Tenants from Hell Protected by (disgusting) law

Blackpool_Saver

I am ignoring the "we the tax payer" remarks and suggest Werdnal's advice should be followed then LL has an insurance to fall back on. I seem to remember for LL to have this, proposed tenant has to have sufficient income determined by a multiple for LL to avail themselves of this scheme,,,,

Dan-Dan

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I am ignoring the "we the tax payer" remarks and suggest Werdnal's advice should be followed then LL has an insurance to fall back on. I seem to remember for LL to have this, proposed tenant has to have sufficient income determined by a multiple for LL to avail themselves of this scheme,,,,

So who would sort the LL out if not the taxpayer ? (assuming they cant afford to take the protective measures already mentioned)

What`s your suggestion ?

sarah_id1

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Why did the LL choose not to use the s.8 procedure for rent arrears during the tenancy?

I don't know if she did but this was from brief discussion and I am trying to learn as much as possible as I expect to be a landlord in the future.

DragonQ

As others have said, I'm sure such "insurance" schemes already exist via letting agents. They give the landlord guaranteed income and skim a bit off the top in return. That way, risks are mitigated because the letting agent would take the hit in this situation.

bitsandpieces

ILW wrote: »

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

There are 'guaranteed rent' schemes landlords can choose to sign up for. They can also reduce risks by various good practices. Taxpayer support if landlords got into trouble would bring the risk of moral hazard. It's a business, and there are risks as well as rewards - if you borrow to fund an investment and it goes pear-shaped that can be a major problem, but I don't see why it's the taxpayers' problem,

There have recently been very good returns from buy-to-let and there's a reasonable argument that the property market is already over-inflated. An effective public subsidy for landlords seems a poor idea in this climate.

southoftheriver

Doesn't sound like the tenant is the typical bad tenant. They've obviously fallen on hard times and are a bit stuck. I feel for the LL but I feel for the tenant more. Hope he manages to sort things out. It must be terrifying to face losing your home.

bitsandpieces

southoftheriver wrote: »

Doesn't sound like the tenant is the typical bad tenant. They've obviously fallen on hard times and are a bit stuck.

I appreciate that you may hear about other types of bad tenants more often - as they make better stories - but hard times are a far more common reason for falling behind on rent than any kind of malice. Most people want to keep a roof over their heads, so don't fall into substantial rent arrears unless they are having money issues.

Werdnal

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I am ignoring the "we the tax payer" remarks and suggest Werdnal's advice should be followed then LL has an insurance to fall back on. I seem to remember for LL to have this, proposed tenant has to have sufficient income determined by a multiple for LL to avail themselves of this scheme,,,,

I wasn't actually recommending such schemes, merely mentioning there is an option to cover missing rent if the LL's priority above everything else is to secure a regular income from their property.

The schemes have many pitfalls in themselves - you usually sign over the property to the agent for a fixed period, and have no control over who they put in (believe me they will want the place filled rather than having to cough up rent when they are not receiving any). This will not be an normal AST as the agent will be the LL's "tenant" in this scenario, with the agent subletting the property as they see fit.

There are also issues with ending the agreement with the agent, then having the tenants still in situ.

propertyman

Dan-Dan wrote: »

So who would sort the LL out if not the taxpayer ? (assuming they cant afford to take the protective measures already mentioned)

What`s your suggestion ?

Isn't the better question " why the tax payer?" ?

The problem is that the court system and tenant rights are being manipulated to reduce the burden on social housing, and in between those stools falling into the hands on the nastier landlords like Brendam Wotsisname.

Dan-Dan

I think you misread my post
Why the taxpayer indeed