Time to Quit Being a Landlord especially in Scotland

JencParker

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Do you provide support to LL's who have tenants that don't pay the rent, or abuse property that doesn't belong to them or who constantly bellyache because the World owes them a living and it's failing to pay up? Get over it.

No, I don't, however, even a sitting tenant can get evicted for non payment of rent, so stop being ridiculous. And it sounds like it will be the LLs that will have to 'get over it'!
Go Nicola!


Having read the remaining posts, I now realise you meant financial support. How silly of me to not realise that the only support you could conceive of was financial support!

JencParker

gazwaldo8 wrote: »

Does anyone? hah!!
I just eventually had my previous tennant move out (thankfully!) - only £3,500 behind on her rent and I had no support or help from anyone! - small claims court is my only option now but it will probably cost me quite abit to go through with that and I will more than likely only get about £5 a week from her benefits if i was successful! - Is it worth it?? :-/

Well, that's a question you will have to ask yourself, surely?


You could have sold it when you moved in with your girlfriend or left it empty, renting wasn't your only option.

JencParker

gazwaldo8 wrote: »

Tell me bout it! - the debt shouldnever have been run up in the first instance!
Sometimes it would be nice for the LL's to get a bit more protection too -not just the tennants who seem to have much more of a free rein.

But before I get bad replies - I know that yes there are also many good tennants too!

The protection is far too heavily weighted in favour of the landlord as things stand now.


While I can sympathise that you have to pursue this debt that you may never recover, that is no different from any other debt, whether personal or business. Why should a rent be any different from any other sort of debt. It all goes through the same process.

Pixie5740

Missko wrote: »

Yes I am a player LL. Professional Property Solicitor qualified in Scotland, England + Wales tho. :-)

Missko wrote: »

I may or may not sell some or all of mine.
This post is more of a moan than a business plan! ��

A player LL with multiple properties...right.

You have one property. One property that you let out whilst you moved to England. When you moved back to Scotland you were unemployed, up to your neck in £15k of debt, and back living with mummy and daddy. Mummy and daddy who have bailed you out a number of times before because you just can't manage your finances. You needed that hard working tenant to pay rent so that you could continue to pay your mortgage otherwise the lender would have repossessed so don't go getting on your high horse.

Now that you seem to have a new job in Edinburgh as a dual-qualified property solicitor (congratulations on the new job) shouldn't you welcome more properties coming on to the market? Won't that be a boost to your business sector?

Pixie5740

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Is this the proposal?

Some of the key proposals include:-

(a) removal of the “no fault” grounds for repossessions which is currently available to all Landlords of Short Assured Tenancies. At present Landlords can reclaim their property simply because the fixed term has ended. The consultation document proposes the removal of this right for Landlords;

(b) the consultation proposes reducing the number of grounds under which a landlord can repossess their property from the current 17 grounds to 8 grounds. All these grounds would be mandatory (there would be no requirement to satisfy any court or tribunal that it is reasonable to repossess where the terms of the ground are met).

The proposed new grounds are:-

(i) a landlord wants to sell the home;
(ii) mortgage Lender wants to sell the home;
(iii) landlord wants to move into the home;
(iv) landlord wants to carry out refurbishment;
(v) change to the use of the home;
(vi) the tenant has failed to pay 3 months’ rent;
(vii) the tenant is anti-social; and
(viii) the tenant has otherwise breached the Tenancy Agreement.

Yes, that's the current proposal I read about. Many of the grounds are broadly similar to the grounds currently in place.

The current Ground 1 covers when a landlord wants you to move out so that they or their husband/wife or civil partner can move in and live in the property, or before you moved in, your landlord lived in the property. Before you moved into the property, you should have been told in writing that this situation might arise. So I think that will more or less stay the same.

I wonder if now the new ground for if the landlord wants to sell will also be covered in a similar way, the landlord would have to tell the tenant in writing that there's the possibility the property will be sold.

I see quite a few properties for sale in Scotland with sitting tenants already. I think this is because the property buying process happens much faster up here, 6-8 weeks from offer to getting the keys, so that's not enough time to have a tenant evicted. Landlords already face potentially, long void periods or selling with tenants in-situ.

