Tenants from Hell Protected by (disgusting) law

ging84

what exactly has the tenant done that is so bad that makes him the tenant from hell?
he's not been paying the rent, because he can't, he has not moved out because he has nowhere to go until the council re-home him
so he is the tenant from hell for not voluntarily moving out onto the streets while he is sick / injured ? is that what you would do in the same situation?

and the law is disgusting and oppressive because it does not allow property owners to force people who are sick / injured to live on the streets? it sound quite the opposite to me

Blackpool_Saver

Something should kick in in situations like this to help the landlord financially until the tenant can be rehoused, and I say that as a tenant

I_have_spoken

Yep, bad news if you get a 'professional' tenant who as all the leaflets from Shelter, knows their rights, always on the phone to CAB etc.

Guest101

I_have_spoken wrote: »

Yep, bad news if you get a 'professional' tenant who as all the leaflets from Shelter, knows their rights, always on the phone to CAB etc.

Not really, the LL just needs to stick to the right process and they're protected too

Dan-Dan

sarah_id1 wrote: »

Just talking to my office colleague who had a bad experience with her tenant. Long story short

>Rented a flat for £1000 via a agent to a professional working for a good company and good credit history on 12 month contract
>3rd and 4th month tenant didn't pay rent as he got injured
>5th month landlord gave notice to vacate, tenant paid rent with arrears
>6th month onwards he lost his job due to long term injury and he notified the council who agreed to pay £71 a week for housing benefit which was not enough to cover the mortgage. No rent since this month....
>10th month gave notice but tenant just does not vacate.
>Landlord Issued Section 21 with a notice of 2 month but tenant not moving
>Court Order..... Baliff to follow

Blockers
>Tenant cannot be vacated because he lost his job and he's injured
>Council wont pay to cover the rent because hes eligible for £71 per week.
>Landlord have to still pay the mortgage otherwise property repossession etc....

All in all landlord has lost 8K in rent apart of other fees in legal/admin/baliff... Why should the landlord such a BIG loss? a loss of 1 or 2 month rent would be tolerated. Also what if the landlord lost her job in this scenario and cannot afford to pay rent! she still have to be homeless in spite of owning a property captured by a horrible tenant "PROTECTED" by the law. This is disgusting and oppressive law!

What's the advise for the potential Landlords in this situation?

Seems to me you want the taxpayer to bail out your mate in some way?

Dan-Dan

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Something should kick in in situations like this to help the landlord financially until the tenant can be rehoused, and I say that as a tenant

What are you talking about?
Where des this cash come from ?
Us , the taxpayer ? because a speculator has hit problems?

Crazy talk

Werdnal

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Something should kick in in situations like this to help the landlord financially until the tenant can be rehoused, and I say that as a tenant

There is, it is called "Guaranteed Rent" and offered by a number of letting agents, if a LL chooses to join such a scheme.

Lets face it here, many new landlords embark on letting and just see the £££££ they will earn if everything goes well, without researching and thoroughly understanding all the perils and pitfalls of the other side of the coin!

Letting can be a gamble; LL circumstances change that can affect the tenant - loss of employment, illness, bereavement, relationship breakdowns etc, and conversely, all the same things can affect the tenant and cause the LL grief.

The title of this thread is very biased - tenant appears to have done nothing wrong - did they deliberately get injured and make themselves unable to work? They scraped together enough cash to pay arrears when eviction seemed likely. They applied for Council support but unfortunately benefits have been substantially cut so they cannot get much help. They are not moving out until they have to via court order, which is legally their right.

LL here cannot blame the fact that they have a mortgage to pay on the tenant - if a LL cannot survive a few month's lost rent and still cover their property costs, they should not be letting at all.

And for anyone here who accuses me of being a tenant for my anti-LL views, NO, I am a LL of 13 years!

ILW

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Something should kick in in situations like this to help the landlord financially until the tenant can be rehoused, and I say that as a tenant

Cannot see that that the taxpayer should have to subsidise failing private businesses.

Guest101

ILW wrote: »

Cannot see that that the taxpayer should have to subsidise failing private businesses.

Unless its a bank ofcourse

IronWolf

I feel sorry for the tenant. Obviously having a really tough time and Im sure he wishes he was in a position to pay the rent but simply cant.