Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

RAS

Why not just go for the nuclear option?

Send a Statutory Demand, which costs nothing.

It will cost up to £1000 to actually file the bankruptcy papers, assuming you have some legal help.

If the landlord owns property and there is any equity, you will get paid out at least some of the debt. So check the Land Registry and recent sale prices in the area.

tbs624

Back to our list of cases involving "rogue" LLs

This one is for those who assume that because a LL has a large number of properties and has been letting for many years s/he will have a good grip on LL & T law and will meet his/her LL obligations.

This one has been a LL for 30 years , with 35 properties in his "portfolio": good old "uncle Tony" in Nottingham......

see this report from the start of this year: http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Nottingham-landlord-fined-163-62-000/article-1689339-detail/article.html

lynzpower

I remember reading about "uncle tony" before.
The fact that he used to get people to call him "uncle" was nothing short of creepy.

neverdespairgirl

lynzpower wrote: »

I remember reading about "uncle tony" before.
The fact that he used to get people to call him "uncle" was nothing short of creepy.

Couldn't agree more.

"Uncle" in my mind is reserved for my parents' brothers, and a few very close friends of my parents, who are about their age. So I call my godfather "Uncle" too.

But a LL? Weird as anything.

Ankatden

Dh having been a LL for 10 plus years laughs at the current, as distinct from the last attempt at stigmatising LL as parasitical scum who abuse tenants rights.

In that 10 years he has had to forceably evict legally a few and then spend the money redoing the place after the tenants from hell had moved elsewhere to keep on the scams and thrash somewhere else, BTW references etc checked out without a problem.

He has not a problem in the slightest about been registered but suggests that with everything that when it becomes too one sided in favour of the tenant the market reacts in its own way either by increasing rents to cater for this or removal of available property.

DH's viewpoint on scum LLs is not repeatable in polite company as they do nobody any favours but finds the courts view scum tenants in a different light and councils think of them as hard done by until they need to evict them as well.

There are those who suggest its a business so LL should accept the risk BUT people need to remember that where there is risk there needs to be reward. When you restrict the ability of the person taking ALL the risk to obtain fair reward then as said previously the market reacts.

lynzpower

Ankatden wrote: »

Dh having been a LL for 10 plus years laughs at the current, as distinct from the last attempt at stigmatising LL as parasitical scum who abuse tenants rights.

In that 10 years he has had to forceably evict legally a few and then spend the money redoing the place after the tenants from hell had moved elsewhere to keep on the scams and thrash somewhere else, BTW references etc checked out without a problem.

He has not a problem in the slightest about been registered but suggests that with everything that when it becomes too one sided in favour of the tenant the market reacts in its own way either by increasing rents to cater for this or removal of available property.

DH's viewpoint on scum LLs is not repeatable in polite company as they do nobody any favours but finds the courts view scum tenants in a different light and councils think of them as hard done by until they need to evict them as well.

There are those who suggest its a business so LL should accept the risk BUT people need to remember that where there is risk there needs to be reward. When you restrict the ability of the person taking ALL the risk to obtain fair reward then as said previously the market reacts.

Am I reading you right here?

Your "d" husband "evicts by force, and then has the nerve to call other people scum?

Or have you just written that in a confusing fashion?

Surely the reward for the risk is "the rent"

lynzpower

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

"Uncle" in my mind is reserved for my parents' brothers, and a few very close friends of my parents, who are about their age. So I call my godfather "Uncle" too.

But a LL? Weird as anything.

the other sort of uncles are the word i cant write on here ( peadofile)

very creepy

tbs624

Ankatden wrote: »

Dh having been a LL for 10 plus years laughs at the current, as distinct from the last attempt at stigmatising LL as parasitical scum who abuse tenants rights.

If your DH "laughs at the current" campaign then perhaps he is himself on the borderline of being a rogue LL? You and your DH perhaps need to be a little less sensitive- the campaign is not about "stigmatising LLs" , it's about recognising the ongoing problems created by those LLs who fail to meet their obligations under the law and obtaining enforcement action against their failings.

Read the first paragraph of Shelter's campaign page

"While the majority of landlords are honest and responsible, unfortunately a small minority treat their tenants in a deliberately exploitative way, making their lives a misery."

See also Artful's comment in the OPAs

we hopefully see from posts here & other experiences, most landlords are responsible, decent, guys 'n gals trying to run an honest business...I hope we'd all want the crooks booted out...

No-one is seeking to stigmatise LLs across the board.

Ankatden wrote: »

In that 10 years he has had to forceably evict legally a few and then spend the money redoing the place after the tenants from hell had moved elsewhere to keep on the scams and thrash somewhere else, BTW references etc checked out without a problem.......

DH's viewpoint on scum LLs is not repeatable in polite company as they do nobody any favours but finds the courts view scum tenants in a different light and councils think of them as hard done by until they need to evict them as well.

There are those who suggest its a business so LL should accept the risk BUT people need to remember that where there is risk there needs to be reward. When you restrict the ability of the person taking ALL the risk to obtain fair reward then as said previously the market reacts.

Your phrase "those who suggest its a business" is interesting - how else would you define letting out property in exchange for money? A hobby? A charitable act? If property letting isn't working out for you and DH then perhaps you should consider selling up and running a florists shop or a tea room instead.

The thread is about rogue LLs and includes supportive posts by those who themselves are LLs .

LLs who want to whinge about LL problems ( or DHs LL problems) have the NLA/RLA/LLzone Forums in which to do so.

MSE is a consumer website and Ts are the consumers in the LL and T relationship.

lynzpower

Your phrase "those who suggest its a business" is interesting - how else would you define letting out property in exchange for money? A hobby? A charitable act? If property letting isn't working out for you and DH then perhaps you should consider selling up and running a florists shop or a tea room instead.

Exactly. Well put.

It is a business. Simplicity itself. It might be a business running a loss, its a business non the less.

Only the profoundly uneducated would suggest otherwise.

Ankatden

lynzpower wrote: »

Am I reading you right here?

Your "d" husband "evicts by force, and then has the nerve to call other people scum?

Or have you just written that in a confusing fashion?

Surely the reward for the risk is "the rent"

Forceable evict is correct as in bailiffs acting under court order.

Do you feel that when people have refused all court action with the exception of appealing only to lengthen the process and then proceed to smear exrement across walls, smash bathroom and kitchen up and force bailiffs with police standing by to remove them require nice things to be said about them.

Police sadly wouldn't go down criminal damage route as who to charge as there was a family involved.

A threat was made to burn property but unmarried daughter of local hardman was next tenant, she was a great one and after first brick thrown there was never any more problems.