The_Earl_of_Streatham

gazwaldo8 wrote: »

Not always - I rent my home out as I have moved in with my gf - however should it not work out then I will be looking at moving back in. I never bought it as a business investment but as I alluded to earlier - my circumstances changed - and could well change again in the future!

Presumably then you are not availing yourself of any of the tax advantages which come with the business of renting out a home.

The landlording business gets tax breaks aplenty not offered to those buying their own home. In a free market how can there be such a thing as an accidental landlord? Sell your old place, there will be a price at which it will sell in a free market.

The rental market as a whole is subsidised by £9 billion of taxpayers money through housing benefit, which even if your tenants aren't claiming is maintaining rents that by definition in these circumstances are not being supported by wages. That's not a free market.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10787462/Landlords-9bn-housing-benefit-fuelling-bubble.html

Other sources of rented accommodation have been or are about to be sold off to reduce competition in your particular market. This simply moves subsidy from the public (or quasi-public, eg. housing associations) sector into the hands of the private landlord.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11361310/Right-to-Buy-could-be-extended-to-housing-association-property.html

What else can we do to help the poor downtrodden rentier class? Perhaps a law that requires tenants to keep their belongings packed by the front door ready to move out if a landlord wants to liquidate their asset?

If it's a business, it's a way of turning risk into money. One of those risks is not being able liquidate your assets on a whim. If you want to be able to do that try some other mode of investment, you'll find there are few attract the same sort of public subsidy.

Guest101

gazwaldo8 wrote: »

Ok - maybe not my 'home' - but certainly is my 'house'.
I should surely have the right to move back into it and reclaim it as my 'home' if I so desire and as long as ive given the correct notice or end of lease agreement. Why should I have to wait for them to fault.
If you rent a property for a set lease - then you must understand that its not guaranteed to be extended beyond that time and you MAY need to move on at the end of it.
When I go to a hotel for 2 nights - I dont expect to stay there any longer as long as I dont fault! - that is the contract!! - IF that hotel can accomodate me further then happy days - buit not a right!

I know we are not talking about hotels but the principle is the same - its a contract for a specified timespan.

And when your children are renting, and struggling with a property they cant get repairs done on and the LL tells them to get out....

So no. If you want the income from having a tenant, then accept the consequences.

No-one forced you to rent it out. You couldve left it empty.

jjlandlord

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

The landlording business gets tax breaks aplenty not offered to those buying their own home.

Plain rubbish.

Cabbies get "tax breaks aplenty" not offered to those buying their own car.
Businesses in general get "tax breaks aplenty" not offered to those buying their own stuff.

Landlords are running businesses and thus are allowed to claim expenses as all other businesses.
In fact, they get less "tax breaks" than other businesses.

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

The rental market as a whole is subsidised by £9 billion of taxpayers money through housing benefit

That's also plain rubbish since otherwise those people could not get housing privately and thus the taxpayers would still have to pay for social housing.

benjus

Missko wrote: »

Removal of no fault eviction means you can't evict purely because the tenancy period has ended. It rolls on forever til the tenant misbehave or moves voluntarily or dies...

Can't think of any other investment like that Bluebird.

To you it's an investment. To the tenant it's their home. Having somewhere to live is a fundamental human need; having investments is not. I think the tenant's rights need to be given stronger protection in law than the landlord's.

All the landlords saying things like "it's my house, I should be able to reclaim it if I want to" are symptomatic of the problems with the UK's private rental market. I think we need more long-term investment in private rentals, and removing no-fault evictions would encourage landlords who are not in it for the long term to exit the business. Landlords can still sell their properties with the tenant in situ; if that means that they get less money than if they sold with vacant possession then tough luck - investments are not risk-free.

I'm not sure the proposals go far enough - the provision of no-fault evictions for the landlord moving back into the property or for refurbishments could be enough of a loophole to keep things largely the way they are - will anyone actually enforce the landlord moving back or doing the refurbishments post-eviction?

jjlandlord

benjus wrote: »

Having somewhere to live is a fundamental human need; having investments is not.

The catch is that if no-one invest then people have nowhere to live.