines, comment or follow up added to the page.

Join the call.

So yet again I find myself singing the same song, but this time my comments are directed towards the bodies that govern our Industry, the very same bodies that should such legislation be introduced, would want to be the people who oversaw its introduction, have a large say in how it was put together, would probably wish to police it and most importantly want to set the standard by which Landlords and Agents could be approved! I feel that the fact that organisations such as Shelter should be the party to start a Campaign and petition to promote professional standards reflects badly on your own efforts, efforts which we fund through our fees. Think and reflect on why your thunder has been well and truly stolen – this should be an Initiative that we should control within our own walls!

29Apr 2011

Property Landlord advice: 'Local Housing Allowance cuts' interpretation still in the grey!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Many Landlords aware of the proposed cuts in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) formerly Housing Benefit understand that the cuts only apply to new tenancies commencing from the 1st of April onwards. But we have become aware of a case where the tenancy commenced on the 16th of March on a 12 month tenancy. The rent was £2300 a month on a London 5 bed house which the local LHA office had agreed to pay when the claim commenced on the 16th March.

However in early April the tenant received notification that as from the 1st April, LHA of £1500 only would be paid. Can this significant shortfall be right?

If the LHA prove to be in error and will in fact pay the agreed figure of £2300 for the 12 month duration (because the tenancy was created before the 1st of April deadline when the changes were introduced in London), this raises another question. What of existing tenancies created before the deadline which have gone periodic? My guess would be that a periodic has the same new rules applied. After all it could stay periodic forever and never be subjected to the changes which rather defeats the object of them. 

The danger here is how the new rules are interpreted, and local variations are not unknown as with Council Tax where, for example, when discounts applied on unoccupied properties some CB offices said a property had to be uninhabitable as opposed to what the rules said – uninhabited!! Similarly when the under 25’s rules on the then Housing Benefit came in many years ago they were only supposed to apply to new claimants not existing ones and not even on their annual reassessments.

In fact many HB offices (wrongly) reduced the payment down to the new room allowance for all under 25 year old existing claimants though admittedly from their next annual reassessment.

In terms of what an LHA office will allow and what they will not they are bound by the terms of the Regulations and the rules are clearly laid out in the guidance manual at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-guidance-manual.pdf  and scroll down to

8.030.  

But there are a number of possibilities in this particular case. Firstly, this could simply be a misunderstanding. The rate for that property is capped to a 4 bed rate from 1 April, but any existing tenants would enjoy 9 months transitional protection. It is possible that the letter from the LHA office is simply informing of the new benefit level, ignoring the protection that exists for any current tenant. So maybe the LHA office will honour the existing rent for one month only before applying the cut?

26Apr 2011

Property Landlord advice: Poor condition of Private Property to rent raises more causes for concern.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 As this report shows, it is still not difficult to find evidence of poor standards in the Private Rental sector. Yet again the Industry as a whole suffers from the performance of one individual as we suffer by reflection, although I note there is no mention of an agent in this case. The frustration for me as a Letting Agent is that we are available to give the kind of advice that would ensure standards could be upheld should we be asked, and of course listened too!

Property shortages do not help.

As I am only too aware, during periods when available housing to rent is at a shortage the limited choice means that many will not have the options they would appreciate when choosing a property to live in. I have just experienced something similar when looking for a Country property and only because I happened to look very early one day and by an incredible piece of luck (the person I asked for directions was part of the family who owned the property; access gained no more than thirty minutes later!) did we manage to get first ‘dibs’ on a Farmhouse close to where we work. But for those who are not so lucky, they can be forced to take the best of what is left and of course conscious decisions cannot form part of the process.

Professional links.

Just like the new Kitemark being pushed by our industry at present, professional links for both Landlords and Agents would allow people to have a considered decision to make; lack of available property removes that decision in so many cases. Not that I would ever discourage anybody from forging such links, as the person reports from the local Landlords association, poor Landlords do exist and the more we bang the drum about professionalism the better we will be heard. So whenever possible Tenants should look for some kind of link with a body who promote good standards to give them some re-assurance about the lease they are entering in to and the future maintenance of the property they wish to call home for the next few years.

Advice is needed.

As the property programmes show, good advice is not always listened too, but when it comes to basic standards, unless a Landlord has asked, or been offered advice by somebody within the profession, then there remains nothing more that can be done to say if the Landlord then goes on to look after the property in question and therefore the Tenants who will presumably be paying the Landlords Mortgage or giving them a good living, or if they take the opposite view and look at the situation purely from a financial standpoint, which is surely what causes the majority of problems for Tenants and just will not spend on basic housing standards that most of us would view as second nature. (and of course is covered by Government legislation)

Another call for registration?    

