We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
advice on evicting tenant who is not paying rent
Comments
-
This is crap. LL's have every right to use the eviction processes available to them. There is nothing unreasonable with serving notices and evicting Ts.
LL's are not part of social services and owes Ts nothing beyond the tenancy and the T's legal rights. If T's don't pay their rent, it is perfectly reasonable for a LL to evict at the earliest (legal) opportunity. There is no obligation for a LL to consider payment plans or payment holidays. A court will not consider this unreasonable.
I think branding my statement crap is a bit harsh, it was at best a misstatement and at worst a misinterpretation on my part of what is considered reasonable.
I fully agree that there's no obligation to accept anything other than complete payment (as opposed to a payment plant etc.) and I was referring primarily to the kind of forceful eviction being suggested earlier in this thread as unreasonable, I could have been more clear about this. Certainly I agree that a proper eviction process is in no way unreasonable, I'm sorry for appearing to imply that it was.
However I do think that hasty eviction is a bit of a draconian measure, especially if it's in any way motivated as a malicious or retaliatory move against a tenant that has annoyed a landlord in some way. I have a good friend who is a legal aid housing solicitor who has used this argument and apparently been successful.
Additionally, what I mean by affording them every opportunity is really keeping them informed of your intentions and actions and informing them of what is required of them to halt your proceedings. Maybe 'last resort' was a poor choice of phrase, perhaps what I meant was eviction shouldn't be the first thought over actually contacting the tenant and asking for a resolution.
I picked the phrase 'last resort' because it's used in the media a lot regarding repossession of homes by banks, which incidentally are not providing social services either, but do have a social responsibility, and perhaps it could be argued that landlords do too in that respect.
Either way, you are right, exercising your legal rights is not unreasonable and on reflection I have overstated the requirement. I suppose I was trying to communicate that if you have the attitude that you will afford them every opportunity to rectify the situation and act in that fashion then you are extremely unlikely to be thought of as unreasonable.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
What's with this "Social Services" thingy?? Does doggie expect the courts to provide some "social services" support to get him out of a problem that any 1/2-brained Landlord would have seen coming?>?? And planned for, and ensured he didn't have to rely on tenant paying every month... blimey,it ain't hard to predict that from time2time a tenant may (for a whole host of reasons..) fail to pay rent for a month, or two, or seven.. Why should the tax-payer help the Landlord sort out his own mess, apparently - in this case - largely self-created??
Stone me, should there be a mandatory course for Landlords entitled "I know this will come as a surprise to most of you but occasionally a business suffers a loss: In your case tenant failing to pay rent"???
Are we the tax-payer expected to wipe LL's b*m and sort out the rest of their lives at our expense??
Cheers!
Artful (Landlord since 2000...recovered so far £6k+ from tenants who failed to pay rent from time2time...)0 -
I think branding my statement crap is a bit harsh, it was at best a misstatement and at worst a misinterpretation on my part of what is considered reasonable.
OK - I apologise for the one word! (I had rather expect MSE to censor it in all honesty).
If the formal eviction process is followed then it would be hard to describe the eviction as "hasty" and while your friend may have a good point about retaliatory S21 evictions I don't see how it is applicable to clear cases were the T is in breach of their obligations.I fully agree that there's no obligation to accept anything other than complete payment (as opposed to a payment plant etc.) and I was referring primarily to the kind of forceful eviction being suggested earlier in this thread as unreasonable, I could have been more clear about this. Certainly I agree that a proper eviction process is in no way unreasonable, I'm sorry for appearing to imply that it was.
However I do think that hasty eviction is a bit of a draconian measure, especially if it's in any way motivated as a malicious or retaliatory move against a tenant that has annoyed a landlord in some way. I have a good friend who is a legal aid housing solicitor who has used this argument and apparently been successful.
The law would agree with you - that is why it requires the LL to service notice on the T (and is also why I suggested to the OP that they advise the T that they should seek legal advice as they under threat of eviction).Additionally, what I mean by affording them every opportunity is really keeping them informed of your intentions and actions and informing them of what is required of them to halt your proceedings. Maybe 'last resort' was a poor choice of phrase, perhaps what I meant was eviction shouldn't be the first thought over actually contacting the tenant and asking for a resolution.
Could you outline why banks have a social responsibility. It is not obvious that they have one (in fact I'm sure they don't beyond anything useful for marketing purposes) - in fact I understand that the banks main legal responsibility is to their shareholders (with a secondary responsibility to the regulators). What is the basis for them to have a social responsibility?I picked the phrase 'last resort' because it's used in the media a lot regarding repossession of homes by banks, which incidentally are not providing social services either, but do have a social responsibility, and perhaps it could be argued that landlords do too in that respect.Either way, you are right, exercising your legal rights is not unreasonable and on reflection I have overstated the requirement. I suppose I was trying to communicate that if you have the attitude that you will afford them every opportunity to rectify the situation and act in that fashion then you are extremely unlikely to be thought of as unreasonable.
