Campaign is launched to help evicted tenants

Former_MSE_Guy

This thread is to discuss the following news story:

Campaign is launched to help evicted tenants

m_13

I think this should be called 'Campaign is launched to help tenants evicted due to landlord's repossession'.

It's not all tenants, just a specific group.

Gingernutmeg

I think the proposals are a good idea, but I'd rather see more practical help. If I had to move out because my LL got repossessed, then even assuming I got a few extra weeks I'd still have to find a good few thousand pounds to move, to cover deposits, fees, rent in advance, somewhere to stay in the interim and somewhere to store my belongings, the phone calls I'm going to have to make, the time off work I'll have to take to find a new 'home' etc etc ...

Fair enough letting me stay in the repossessed property for a few more weeks, but I'm still going to have to move when I hadn't planned to and I'm still going to be substatially out of pocket due to my LL's mismanagement. I'm really in favour of LL's having to give deposits too, and that money automatically going to the tenant in cases of repossession so that the tenant ends up being less inconvenienced financially (just to add, I have no idea how/whether this would work in law, but it seems a reasonable idea to me).

silvercar

Interesting article.

"Tenants who moved in after the mortgage was taken out generally have no rights to stay in the property once repossessed."

I was led to believe that if the landlord had the correct BTL mortgage the tenant did have rights.

silvercar

Gingernutmeg wrote: »

I think the proposals are a good idea, but I'd rather see more practical help. If I had to move out because my LL got repossessed, then even assuming I got a few extra weeks I'd still have to find a good few thousand pounds to move, to cover deposits, fees, rent in advance, somewhere to stay in the interim and somewhere to store my belongings, the phone calls I'm going to have to make, the time off work I'll have to take to find a new 'home' etc etc ...

Fair enough letting me stay in the repossessed property for a few more weeks, but I'm still going to have to move when I hadn't planned to and I'm still going to be substatially out of pocket due to my LL's mismanagement. I'm really in favour of LL's having to give deposits too, and that money automatically going to the tenant in cases of repossession so that the tenant ends up being less inconvenienced financially (just to add, I have no idea how/whether this would work in law, but it seems a reasonable idea to me).

I hear what you are saying, but presumeably you rarely have more than a 12 month tenancy so you never have more than a years right not to have to move.

Gingernutmeg

silvercar wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, but presumeably you rarely have more than a 12 month tenancy so you never have more than a years right not to have to move.

True, but I can plan and save for that - and also, most LL's I've dealt with do 'sell' their properties as 'long-term' rentals, whether that's true or not :rolleyes:

But what I mean is, if I get evicted three/four/five months into a twelve month tenancy, then I'm having to move nine/eight/seven months before I'd planned to, so chances are I've not had the chance to save enough for the move. Like I said, whether it's seven weeks notice or two, I've still got a find a lump of cash 'suddenly' and I think that a tenant should be covered in cases like this - they're already inconvenienced by having to move, why should they end up substantially out of pocket too, when in most cases they've stuck to their side of the contract? Sure, I can sue a LL for not adhering to the contract, but who's going to be able to get cash off someone who's just had a property repossessed? Better, I think, for the LL to have to pay a deposit just as tenants do, and for it to be payable to the tenant in full should the LL be repossessed.

As a tenant, I'd fully expect to have to pay *something* if, for whatever reason, I wasn't able to fill my side of the contract (ie if I needed/wanted to end a tenancy early etc) and the law would be on my LL's side in this, so why shouldn't a LL have to pay something if they can't fulfil their side of the contract? Tbh, whilst I understand that things can happen that mean that repossession happens faily quickly, it seems almost criminal to me that a LL could be able to rent out a property if they were in 'difficulties' (and yes I understand that preventing LL's in difficulty from letting their properties could make the LL's problems worse, but this is housing, homes and people we're talking about ...) Aren't there laws about entering into contracts when you know that there's a good chance you can't fulfil them?

silvercar

AIUI in Australia there is no distinction between owner occupier and buy to let mortgages. If the bank decides that you are "worthy" of a mortgage, the property is yours to do with what you want. This means that lenders operate knowing that any property could be occupied by a tenant unaware of the landlords difficulty and have to operate accordingly.

I think tenants should be entitled to a minimum notice period of say 6-8 weeks, except where it can be shown that they are behind with the rent ie they are part of the problem that caused the repossession.