Tenant wont leave!!

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

1: no one is forcing you to become a landlord, tenants everywhere rejoice.
2: most people do t choose to rent over buying, rather rent to eventually buy. Moving closer to work
3: the LL is making them homeless. That's just a fact and why you need to go to court

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

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...

6 month tenancy, £50 a month would cover letting agent fees and can hire - maybe.

Pixie5740

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

Wouldn't it be more savvy for the landlord to research and understand the risks of being a landlord before becoming one? No business or investment is without risk.

Why do you have the idea that landlords are victims rather than people who made an educated and calculated decision to become a landlord because for them, the pros outweighed the cons?

Not everyone who rents can't afford to buy somewhere or even in the area where they currently rent. It suits some people better to rent which is good for landlords because that's their supply. Those who rent in Edinburgh do so because that's where, at that moment in time, they want to live and can afford to live in. Perhaps they value the shorter commute and that extra time spent at home with loved ones is worth more to them than buying somewhere further away from work just for the sake of buying rather than renting.

Depending on how long you plan to stay in a particular property it can make better financial sense to rent than buy. Any half decent landlord knows that property is a long term investment so should be in it for the long haul so tenants' homes should be that temporary. The tenant/landlord relationship works must well in the majority of cases otherwise nobody would be a landlord.

If you think it's bad being a landlord in Britain where you can evict a tenant for no reason whatsoever then God help you if you want to be a landlord elsewhere in Europe where you need an actual reason to start eviction proceedings. In fact, in Scotland the Section 33 (equivalent to Section 21 in England & Wales) will become obsolete as Short Assured Tenancies and Assured Tenancies are replaced with Private Rental Tenancies. To start the eviction process landlords will actually need a reason and not just because. :T

You do realise that being rehomed by the council isn't the same as reviving a council property. It can mean living in a B&B or hostel and even then you might not get a council house just another private rental. If you've made yourself intentionally homeless by not paying your rent and are evicted using a Section 8 then not bank on the council helping you at all. The majority of tenants do leave before it gets to court but some simply can't find somewhere else to go, usually those on the bottom rung of the housing ladder which includes some of our most vulnerable people.

Pixie5740

dktreesea wrote: »

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

You think it's better to protect someone's investment over someone's home? Wow, just wow.

Everyone needs a home but nobody needs to be a landlord.

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

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...

What if you're already renting the cheapest place and can't find another landlord willing to take on a tenant in receipt of benefits? What would you do then? £50 a month is a huge sum of money to some and I don't mean those who are spending their money on fripperies.

What would you do if you were in deanna's situation? There but for the grace of God go I.

Pennysmakepounds

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You think it's better to protect someone's investment over someone's home? Wow, just wow.

Everyone needs a home but nobody needs to be a landlord.

your logic amazes me, nothing in this world is free.

Tenants who do not pay rent and expect the LL to house them for free whilst he/she pays the mortgage, the court fees and the utilities (because if the tenant isn't paying rent he/she will not be paying anything else either).

When money starts to grow on trees, i'm sure the kind/sweet LL who worked 40/50 hours a week to buy the second property will plant a tree on in the rental property and let the tenant stay for free.:rotfl::rotfl:

Guest101

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

your logic amazes me, nothing in this world is free.

Tenants who do not pay rent and expect the LL to house them for free whilst he/she pays the mortgage, the court fees and the utilities (because if the tenant isn't paying rent he/she will not be paying anything else either).

When money starts to grow on trees, i'm sure the kind/sweet LL who worked 40/50 hours a week to buy the second property will plant a tree on in the rental property and let the tenant stay for free.:rotfl::rotfl:

Unfortunately your knowledge is clearly limited. Utilities are a tenant debt, a landlord can never be charged for them.


Nothing is free, absolutely, but there are legal means for recovering money owed.


The landlord needs to look at alternate investment opportunities if they do not have the financial security to deal with potential business pitfalls.

dktreesea

Guest101 wrote: »

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

Yes, I should have worded that better - I think it is better to protect the landlord's rights to be able to repossess his property at the end of the notice period in a timely fashion.


A landlord shouldn't be faced with months without an income from the property just because the tenants are playing jump the queue and the council is refusing to help them until "all other avenues are exhausted", saying they can't just leave at the end of the notice board, they have to refuse to leave and be evicted before they become homeless.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

Tenants who do not pay rent and expect the LL to house them for free whilst he/she pays the mortgage, the court fees and the utilities (because if the tenant isn't paying rent he/she will not be paying anything else either).

This is just getting the basics totally wrong. Utilities have nothing to do with the LL.

benjus

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

your logic amazes me, nothing in this world is free.

Tenants who do not pay rent and expect the LL to house them for free whilst he/she pays the mortgage, the court fees and the utilities (because if the tenant isn't paying rent he/she will not be paying anything else either).

When money starts to grow on trees, i'm sure the kind/sweet LL who worked 40/50 hours a week to buy the second property will plant a tree on in the rental property and let the tenant stay for free.:rotfl::rotfl:

You seem to be missing the point. This thread of messages started when I asked if it's more important to protect a tenant's home or a landlord's investment until a judge has assessed the situation and decided who is in the right. I think that a home is more important than an investment, and the law seems to agree.

I'm not saying that tenants should be able to live indefinitely for free. I am saying that landlords should not expect their investments to always yield an income without fail (all investments have an associated risk).