Tenant wont leave!!

deFoix

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That's the law, if you don't like it petition your MP.

Yes we know what the law is. The whole point is that some of us don't think that it's good law or just law.

No I won't partition my MP thank you. I'd like to debate it here first.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If a tenant needs to be re-housed by the council then the council will tell them to wait until bailiffs physically remove them from the property.

Yes, precisely why the government have a disincentive to changing the law because then they wouldn't be able to use private landlords as a temporary housing buffer to house the homeless they are responsible for.

The system is broken and the fact that you keep asserting the statutory mechanics of it doesn't make it right.

benjus

dktreesea wrote: »

Surely though, a tenant must realise that they only have the property for the period of the lease? The landlord should be able to get it back just by giving notice, without having to go through the courts to get it.

That's a bit like saying "if someone owes me money for a job I did and refuses to pay me, I should be able to get it without having to go through the courts."

The whole point of the (civil) courts is that they are the remedy for disputes that can't be solved by other means. They may be slow and under-resourced but that's just life.

Until the case goes in front of a judge, no-one impartial has any idea if the tenant is being a totally unreasonable idiot, or if the landlord is being a totally unreasonable idiot, or if they both have valid points and the case isn't clear-cut.

So until you know who is in the right and who isn't, do you think it's better to protect a tenant's home or a landlord's income?

deFoix

Guest101 wrote: »

What do you suggest? Turning up with 'the boys'?

I'm not going to pass judgment on their morals. Just discussing the legalities

How about a change in the law to make the process simpler, quicker and more efficient?

Pixie5740

Boler1985 wrote: »

No I won't partition my MP thank you. I'd like to debate it here first.

That's just as well or you might find yourself up in court. :rotfl:

Pixie5740

Boler1985 wrote: »

How about a change in the law to make the process simpler, quicker and more efficient?

The process is simple, the Housing Act 1988 made it very simple. How much more simple do you need it to be?

The problem you have isn't with the law it's with the over-burdened courts.

marksoton

Boler1985 wrote: »

How about a change in the law to make the process simpler, quicker and more efficient?

I'm sure we'd all like that with any civil case but the fact is the civil courts are swamped. Change the legislation all you want but if the mechanics of law can't move faster it's a waste of time.

It took my father 9 months to get the errant non paying "tenant" out of his late fathers bungalow. Hardly a stress a 70+ needs.

The law cuts both ways.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

We actually had what was sold to us as a thorough assessment of income....and were told they had passed. We were especially concerned as both were self-employed.

What I believe happened is that they took tax credits into consideration of income and only did a credit check on her. They had two children who left higher education one year after the other and I expect it is the loss of this income + maybe a reduction in business that meant that their income became such they would never have passed in the first place.

Of course, there is never security of income with anyone at risk of losing their job, but the reliance on tax credits is certainly a higher risk.

I do sincerely feel sorry for good tenants who have paid on time and looked after the property treating it as its own home, to then found themselves having to look for something else within two months. I would hate to be in this situation and frankly, that alone was the incentive to do anything to become a home owner. However, I do agree that most landlords don't tend to be sadistic for the sake of it and usually would only repossess the property in these conditions out of no choice of theirs.

As such, knowing that you are at risk of having to look for somewhere else to leave either at the end of the fixed term or within two months, wouldn't be savvy for any tenant to actually bother to put money aside each month for the purpose of dealing with the situation would it arises?

Wouldn't it also be savvy for any tenant to take responsibility for the fact that they have chosen to risk having a temporary home in exchange for not having to save up a deposit, not having to repay the capital value of their home to a bank (assuming they would need a mortgage to buy) and not having to risk the cost of maintaining the property if anything goes wrong?


There seems to be this idea that the tenant is somehow the victim of a greedy landlord, paying off the property for someone else, missing out on any capital gains while carrying the cost of obtaining those capital gains. But rent isn't dead money. It's just like interest - it's the price of shelter when you can't afford to buy a home outright or don't want to live where you could afford to buy.


Why do people rent in Edinburgh? There are affordable houses within 20 miles/half an hour's drive of the city centre, 2 bedroom flats that will set you back £60k and they are in great nick, in nice areas. You'ld need a mortgage that ran for only 7 years to even get near the cost of an equivalent rental in Edinburgh.


But no, moving 20 miles away feels like moving to the sticks, going clubbing would be such a hassle (even if you haven't actually been clubbing for the last ten years, lol). And what if you ever needed a taxi!!


I'd never be a residential landlord in Britain. You want your property back? Then be prepared to be unwillingly dragged into a game I call "jump the queue", where tenants use you to become homeless, maybe at great cost to you, "failing" to find anywhere else to live within the notice period, enabling them to go to the top of the queue for council housing.

dktreesea

benjus wrote: »

That's a bit like saying "if someone owes me money for a job I did and refuses to pay me, I should be able to get it without having to go through the courts."

The whole point of the (civil) courts is that they are the remedy for disputes that can't be solved by other means. They may be slow and under-resourced but that's just life.

Until the case goes in front of a judge, no-one impartial has any idea if the tenant is being a totally unreasonable idiot, or if the landlord is being a totally unreasonable idiot, or if they both have valid points and the case isn't clear-cut.

So until you know who is in the right and who isn't, do you think it's better to protect a tenant's home or a landlord's income?

I think it is better to protect the landlord's right to his property.

FBaby

I guess some people simply can't afford to. I was fortunate enough that when I rented I could always afford to have one (deposit) in the chamber.

I'm sorry but I don't go for that. Anyone can save somehow, it all comes down to priority. Maybe a tenant could choose to go for a property that is £50 a month less than what they can afford and then put that £50 aside each month as part of their emergency budget.

It is normal practice nowadays to prioritise luxuries over the 'what if' fund and then play victim when they find themselves in an emergency situation, one that was easily predictable.

I'm not a saint and I've fallen short of this myself in my 20s. However, when that happened, I blamed myself and then learned my lesson. It's the same lesson that landlords have to learn that they should also budget monthly for repairs, rent unpaid, empty property in between tenants etc...

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

I think it is better to protect the landlord's right to his property.

The LL should not give up those rights then.... Since its stops being his or her property...