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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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!
Tenant Arrears... Plummeting, Tanking, Crashing even....
Comments
-
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?
Not at all.
Both rentors and mortgagees are entitled to benefits if they lose their jobs, as they should be for paying National Insurance.
Nobody should be protected from choosing not to pay a rent or mortgage.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Housing benefit is a hell of a lot more generous than mortgage interest payments anyway. Renters get a very good deal indeed.0
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »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:
No, they aren't all right at all. And I've already said that I don't have a problem with LLs evicting non-paying tenants.
I don't read most of the gloating threads, and I don't always bother to reply to the ones I do read. However, if you can find any post of mine in support of any gloating about anybody's suffering of any kind, I will give £10 to the charity of your choice.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »First of all, they didn't lose "their" home. They lost the use of someone else's house, that they stopped paying for.
There is clearly no arguement from any quarter regarding the eviction of tenants who either do not pay rent lawfully due, or commit anti-social behaviour.
However the article, and some subsequent posters have been pushing the notion that you can evict a tenant in order to get other tenants in who will pay higher rates.
Is that ethical? Provided the tenant has abided by the terms and conditions of the tenancy, then why should a LL want to evict them (other than for a quick buck?)
Whilst a tenancy is in effect, it is their home, legally. The tenancy agreement gives them exclusive rights to the home.
FWIW LL's evicting decent tenants for a higher payer are, imo engaging in a false economy.
Oh, & kudos to LydiaJ for her response.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »There is clearly no arguement from any quarter regarding the eviction of tenants who either do not pay rent lawfully due, or commit anti-social behaviour.
However the article, and some subsequent posters have been pushing the notion that you can evict a tenant in order to get other tenants in who will pay higher rates.
Is that ethical? Provided the tenant has abided by the terms and conditions of the tenancy, then why should a LL want to evict them (other than for a quick buck?)
.
The article states rent arrears have decreased because landlords have become firmer with enforcement, knowing that rentals are in such short supply they can find another tenant and likely at a higher rate too.
It does not state landlords are evicting tenants who abide by the terms of their agreement.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
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?
What I've actually suggested is that 18 months of SMI support is enough to get people sorted.
I've never once suggested homeowners get reposessed as soon as they are in arrears, so stop it with the forum politics, trying to change what was actually said to suit.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »What I've actually suggested is that 18 months of SMI support is enough to get people sorted.
I've never once suggested homeowners get reposessed as soon as they are in arrears, so stop it with the forum politics, trying to change what was actually said to suit.
do you think that the same rules should be applied to people who rent? 18 months support and then out?0 -
do you think that the same rules should be applied to people who rent? 18 months support and then out?
And Graham ghosts out of the thread again....;)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »And Graham ghosts out of the thread again....;)
I apologise. However, had a son to read a nursery rhyme to and put to bed.
In answer to the loaded question from chucky. No, I don't think 18 months is viable as renting is a different kettle of fish. However, I do think the system we currently have leaves tenants open to a lot of upheavel after their 6 month contracts, and I do feel there should be rent controls in place.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »No, I don't think 18 months is viable as renting is a different kettle of fish. .
Explain....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards