Police have forced entry.

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We had an Estate Agent to do all the necessary checks and references, which he passed. I'm not sure what his job is, but he does have one.

There is plenty of expensive stuff in the apartment, so I don't think he is a junkie.

There are plenty of people who function perfectly well in professional jobs whilst being addicted to hard drugs so I don't think that using the "junkie" stereotype is particularly helpful.

missbiggles1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Quite possibly true.

But, on the other hand, if it comes to a choice as to whether to give something to an honest person or to a criminal - then who-ya-gonna-choose?

Personally - I go for the "choose the honest person" option - as I dont see why the dishonest or suspect person should get something whilst an honest person is deprived of it.

Recent incident being that the two removal men when I moved house turned out to be dishonest. Faced with a moral dilemma (as well as wanting my money back for the goods they stole when they did the packing for me) I just took the view "Well they stole my goods and they have got their jobs - BUT there will be honest people on the Dole Queue that could do with their jobs". Put like that = the answer was obvious and I duly reported the theft to their firm and asked for my compensation (ie to ensure I didnt lose out financially because of their thieving).

So - I've covered myself for not having a financial loss because of criminals AND ensured a complaint is in there registered against their names exposing them as thieves.

The way I looked at it is - "Why should thieves have a job - when honest people are there on the dole queue that would like their jobs?". So - to me - it boiled down to deciding that x number of people telling the boss of the firm that their employees are thieves might lead to them being sacked and honest people getting their jobs instead of them.

No contest imo.

If I was a LL (as I have been) I'd rather rent to somebody who pays regularly and looks after the place - plenty of honest people make terrible tenants, unfortunately.:(

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If you're going to be a professional landlord, all you should worry about is whether you get your rent regularly and the flat is kept in good order.

If you want to take a moral viewpoint on it then it should be wider than "not in my house" and probably start with "Let him who is without sin...."

I would rather rent my apartment to someone who is NOT a drug dealer, even for less rent.

I know all about, 'he that is without sin......' thanks, and do try to apply it in my everyday life. I'm sure Jesus did not intend it to apply to illegal activities. I wonder what people would say if they knew I knowingly took money from a drug dealer? Doesn't that make me an accessory after the fact?

I can't believe you think it would be OK.:eek:

Anyway, at the moment we don't know anything and he can stay a tenant until, and if, he turns out to be guilty.

(There is also the small matter of being held responsible if as a landlord you KNOWINGLY allow illegal activty to take place in your property :http://www.landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/campaigns/crime-private-rented-sector)

HappyMJ

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We had an Estate Agent to do all the necessary checks and references, which he passed. I'm not sure what his job is, but he does have one.

There is plenty of expensive stuff in the apartment, so I don't think he is a junkie.

I'm wondering just what sort of expensive stuff this could be?

moneyistooshorttomention

There is "honest" and "honest" its true.

But the basic standpoint still remains imo - "people with integrity". Now "people with integrity" will pay their rent okay/not disturb other people unreasonably/look after the place reasonably AND generally be "socially responsible" (ie not drug-dealers)/etc/etc.

So yep..."pay regularly" and "look after the place" and personally I would still want to ensure that they were generally a "person with integrity". So - still taking the view that "normal people" first, then people who rate as "honest" and "thieves etc" bottom of the queue.

moneyistooshorttomention

BTW - I know exactly what OP means by "accessory after the fact".

Personally - I get most upset about people expecting me to "do a three wise monkeys thing" (ie see no evil/hear no evil/etc/etc) if they are "up to something" they shouldnt be.

I've had various incidents recently of people expecting me to "see nothing" when it comes to Black Economy work, thieving, disregarding other "beings" on the Planet, etc - and I've been livid about it and have a great tendency to report them anyway.

If someone who gets up to stuff they "didnt oughter" expects the Reasonable Person to cover up for them/help them out anyway/etc then imo that is tantamount to making said Reasonable Person somewhat complicit in what they are getting up to that they shouldnt.

At that point - I get angry personally and dont see why-the-heck they think they have the right to have me "support" their wrongdoing in any shape or form....

seven-day-weekend

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'm wondering just what sort of expensive stuff this could be?

Oh nothing out of the ordinary, just expensive looking furniture and audio-visual stuff. It could all be on credit from Brighthouse for all I know.

theartfullodger

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?74418-Help!-Police-have-forced-entry!

seven-day-weekend

theartfullodger wrote: »

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?74418-Help!-Police-have-forced-entry!

Yes I am reading that one too....OP is me

NYM

I'd just do as HappyMJ wrote...let it go to a rolling tenancy.
If your tenant is accused of criminal activity, his case would be unlikely to get to Court before that date.