evicted by court references

paula3232

Hi sorry to jump thread but I can't seem to post anything seeking advice could you put me in right direction pls

thesaint

paula3232 wrote: »

Hi sorry to jump thread but I can't seem to post anything seeking advice could you put me in right direction pls

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=16

cowsnhope

Hi - and thank you
My friend always paid his rent on time because I made sure of it, I acted as his guarantor and would not have done this had I not been certain I could.

My friend probably doesn't really have a credit rating as he has never had a credit card or loan as he has never worked (he is unwell).

My friend was told to pay court costs but in the end did not have to (complicated but I don't believe it will affect my friend at all and this info could make him identifiable so I'll leave it there).

One letting agency told my friend that the reason they did not accept tenants on benefits was that they often had to be evicted by court. This could be seen as a bit of a vicious circle - my friend was unable to move out of his flat as he could not find anywhere else to rent and so he was evicted by court, yet one of the reasons letting agencies would not let to him was because they were concerned that he might not move out at the end of his tenancy.

I don't think there is any way to overcome this I was just motivated to post a query as I was reading another thread where someone was sort of being advised to let his LL start court proceedings and I was thinking that was a really bad idea for when he came to find somewhere new and started wondering if it was really as bad as I thought it would be. I do not know how much would actually crop up from references.

Guest101

cowsnhope wrote: »

Hi - and thank you
My friend always paid his rent on time because I made sure of it, I acted as his guarantor and would not have done this had I not been certain I could.

My friend probably doesn't really have a credit rating as he has never had a credit card or loan as he has never worked (he is unwell).

My friend was told to pay court costs but in the end did not have to (complicated but I don't believe it will affect my friend at all and this info could make him identifiable so I'll leave it there).

One letting agency told my friend that the reason they did not accept tenants on benefits was that they often had to be evicted by court. This could be seen as a bit of a vicious circle - my friend was unable to move out of his flat as he could not find anywhere else to rent and so he was evicted by court, yet one of the reasons letting agencies would not let to him was because they were concerned that he might not move out at the end of his tenancy.

I don't think there is any way to overcome this I was just motivated to post a query as I was reading another thread where someone was sort of being advised to let his LL start court proceedings and I was thinking that was a really bad idea for when he came to find somewhere new and started wondering if it was really as bad as I thought it would be. I do not know how much would actually crop up from references.

A tenancy can only be ended by the tenant or a court. So really the letting agents are a bit daft.

benjus

Guest101 wrote: »

A tenancy can only be ended by the tenant or a court. So really the letting agents are a bit daft.

What's daft about that? Tenants didn't move out of their own accord when askedd to do so, so it was necessary to ask a court to evict. Seems logical enough to me.

thesaint

Guest101 wrote: »

A tenancy can only be ended by the tenant or a court. So really the letting agents are a bit daft.

A tenant on housing benefit will most likely look for council accomodation when asked to vacate a property.

The council will advise them that if they leave before bailiffs come knocking on the door, they will not offer them any assistance.

An employed person paying their own money towards rent is likely to find somewhere else off their own back.

The letting agent is far from daft.

Guest101

benjus wrote: »

What's daft about that? Tenants didn't move out of their own accord when askedd to do so, so it was necessary to ask a court to evict. Seems logical enough to me.

I mean it's daft to say we wont rent to 'a demographic' because we can only end the tenancy legally.


It's true for any person.

Guest101

thesaint wrote: »

A tenant on housing benefit will most likely look for council accomodation when asked to vacate a property. - Sometimes, sometimes not, but I take your point it's often true.

The council will advise them that if they leave before bailiffs come knocking on the door, they will not offer them any assistance. - Yes, I don't agree with gatekeeping like this, it just causes problem for both tenant and LL.

An employed person paying their own money towards rent is likely to find somewhere else off their own back. - True, but they could do so even after they've been evicted.

The letting agent is far from daft.

I think it's a daft thing to say. Even if it's true.


'We don't like having to do as the law requires'

benjus

Guest101 wrote: »

'We don't like having to do as the law requires'

Going to court is supposed to be a last resort, not the norm.

If I offer to do some work for someone, I expect them to pay me the agreed amount, not to fob me off with excuses and then leave me with no other option than to take them to court if I want to get paid.

Likewise, landlords want tenants that will stick to what they agreed to do, not force them to take legal action.

Saying "we prefer not to have to take legal action" just seems like good business sense.

thesaint

Guest101 wrote: »

I think it's a daft thing to say. Even if it's true.

We have it 3rd hand what was said, and I guess they are only paraphrasing.

I take the courage of someone telling the truth as a breath of fresh air. Then tenants can blame the real culprits instead of landlords.

Landlords want to earn money, it's that simple.
HB tenants are a bigger risk, and those landlords that are left are protecting their investments.