The problem is that it is unreasonable for Ts to not pay their rent so the LL is not being unreasonable in response but entirely reasonable.0 -
If the formal eviction process is followed then it would be hard to describe the eviction as "hasty" and while your friend may have a good point about retaliatory S21 evictions I don't see how it is applicable to clear cases were the T is in breach of their obligations.
I again agree with you, but it's not uncommon to serve multiple grounds at once (as you suggested as a backup) so it's worth keeping your overall behaviour in mind.
Also, if your previous conduct from an eviction attempt can be taken into account in the process of a second attempt then it's even more important. I do admit that I am speculating over whether that can happen though. I would instinctively think it could to some degree as otherwise there would be little or no basis for demonstrating vexatiousness. Maybe you can set me straight on this point, as it's something I do have a genuine interest in but no formal education in.Could you outline why banks have a social responsibility. It is not obvious that they have one (in fact I'm sure they don't beyond anything useful for marketing purposes) - in fact I understand that the banks main legal responsibility is to their shareholders (with a secondary responsibility to the regulators). What is the basis for them to have a social responsibility?
Maybe I am again misinformed, but all the business modules I took as an undergrad taught that every business has an implicit obligation to the welfare of society in general. This was also instilled into us in terms of the specific responsibilities engineers have towards society. However I again agree with what you seem to be implying: that a person's or body's obligations may only rarely seem to align with their actions.
I feel the implicit social responsibility of the banks is evidenced by the government calls to consider repossession as a last resort. Whether they listen to the calls or whether or not they are even enforceable is another matter entirely. I do not know if there is a legal framework or a test case to date regarding social responsibility.The problem is that it is unreasonable for Ts to not pay their rent so the LL is not being unreasonable in response but entirely reasonable.
I don't disagree that it's unreasonable for a tenant to not pay their rent, and that eviction is a reasonable process. What I am suggesting is unreasonable (and now were straying into my opinion again) is basing a decision to evict on assumptions that a tenant is a deadbeat for not paying.
To satisfy me of a reasonable approach all you have to do (in addition to any legal requirements) is talk to the tenant, ask them about their situation and why they haven't paid and subsequently make a business decision about whether the liability of their continued occupation outweighs the potential gain. If you've removed the human element from the decision (like you said, now bbd isn't angry you are prepared to help) and show that you've at least given them an opportunity to address your business concerns and you have acted reasonably in my opinion.
Please understand that I'm not on either side here as such. I've seen too many people loose out because they have tenants who don't pay or trash their property and too many people suffer terrible living conditions and fear under terrible landlords. I am also certain you can provide better legal advice than me, and I completely defer to you in that respect, however I do think that I'm not giving bad advice as such because I am suggesting the kind of behaviour that the whole system should run under (in an ideal world) be followed.
Earlier I did appear to contradict your advice by suggesting that more action than necessary was required in a legal sense, however I did and do again now apologise for that. I was trying to reinforce what you were saying about appearing to have acted reasonably. I believe the sentiment of what I said stands true, and the standard of what I said (about affording someone every opportunity) is a good benchmark to achieve that, but with the caveat to look after your own interests and stop short of concessions that would be detrimental to you (like payment holidays and plans etc. that you are not obliged to offer), which I failed to qualify my initial statement with.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
I again agree with you, but it's not uncommon to serve multiple grounds at once (as you suggested as a backup) so it's worth keeping your overall behaviour in mind.
Also, if your previous conduct from an eviction attempt can be taken into account in the process of a second attempt then it's even more important. I do admit that I am speculating over whether that can happen though. I would instinctively think it could to some degree as otherwise there would be little or no basis for demonstrating vexatiousness. Maybe you can set me straight on this point, as it's something I do have a genuine interest in but no formal education in.
An interesting point. In theory each application for a possession order stands on its own merits. However, with the discretionary grounds G10 and G11 (some rent unpaid and a history or late payment) then clearly the past actions of the T have an impact. It is quite normal for G10 and G11 to work only in serve cases where the LL has taken action on multiple occasions in the past. In all honesty though, these Ts get evicted by the S21 (no fault) route before the courts actually evict over G10 and G11 (this is probably a reasonable approach).
For an engineer that obligation comes from chartered status no?Maybe I am again misinformed, but all the business modules I took as an undergrad taught that every business has an implicit obligation to the welfare of society in general. This was also instilled into us in terms of the specific responsibilities engineers have towards society. However I again agree with what you seem to be implying: that a person's or body's obligations may only rarely seem to align with their actions.
One of the differences between banks and many LL's is the scale of resources. Now I am a LL, and a middle sized one at that, but if I have Ts in properties not paying rent then I sustain a loss. If I have too many Ts not paying at any one time then I might not make any money. This would mean that my family would be homeless, hungry etc etc. While many people on this forum would probably say good - you can see that it is a concern of mine!I feel the implicit social responsibility of the banks is evidenced by the government calls to consider repossession as a last resort. Whether they listen to the calls or whether or not they are even enforceable is another matter entirely. I do not know if there is a legal framework or a test case to date regarding social responsibility.
