Campaign for swifter tenant eviction and landlord access reaches Downing St

lemonjelly

Cleaver wrote: »

Just stop and think for a second - how would this work in the real world?

Not that I either agree or disagree with the original post. However if the legislation is correctly framed, a Compulsory Purchase order could be used.

Depending on the legislation of course.

sjaypink

Be warned, changes are afoot

What, because 5000 landlords signed a petition?! :rotfl:

There may well be changes to tenants causing anti-social behaviour in the future, but this is not a priority by any means.

As for arrears, access, security of tenure, etc etc, IMHO if there are changes they will not be in favour of the landland. As it is, current civil court guidance is that Judiciary take a more leniant view in light of the economic climate.

For every 5000 LLs & 1 VI MP you can get to sign a petition like this, a pro-tenant movement with the backing of the likes of Shelter will easily get 50,000 (& at least 5 VI - lib dem / labour - MPs )

Loughton_Monkey

PasturesNew wrote: »

You were completely wrong to do that. That is illegal. You did not follow the law. The laws exist, you must follow the laws of the land. You are not God.

It's part of "the business". You can't just make it up and do what you like.

What if .... the reportee had been a mischief-maker and the tenants hadn't vacated at all? What if they'd just gone on holiday?

What you did was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just saying it like this so there's no mistake in the message I am putting in this post.

I am fully aware that what I did was not exactly according to the current stupid laws. But the information was impeccable. My next door neighbour had been giving me a running commentary - including possible illegal activities at the house anyway. He watched the moonlight flit personally, then looked through all the windows.

I was fully aware that I was liable for counter-action, but his guy was obviously not going to come back. There were enough bailiffs coming round, apparently to discuss a 6 figure loan on his Ferrari, for which nothing had been paid. Most people would have done what I did.

System

Cleaver wrote: »

Just stop and think for a second - how would this work in the real world?

I've highlighted your foolish error

ceridwen

angrypirate wrote: »

The whole system needs revamping.

Bad tenants who get ASBOs, fail to pay rent etc etc should be easily evicted.

However good tenants who pay rent on time and maintain the property etc etc should have even more secure rights and should be harder to evict.

Sounds about correct - i would just add the bits to that of "bad tenants able to be evicted within a month from it being clear that they were not paying the rent and/or damaging the property, etc" and the "even more secure rights" for the good tenants being subject to whether it was the landlords own home and they might need to move back into it themselves at some point (in which case the law would need to state that tenants should be told at the outset that it IS the landlords own home and not bought specifically as a "rental house" - ie thats why existing rules would continue to apply).

ceridwen

abaxas wrote: »

Like all properties, the state (the queen) owns it and you are allowed to rent via paying tax.

Compulsory purchase mearly means returning to original owner.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Now that will get me wondering for the day how on earth some people think the way they do:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

.....visions of "Her Maj" turning up on MY doorstep and trying to say it was hers and pretending she couldnt read the word "freehold" thats there on my deeds :cool::rotfl::rotfl:

ceridwen

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I am fully aware that what I did was not exactly according to the current stupid laws. But the information was impeccable. My next door neighbour had been giving me a running commentary - including possible illegal activities at the house anyway. He watched the moonlight flit personally, then looked through all the windows.

I was fully aware that I was liable for counter-action, but his guy was obviously not going to come back. There were enough bailiffs coming round, apparently to discuss a 6 figure loan on his Ferrari, for which nothing had been paid. Most people would have done what I did.

<puts hand up thinking "Thats EXACTLY what I would have done">

The evidence that they had left was quite clear:
- non-payment of rent
- removal of furniture

Short of them putting a huge notice in the front window saying "We've left"...signed "The Tenant" then how much clearer could they have made it that they had gone?

abaxas

ceridwen wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Now that will get me wondering for the day how on earth some people think the way they do:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

.....visions of "Her Maj" turning up on MY doorstep and trying to say it was hers and pretending she couldnt read the word "freehold" thats there on my deeds :cool::rotfl::rotfl:

You need to read up on how it works.

Basically no-one own property they own the 'estate'. Ie the right to live there providing they pay the correct tax.

Ie everyone rents from the state and that right can be revoked at anytime (technically).

angrypirate

ceridwen wrote: »

Sounds about correct - i would just add the bits to that of "bad tenants able to be evicted within a month from it being clear that they were not paying the rent and/or damaging the property, etc" and the "even more secure rights" for the good tenants being subject to whether it was the landlords own home and they might need to move back into it themselves at some point (in which case the law would need to state that tenants should be told at the outset that it IS the landlords own home and not bought specifically as a "rental house" - ie thats why existing rules would continue to apply).

Thats absolutely ridiculous. It shouldnt matter whether or not its the LLs only house. Whilst he rents it out, its only his building and its the tenants home. If its rented out, then its a rental house.

Generali

ceridwen wrote: »

.....visions of "Her Maj" turning up on MY doorstep and trying to say it was hers and pretending she couldnt read the word "freehold" thats there on my deeds

You have a freehold, not ownership. The Crown owns all of the land in the UK, Canada, NZ, Australia and British Antarctica. You are granted a freehold which can be revoked.

IIRC, only France and the USA permit individuals to own land.