Tenants from Hell Protected by (disgusting) law

Blackpool_Saver

just like I thought, wide glaring eyes, hate filled expressions and posts full of anger, not changed in 2 days

Blackpool_Saver

Oh and while we are on this subject, if I were letting a property I would feel far safer renting to a tenant who got guaranteed benefits rather than a fake suited ten bob millionaire who will be queuing at a soup kitchen when their "new" venture went bankrupt

Full_of_angst

A very emotive thread.

Nobody should be made homeless due to unfortunate circumstances.

However, how many months in arrears would you need to be on your mortgage before the lender repossesses your home? We all know banks aren't charities so we don't expect them to act charitably. Surely it's the same principle as a landlord not wanting to turn his (much smaller) business into a charity?

Believe me, I wouldn't want to see anyone homeless, but why should small time private landlords have any more scruples than the banks? Surely a private landlord is going to feel the pain of losing a few months rent a lot more than a bank does when someone defaults on their mortgage? And yet we all know how quick and ruthless a mortgage lender can be when it comes to repossession.

Yorkie1

The LL has the right to apply for repossession once the tenant owes a total of 2 months' rent. Therefore, if the tenant fails to pay rent in month 1, and again in month 2, the LL can make the application on the day after the 2nd month's payment is not made - i.e. a month and a day after the first failure.

If the T still owes this amount at the court hearing then repossession will (? may ?) be granted.

The whole point of this thread is that the OP used highly emotive language on a completely misinformed basis.

JencParker

Full_of_angst wrote: »

A very emotive thread.

Nobody should be made homeless due to unfortunate circumstances.

However, how many months in arrears would you need to be on your mortgage before the lender repossesses your home? We all know banks aren't charities so we don't expect them to act charitably. Surely it's the same principle as a landlord not wanting to turn his (much smaller) business into a charity?

Believe me, I wouldn't want to see anyone homeless, but why should small time private landlords have any more scruples than the banks? Surely a private landlord is going to feel the pain of losing a few months rent a lot more than a bank does when someone defaults on their mortgage? And yet we all know how quick and ruthless a mortgage lender can be when it comes to repossession.

Under the previous government directives were issued that mortgage companies should wait 3 months before starting proceedings and that other options should be explored (such as reducing payments/mortgage rescue schemes/shared ownership), compared with 2 months for tenants.


such as reducing payments and mortgage rescue schemes

Guest101

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The LL has the right to apply for repossession once the tenant owes a total of 2 months' rent. Therefore, if the tenant fails to pay rent in month 1, and again in month 2, the LL can make the application on the day after the 2nd month's payment is not made - i.e. a month and a day after the first failure.

If the T still owes this amount at the court hearing then repossession will (? may ?) be granted.

The whole point of this thread is that the OP used highly emotive language on a completely misinformed basis.

The only defence is if the Tenant can prove the arrrears are no longer 2 months or more. Otherwise the Judge must grant possession to the LL

kissingthepink

Guest101 wrote: »

Huh? ive never heard such drivel.

Not drivel at all. It's called accident, sickness and unemployment insurance. Have a look on google.

Guest101

kissingthepink wrote: »

Not drivel at all. It's called accident, sickness and unemployment insurance. Have a look on google.

I know it exists, just hardly an irresponsible thing to not have.

Dan-Dan

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Oh and while we are on this subject, if I were letting a property I would feel far safer renting to a tenant who got guaranteed benefits rather than a fake suited ten bob millionaire who will be queuing at a soup kitchen when their "new" venture went bankrupt

You really should stop posting on this thread , you make yourself look more and more clueless each time

silverwhistle

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

just like I thought, wide glaring eyes, hate filled expressions and posts full of anger, not changed in 2 days

Angriest person around here seems to be you.

The OP certainly was OTT though, and if they wanted a real example of a tenant from hell they can have mine. As I was living abroad I let to a Housing Association, and I'm not very impressed with them either. Amazing that the carpets, hall laminate flooring, loft ladder and greenhouse all disappeared! Repairing motorbikes in the kitchen, no evidence of any of the garden tools I left being used or perhaps they got lost in the jungle, flea infestation, etc. My old neighbours are so pleased to see me back, although the local young dope smokers are a bit disappointed...