I don't disagree - my opinion is that all Ts that fail to pay their rent line themselves up for eviction whether they are genuine hardship cases or deadbeats (ie I don't make this distinction). In my experience if you take a soft approach then Ts take the !!!!. Only the hard approach works. If a T fails to pay rent without contacting the LL first then, in my opinion, they have destroyed the trust necessary for the relationship to work and I will evict (by S21 at the next available point if necessary). If a T approaches me first and has a reasonable plan for why the rent arrears are temporary then I will grant them the time of the eviction process to get their affairs in order. You would be surprised how many Ts prioritise the car payments and sky subscription above paying the rent.I don't disagree that it's unreasonable for a tenant to not pay their rent, and that eviction is a reasonable process. What I am suggesting is unreasonable (and now were straying into my opinion again) is basing a decision to evict on assumptions that a tenant is a deadbeat for not paying.
To satisfy me of a reasonable approach all you have to do (in addition to any legal requirements) is talk to the tenant, ask them about their situation and why they haven't paid and subsequently make a business decision about whether the liability of their continued occupation outweighs the potential gain. If you've removed the human element from the decision (like you said, now bbd isn't angry you are prepared to help) and show that you've at least given them an opportunity to address your business concerns and you have acted reasonably in my opinion.Please understand that I'm not on either side here as such. I've seen too many people loose out because they have tenants who don't pay or trash their property and too many people suffer terrible living conditions and fear under terrible landlords. I am also certain you can provide better legal advice than me, and I completely defer to you in that respect, however I do think that I'm not giving bad advice as such because I am suggesting the kind of behaviour that the whole system should run under (in an ideal world) be followed.
Earlier I did appear to contradict your advice by suggesting that more action than necessary was required in a legal sense, however I did and do again now apologise for that. I was trying to reinforce what you were saying about appearing to have acted reasonably. I believe the sentiment of what I said stands true, and the standard of what I said (about affording someone every opportunity) is a good benchmark to achieve that, but with the caveat to look after your own interests and stop short of concessions that would be detrimental to you (like payment holidays and plans etc. that you are not obliged to offer), which I failed to qualify my initial statement with.
Don't keep apologising - we can all have our views. In fact, I don't think we are that far apart. And I'm sorry for overreacting.0 -
For an engineer that obligation comes from chartered status no?
To the best of my knowledge even entry level graduate membership binds you to the full charter of conduct of (for example) the ICE. While it would be rare for engineers to operate outside of institution membership I would expect that the same standard would be applied to them regardless should social responsibility be tested legally against one in such a position as it provides a benchmark somewhat.One of the differences between banks and many LL's is the scale of resources. Now I am a LL, and a middle sized one at that, but if I have Ts in properties not paying rent then I sustain a loss. If I have too many Ts not paying at any one time then I might not make any money. This would mean that my family would be homeless, hungry etc etc. While many people on this forum would probably say good - you can see that it is a concern of mine!
Absolutely, and I don't think your responsibility to society should extend beyond your responsibility to yourself, just that it should exist.I don't disagree - my opinion is that all Ts that fail to pay their rent line themselves up for eviction whether they are genuine hardship cases or deadbeats (ie I don't make this distinction).
To qualify that, I don't think your (or any individual's) social responsibility extends to supporting someone else that can't meet their rent.In my experience if you take a soft approach then Ts take the !!!!. Only the hard approach works. If a T fails to pay rent without contacting the LL first then, in my opinion, they have destroyed the trust necessary for the relationship to work and I will evict (by S21 at the next available point if necessary). If a T approaches me first and has a reasonable plan for why the rent arrears are temporary then I will grant them the time of the eviction process to get their affairs in order. You would be surprised how many Ts prioritise the car payments and sky subscription above paying the rent.
It's a sad fact that some people need a firm hand in order to act reasonably. I always suspected that a lot of people have a poor understanding of priority debt over commercial debt, but your statement has a tone that makes me increase estimates even further. You do appear to be capable of generally acting rationally and reasonably towards these people though, and I have to respect that.
Personally I find it just a shade too heavy handed to use the eviction process to impress upon people the importance of their communication in the first instance, I would like to think that communicating that the eviction process is imminent would be enough for the first time, but I'm not a landlord and possibly naive in that belief.Don't keep apologising - we can all have our views. In fact, I don't think we are that far apart. And I'm sorry for overreacting.
We appear to be roughly on the same page opinion wise, and either way I never took what you said to be offensive. But I did feel I had to apologise for and correct the confusion I applied to the legal details, as it's my social responsibility to be accountable for what I say in public.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
Personally I find it just a shade too heavy handed to use the eviction process to impress upon people the importance of their communication in the first instance, I would like to think that communicating that the eviction process is imminent would be enough for the first time, but I'm not a landlord and possibly naive in that belief.
The problem is that the eviction process takes time (normally about 6 months) and it is very difficult to spot those people who will manage to get back on track from those that wont. Therefore starting the formal process tends to be the first step as any delay at this point is, in most cases, simply additional lost income as it directly equates to additional time to eviction.0 -
bigblackdog wrote: »lol a week may have been optimistic , we'll see
well with thanks to the advice i got here , the tenant has paid up in full , it seems the pen is mightier than the sword .my favourite food is spare ribs0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards