Tent thread

dopester

The tennant lost her money and had no control over that (assume). And had no choice but to worry about her own circumstance ie. maintain HER lifestyle for herself and her daughter. Unfortunately for Suzy this directly impacts on her lifestyle.

We don't know for certain if the tenant (Carmen Nobre) was in arrears with her rent. We only have Suzy Butler's say-so for that.

Suzy Butler's say-so, which already has holes in it. For example, about wanting property back on her UK return in the Summer (months ago), is suspect, if you consider the extended tenancy paperwork we've seen, arranged in May, to run into this month (August 2010).

Anyway.. don't worry. Suzy's thought it all through, examining the position from all sides. Her instinctive-wisdom of all the positions involved, a quick glance at the law which has gradually formed over decades, is going to surely convince the courts and policy makers to adopt the drastic changes she requires.

Changes which would have significant impact in the market. I hope these "primary home lets" will be required to discount the rental rate (limit of 25% of normal free-market rate lets say). Suzy was pretty happy to charge Carmen Nobre a full free-market rate in line with professional landlords for her home, but reluctant to allow Ms Nobre the full legal procedure in certain changes of circumstance. Including Suzy's first notice.

Suzy Butler's primary-home market-rent rate should be discounted significantly if a tenant knowingly is going to put themselves in position of tenant to a landlord where protection and their rights are seriously diluted. Where you can be served a scrap of paper saying "get out in 5 days", easily evicted, subjected to national media campaigns and labelled a squatter, ect.

Hi Everyone
The facebook page is not managed by myself alone, but by a group of like minded, tax paying, hard working individuals who are all shocked by the lack of protection and fairness a private home owner faces when renting their primary home. All we want to do is raise awarenss of the issues, help others not experience the trauma I went through and help create a fairer system whereby tenants and landlords rights are equal. It is not logical or fair to have your primary home taken over by somebody who refuses to pay the rent, for whatever reasons. Surely, if you take on a house signing a contract to pay £1,200 a month for a place, it is your responsability to ensure you can afford this and not live beyond your means, gamble your money away and then simply refuse to do the "right" thing, which is to move out and find a way to pay back the money owed? At present the system is open to abuse and simply doesn't make sense. Why is is right for somebody to live for free in somebody elses home, break the agreed contract terms and conditions and be able to stay there, while the other person pays for them to do so? I run a childrens charity and earn just £14,000 a year. I needed to rent my home out for a while so i could save money and afford to keep my home on. What Ms Nobre did was selfish and morally wrong. I do not have much money and this is not a business, but a private let to help me create a better life for my son. I am open to discussion but people have created a battle zone and have become abusive, threatening and are ignoring the facts. I am not a rich landlady. I earn less than those on benefits! Many people are suffering under the current law, and all we want to do is encourage a change whereby the period of time between a tenant stopping to pay the rent and an eviction order is gained, is shortened. As had the media not supported me, I would still be homeless and would have been over £10,000 out of pocket by the time I eventually got this to court. 2 months in arears is fair, but the process after that needs to be shortened. That's all we;re trying to. I have worked very hard, as a single parent, to raise my son, provide a home and life for him and this woman and the law have disrupted and upset my life hugely. It is morally wrong. Believe me, I have thought about it from all sides and simply want landlords letting primary homes to have more protection. The law needs balancing out again so that both sides are heard and treated fairly.

Suzy

Suzy Carlita Butler
I think it's so sad that so many people are making this page into a battle ground. It was opened to encourage support and try and make the laws surrounding these delicate issues more equal for both tenants and landlords. Let's all please no...t make our debates purely personal...this is not about me and my individual situation, or anyone elses on here, it is about trying to create fairness, protecting the innocent and ensuring people cannot abuse the system as at present, it is open to abuse and the consequences on innocent people can be very upsetting and damaging. It's important we remain open to both sides and encourage positive change. It is not about the landlord ruling, but it also shouldn't be about the tenant ruling. There are good and bad of both.I understand what you are saying, but the law has tipped the balance and it needs leveling out again.

princeofpounds

Wonderful summaries!

sequence

Suzy should be a politician. She has an amazing ability to ignore everyone else's viewpoint, and to twist anyone's words to suit her needs, as well as being ignorant about the things she's campaigning for.

Future career for you their Suzy!

Wee_Willy_Harris

john539 wrote: »

Has this stock-market/gambling line only come from Suzy, I assume Tenant didn't say anything in public ?

EVERYTHING has come from Suzy. The only time Carmen has even attempted to put her side of the story, it was voiced over by the reporter who asked her for it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Update:

An end to squatters rights what about homeowners rights? Hi Steph we posted an update from suzy on here yesterday see below, we will be posting some documents on here later today which we hope will answer most of the questions raised

Oh, I do hope so.

tbs624

There is a link to Nearly Legal's Naughty Step article on the Guild of Residential LLs website

dopester

And of course if primary-home lets were legally required to be at a discount to market - it would probably impact and drag on free-market rents for landlords who follow the full housing laws, and cause all sorts of complication.

Vulnerable working people with not much money might be willing to subject themselves to weaker legal protection laws in exchange for housing as a tenant with full use of the property (not lodger).

Much better for anyone, whether BTL magnate, BTL want-to-be, or primary-home letter, to follow the same law.

To either get professional assistance (pay for it) to help smooth the process, or do lots and lots of deep research - before deciding to get into the lettings business.

Certainly you can't have what Suzy Butler seems to want; full market rent coming in (a stonking £1200 per month). A legal concession that primary home landlords shouldn't have to pay for professional advice or do deep research to better ensure the rental goes to a good paying tenant with a good track record. And powers to get rid of tenant on the fly if they do something the landlord dislikes (eg: Not let the landlord come around on demand, open tenant's door, and collect belongings like Granddad's photograph album landlord has stored in tenant's home, late with rent payment ect).

dopester

tbs624 wrote: »

There is a link to Nearly Legal's Naughty Step article on the Guild of Residential LLs website

Got a link?

I can't see it here. http://www.all4landlords.com

tbs624

dopester wrote: »

Certainly you can't have what Suzy Butler seems to want; full market rent coming in (a stonking £1200 per month).

I agree with your post & am not doubting that she let the property out for around the market rate. That 1200 fig did, however include some bills, according to to the paperwork that was left on show IIRC.

tbs624

dopester wrote: »

Got a link?

I can't see it here. http://www.all4landlords.com

Showing on the twitter feed to the right of the page - direct link http://twitter.com/adrian_thompson