Tenant Arrears... Plummeting, Tanking, Crashing even....

blisk3

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14136496

Landlords starting to evict slow payers, safe in the knowledge there are simply not enough houses to go around and they can replace them with better tenants who'll pay more.

Landlords shooting themselves in the foot.

Government will have to bring in more regualtion of landlords & more protection for tenants, as it's government & society that suffers consequences.

chucknorris

I don't see what's wrong with evicting a tenant that won't pay the rent, I got rid of one myself 2 or 3 years ago. I felt so relieved once she was gone.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't see what's wrong with evicting a tenant that won't pay the rent, I got rid of one myself 2 or 3 years ago. I felt so relieved once she was gone.

Theres nothing wrong with it. It's business.

But it has been "sold" on this thread as the problem of higher rents leading to higher arrears has somehow been resolved, as the number in arrears is falling.

Thats only the case because those in arrears are being chucked out.

Therefore, landlords are actually losing money as I doubt they will be able to reclaim it.

At the same time, while there is an arrears issue, landlords then put prices up, as if this somehow helps the issue.

The problem isn't landlords chucking people out, it's the frock hamish attempts to wrap the issue in and claim the problem must be sorting itself out, and whatsmore, claim others are wrong because of what they stated on the issue a month ago when the figures were different.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with it. It's business.

But it has been "sold" on this thread as the problem of higher rents leading to higher arrears has somehow been resolved, as the number in arrears is falling.

Thats only the case because those in arrears are being chucked out.

Therefore, landlords are actually losing money as I doubt they will be able to reclaim it.

At the same time, while there is an arrears issue, landlords then put prices up, as if this somehow helps the issue.

The problem isn't landlords chucking people out, it's the frock hamish attempts to wrap the issue in and claim the problem must be sorting itself out, and whatsmore, claim others are wrong because of what they stated on the issue a month ago when the figures were different.

My evicted tenant I think went a bit mad, she thought it was a good idea to stop paying the rent so that she could afford to buy. She even emailed one month saying sorry I can't pay the rent this month because she had to pay for her mortgage survey and solicitor's search fee. I got everything owed eventually in the small claims court.

LydiaJ

Evicting a non-paying tenant is one thing - I don't have a problem with LLs doing that - but gloating on here about rising numbers of tenants losing their homes is something else - distasteful at best IMO.

PasturesNew

Evicting a non-paying tenant is one thing, but if they can no longer afford to pay because the LL increased the rent by Stupid% then that's just mean.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

LydiaJ wrote: »

Evicting a non-paying tenant is one thing - I don't have a problem with LLs doing that - but gloating on here about rising numbers of tenants losing their homes is something else - distasteful at best IMO.

First of all, they didn't lose "their" home. They lost the use of someone else's house, that they stopped paying for. They had no ownership of the property, no equity built up, and were no longer paying for the service they were consuming.

And secondly, so gloating on here about....

- Rising unemployment

- Worsening economy

- Rising tenant arrears

- Landlords being repossessed because tenants won't pay

Is somehow quite all right?

I only ask as we get dozens of posts a month with the above, and I've yet to see you play the old "distasteful" card with any of them. :cool:

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And landlords wonder why they get a bad press.

I really would like to see something done about letting, and protecting tenants a little more. Other countries manage, but it seems to be something we simply will not touch.

Hang on Graham, you've suggested in the past that if you can't afford the house you've bought you should be chucked out of it. So why should people who can't afford the house they've rented be allowed special treatment?

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's what happens when you have more people than there are houses for them. You can churn the worst payers out, and replace them with those able to pay.

I smell double standards here.

Tenants can't afford rent, kick them out and get somebody else in.

Homeowners can't afford mortgage, don't kick them out and let somebody else buy, kicking families out on the street is wrong.

So is kicking poor families out right or wrong, or is right if you gain and wrong if you don't?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PasturesNew wrote: »

Evicting a non-paying tenant is one thing, but if they can no longer afford to pay because the LL increased the rent by Stupid% then that's just mean.

Landlords can't just "increase the rent by Stupid%".

Rents can only be increased at the end of a contract, if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to stay there. Find somewhere cheaper....

They must exist after all, as so many posters here keep telling us that rents are negotiable because landlords hate voids, and that rents are falling because of benefits changes.