The result (indeed the National picture) is more proof of the need for some form of legislation to put a stop to the ease with which people can become Landlords without even asking one simple basic question about the Tenants rights, even though they are going to have such an influence on the standard of the Tenants life for the duration of the agreement. At present the need is becoming greater as Landlords, being no different than anybody else protecting their income at the moment, look for ways of cutting expenditure where possible. But when that decision effects the life of others, that’s when we should be able to turn  to those who legislate the Country for support, but hopefully the comment from the Housing Minister Grant Sharps, that the situation was under review in the medium turn suggests that the banging is beginning to get through!

21Apr 2011

Current Property News: TDS Figures from DPS seem impressive but do not give the whole picture

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The Deposit Protection Scheme has recently had some figures released in a recent press article and on the face of what they state, they do look impressive. Indeed, I would say that the scheme has been vindicated as one of the best available to Agents and Landlords as they approach ¾ million active deposits. I could not help but notice though a couple of what I believe to be very pertinent facts behind the figures, which in no way reflect on DPS as an organisation, but what they do show is that the Industry is still far from committing itself 100% behind the legislation.

Where have they been?

Firstly and separated from the main section if facts and figures  in the report is the somewhat surprising fact that as a Company, DPS are still registering around 200 new Landlords a day. This is allowing for working days alone, a rate of around 10,000 a year. Now my mind immediately asked where they have been until now, because even allowing for cross registration when Landlords decide to change or indeed new Landlords coming to the system for the first time, this figure shows a large percentage of Landlords were outside of the legislation, which do not forget, is now four years old.

Time for teeth?

It would be interesting to see if companies such as DPS, who of course must accept the contact and register the deposit at face value, actually take data about the history of the Tenancy. For those of us who wholeheartedly accept and encompass such legislation, do so with the hope that the legislation will deal with those who do not. Of course I am fully aware of the costs and penalties associated with not registering a deposit, but surely there has to be a time when you have to ask Landlords to prove why deposits for the property concerned were not registered prior to this date and for me four years is long enough for such situations to be questioned!

Landlords found wanting.

The second and more important fact that most Agents would have picked up on will be that two in three adjudications where sole culpability was awarded was awarded against the Landlord. Now what I would like to know and I believe should know, is how many of these cases (3518 in number using the figures quoted) were tenancies in Management and how many were through Agents. I am aware through the cases involving Castle Estates that where the correct paperwork and procedures have been presented, that the Landlord is usually successful, because if we believe that he would not succeed, we would recommend settlement and negotiate with the Tenant rather than go through adjudication in the first case.

Proof is in the figures.

The figures that I believe should be included in this release are those confirming how many unsuccessful Landlords were self managed? And indeed it would be good to see what percentage was managed by unlicensed Agents who are not connected with Industry regulators. (NALS, ARLA, RICS) This is an age old problem and such numbers would indicate how successful the recent legislation introduced by Government has been at changing the face of the Industry. So conversely we would also need to know what percentage were Managed by what I have always referred to as Professional Agents who do believe in running their businesses to the standards set by such bodies. The second half of this request is probably impossible for DPS to judge, but I believe that we would start to see justification of our shout for professional registration for all Agents and Landlords if they were made available – anybody listening?

18Apr 2011

Rental Issues: Tenant Referencing disclosure eases the way

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

One of the advantages of being part of a Company that both sells the Franchise and runs a Franchise is the close access and conversations that I hold with my Staff. For example, Suzie who has worked at our Stafford office for the last two years was telling me this week how difficult it was to get people through their referencing at present, something which in the current financial environment we could all probably understand.

The requirement is justified.

What has to be remembered here is that Landlords must have a successful reference to be able to obtain a Rent and Legal expenses policy, something which I have confirmed on many occasions, is a must in the present climate. So as agent of the Landlord, we must do what is best for our Landlords at all times, the problem can occur when the Tenant who wants to live in the Landlords house, feels that our requirements to get such a pass are either becoming expensive in the Tenants eyes (which is a problem that has been reported for years and I fully expect it to be in the news again this year) or that the requirements to achieve the pass (Self employed parents usually the problem, or Guarantors who are retired) are far too onerous for the circumstances.

Information is everything.

Of course, what every agent should do is provide the prospective Tenants with as comprehensive a pack of information explaining the process they are entering in to as clearly as possible, as well as costs associated with the process and options available as the process develops. But it is our experience that Tenants do quite often sign without reading, or pay scant regard to the content. It is only when, again in doing our job, having already assessed the situation prior to taking any costs from the Tenant, initial applications fail and we try our best to find an acceptable solution to enable the Tenants to move ahead, that the process can suddenly come under scrutiny when full attention at the commencement could have avoided this common scenario.

Openness and Honesty.

The worst case scenario for us is when the Referencing Agency come across something in the Tenants background that has been omitted from the initial information requested. Now we have a problem for all parties having advised the Landlord we have a Tenant being processed and a Tenant having to find somebody to stand in their shoes (Guarantor) to enable them to proceed. This can be the time, depending upon what has been discovered, to take the Landlords opinion, with our recommendation and bring a stop to the process. But if a decision is made to continue Tenants must understand that for both the re-application to the Referencing Agency and the additional time and effort put in by our staff additional costs will be generated and therefore paid for.

Producing effort and savings.

So at a time when Referencing Agencies are correctly taking a sterner view on Tenant applications, complications are just not needed, because Tenants must remember that the property is effectively off the market whilst we go through the process with them and other Tenants more suitable could have come and gone during the Referencing period, so our recommendations has to be to give full disclosure from day one. Honesty really is the best policy and you will either get the full effort of the Agent to guide you through the process because of this or at least be given an experienced opinion which could save you your money in the first place.

21Mar 2011

Property Landlord advice: Utility Warehouse charges unfair on Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I had a very upsetting and disturbing situation develop last week on a house of mine that is occupied by Tenants and has been since I moved out last December. The disturbing matter, was that I received what can best be described as a mixture between a debt letter and a threatening letter advising that my account with Utility Warehouse was overdue by some £430.00 and that if I did not take IMMIEDIATE ACTION or worse still IGNORED THIS LETTER charges could rise to over £800.00

First reaction.

Now I do not know about you, but if somebody sends me a debt letter, for no reason what so ever, it does not make me very happy – what transpired when I phoned Utility Warehouse, for it appears to have been their debt collecting agency as I was internally transferred without any delay, made me even angrier!

The facts in this case.

What had actually happened was that we had advised UW that we were moving gave them our forwarding address and subsequently paid the final invoice and closed our account, something that was easy to confirm, as the account number on the stated debt letter was different than the one on our old invoices for this same address. The new Tenants had also been in touch, but they (UW) did not approve of the paperwork sent to confirm the Tenancy and instead of trying anything else they moved straight to debt recovery letter.

 Debt has to be recovered – does it not?

The problem with this debt letter was that they immediately opened another account in my name (as Landlord) and sent the debt letter to us! Now, I know that this could never stand up in court, but I just wonder how many people are not aware? It is a fact that no debt for services amassed by one person can be the responsibility of others, owners or not. No, what UW did here was take the easy way out and send a letter to somebody to get a reaction. Well I have news for you UW it worked!

My advice.

 What I am guessing they did not expect, was that the Landlord in this case would then put this absurd situation in writing and advise all Landlords NOT to have UW as their provider. It is a fact that the Tenant (A Company) as somebody that I have dealt with professionally for several years had no intention of staying with UW and had advised them of this fact, not that UW then made contact back with the Tenant to try and address the issue direct with the person responsible for the bills! Oh no, instead they opened an account in my name without even speaking with me. Now, let’s just look at that again.

Contradiction the name of the game.

 So because they were unhappy with paperwork sent by the people who were generating the invoices, UW would not accept them for a new account. Not that they did not open one in their name, rather that they changed the name when they decided the information was not complete. Now it is what they did next that is, in my opinion, a contradiction of what appear to be their own rules!  So rather than contact the Tenant and sort it out, they opened the account in my name, even though I had not asked for one and they had received no paperwork which they could approve or otherwise!! So it seems that what was not acceptable for the correct person did not matter for the wrong person!

Soft target!

And this is the rub for me, just because we made it known where we live and what we were doing with the property, UW decided to send us the invoice for no other reason than because we were there and available. This is treating Landlords with disrespect in my book and I get fed up of being treated as second class citizens where the rental market is concerned. (I did ask them to investigate and call me back, but their offices only receive incoming calls! Says it all really) We all know what our responsibilities are and we all know this would not happen if the property had been sold! UW would not have sent the invoice to the original owner and yet we are just as liable (as in not liable at all) as Landlords or as past owners. Think again UW treat us all with equal respect and put more effort in too sorting out problems rather than shooting at soft targets!