Tenants from Hell Protected by (disgusting) law

PasturesNew

If this country had more "decent landlords" they'd have a selection of properties they rent out and could have offered the tenant on hard times a quick transfer into a shared house they also owned.

That's a much better way of doing business, having a flexible collection of properties to mix n match all situations and enable tenants to be more flexible in their moving around.

Good businesses look at customer needs, not owner greeds.

Yorkie1

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

You mean other than the LL actually using the law correctly?

The LL chose not to use the law available for rent arrears. Why should the LL therefore be bailed out?

JencParker

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

Why? Being a LL is a business and like any other business, there are risks of loss as well as profit. They can't make the profit when times are good and then expect to be bailed out when times are hard! Shame more LLs don't realise it - for too long being a LL has been a license to print money and too many have gone into it without a thought for the possible losses they could make.

Ivana_Tinkle

sarah_id1 wrote: »

I am trying to learn as much as possible as I expect to be a landlord in the future.

Why? If you think the law's "disgusting" and horribly biased against landlords then why on earth would you want to become a landlord yourself?

theartfullodger

This has some of the characteristics of trolling...

Voyager2002

propertyman wrote: »

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.

In reality tenants have very limited rights, and there is no question of the court system being manipulated.

This story actually raises two issues. Firstly, there are relatively fast legal processes for a landlord to recover his property from a tenant who fails to pay the rent. This landlord did not follow these processes, raising questions about incompetent and unprofessional landlords.

The second issue, on which no-one has commented, is that the welfare system would not pay the tenant's rent to enable him to remain in his home when he became ill and unemployed. All of us pay into this system through our taxes, and as with all insurance schemes we have a reasonable expectation that it will enable us to maintain a basic form of our current life-styles if we suffer ill fortune, although we hope never to need it. Until recently, adults in need could claim the rent for a basic self-contained property: a recent change means that this benefit is only available to those over 35. As a result, people in the position of the unfortunate tenant in this story are forced to move into a single room in a shared house, so needing to lose many of their belongings and losing touch completely with their old lives. Is this a budget cut too much?

jules888

I was a landlady with my parents house 25 years ago because i couldnt sell it.Was a lot less complicated then.I would never want to do it now.

CKhalvashi

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

Except it does - housing benefit, to a protected level!

It's not really T's, or LL's fault that this has happened, but these things do happen. My PA agrees with me as a tenant, and I'm a LL.

CK

Blackpool_Saver

Werdnal wrote: »

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.

Hmm, seem there is no safe way to be an LL, these days

Blackpool_Saver

Leaving this thread as so many people are full of rage and fury in their answers. If you could see them in person they would have wide glaring murderous expressions and be in your face full of hate. I don't need that crap in my life......see ya