advice on evicting tenant who is not paying rent

spugzbunny

evoke wrote: »

I have to ask a simple question: why are people on here on the side of the non-paying tenant?

If someone was effectively not paying your for goods or services that you have delivered then how would you feel?

There is no defence and property owners should be allowed to use reasonable force to reclaim their property - and unreasonable force to eject squatters. All in my humble opinion, of course.

The law is obviously an a$$ as it protects wrong-doers more than it protects the victims (the landlord in this case).

Why do tenants who break the terms of the their tenancy agreement have more rights than the landlord and can drag things our for months at the expense of the lamdlord whose property it is?

Because if you weren't paying your morgage would you expect the bank to come round and take your home away as soon as you missed a payment? No? You'd expect them to follow procedures and give you a notice period before repossessing.

A non-paying tenant is not right but Landlords SHOULD know the law before they take tenants in. As someone said - if they don't like it, they can find a different way to make a living.

evoke

Banks will repossess your house if you don't pay the mortgage. But they have considerable flexibility in terms of cash flow. In this example it's one landlord who depends on the rent being paid. His livelihood is at stake.

I'm no fan of landlords, but I despise tenants who hide being stupid laws to avoid fulfilling their part of the contract even more. They are no better than squatters.

CloudCuckooLand

Its not about being on the side of either party.

Its about adhering to the rules and legislation in place, today.

If Landlords wish to lobby their MP for stronger action against non-paying tenants, fine.

I'm sure there are plenty of tenants who long for 100% perfection from Landlords, and are disappointed daily on issues like;

- standard of accomodation
- repairs
- deposit protection
- right to quiet enjoyment
- deposit return
etc,etc

But they also have to go through procedures to correct those issues - often waiting months and years with health issues and financial hardship.

iB1

evoke wrote: »

Banks will repossess your house if you don't pay the mortgage. But they have considerable flexibility in terms of cash flow. In this example it's one landlord who depends on the rent being paid. His livelihood is at stake.

I'm no fan of landlords, but I despise tenants who hide being stupid laws to avoid fulfilling their part of the contract even more. They are no better than squatters.

I think this is part of the problem with renting in this country. Too many landlords DON'T treat being a landlord as a business, but see it as letting out their house.

If your livelihood is at stake after a couple of missed payments, then being a landlord is probably not a good career choice.

Gothicfairy

I wonder if there is a reason why the tenant has not paid, does the property need repairs or is there some other issue ?

mlz1413

CloudCuckooLand wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic ?

No you are not.
I nearly choked on my salad as I read that!

danothy

evoke wrote: »

I have to ask a simple question: why are people on here on the side of the non-paying tenant?

If someone was effectively not paying your for goods or services that you have delivered then how would you feel?

There is no defence and property owners should be allowed to use reasonable force to reclaim their property - and unreasonable force to eject squatters. All in my humble opinion, of course.

The law is obviously an a$$ as it protects wrong-doers more than it protects the victims (the landlord in this case).

Why do tenants who break the terms of the their tenancy agreement have more rights than the landlord and can drag things our for months at the expense of the lamdlord whose property it is?

I feel there is a difference between ordinary goods and services not being paid for and a tenancy agreement not being paid for in terms of how measured the response should be. These laws are intended to enforce a measured response in an eviction situation.

If a landlord was to take action in some of the ways described in this thread then the people on the receiving end could potentially come to harm (if force was used) or be intentionally made to be scared of that harm (which I feel is just as bad) and (if the action is successful) end up with no-where to live. This has far more impact on that person than restriction or removal of other sort of goods and services, so I don't think a direct comparison can be drawn.

I would say that the laws protecting tenants from this kind of action have been put in place to account for the critical nature (I would think most people feel having a home is critical) of this particular business arrangement to those who rely on it. As has been said before, if a landlord cannot accommodate the law in this respect (e.g. through financial difficulties) then they are not well positioned to be a landlord.

Having said that, I do feel it is a landlord's right to seek prompt termination of the tenancy and subsequent possession should the tenant become a deadbeat. They just need to go through the proper channels as they are dramatically affecting someone's life by doing so.

I'm not on either side in this case, as the tenant appears not to be paying (which they should be) and the landlord appears to be a thug who thinks he can disregard other peoples primary needs and the legal rights that are borne out of them.

ScaredTennant

I haven't paid any rent because I need to save for a deposit when I move out that bell end's house, I have had nothing but trouble from him as a landlord, repairs not carried out, threats and hissy fits about the least thing, it's an ilegal let anyway as his mortgage mail and stuff comes in here as he can't tell them he is letting. His kids starving that's a laugh they look like Dudley Dursley in the Harry potter films.

sonastin

If you can't afford to feed your kids because you have to pay rent yourself, stop paying your rent and feed your kids. It will take months before you LL can legally evict you and you've got a 2 month head start if your T has already stopped paying.

Oh, wait - is his "representative" bigger than your "representative"? Maybe you'll be wanting the law to protect you if that's the case?

googler

evoke wrote: »

Banks will repossess your house if you don't pay the mortgage. But they have considerable flexibility in terms of cash flow. In this example it's one landlord who depends on the rent being paid. His livelihood is at stake.

Perhaps the OP should have considered a business which isn't so reliant on regular cash-flow, then?