Tenant wont leave!!

Pennysmakepounds

Pixie5740 wrote: »

What makes you think that it's a lot of cat's !!!! that deanna's LL wanted to sell? It does happen you know.

Would a LL only issue a Section 21 if the tenant refuses to move? That doesn't make much sense. How would the tenant know the landlord unless the LL served notice? Even then the Section 21 doesn't end the tenancy.

2 months might be long enough for some tenants to find new homes but not always especially if it means having to find a new home in the same catchment area for the children's' schooling. Then there are tenants who claim housing benefit who struggle to find a landlord willing to take on a tenant if receipt of benefits. If these tenants can't find somewhere new then they turn to the council who can't/won't help until bailiffs have removed them from the property.

Nobody needs to become a landlord but everyone needs somewhere to live. Landlords can do a lot to prevent ending up with dud tenants such as learning and understanding their legal obligations as well as doing some due diligence when selecting tenants.

In most cases LL will NOT want to get rid of GOOD tenants, who pay the rent on-time and look after the property - at the end of the day it is an income for LL. That’s like quitting a job you love for no apparent reason or shooting yourself in the foot – as the old saying goes

When Section 21 notices are issues by the LL there are always underlying reason/issues.

Now I’m not saying it’s always the tenant who is at fault when a NO REASON section 21 is issued. BAD LL may want rid of a tenant because they are asking for improvements or something else that the LL SHOULD provide and is unwilling to do so. Therefore the LL sees the S21 as a way of removing the problem by getting rid of the tenant.

However, more often than not a S21 eviction notice is issued because there is a underlying issue between the tenant and the LL.

Now I agree that there will be times when a LL is forced to issues a S21 to a tenant who pays the rent on time and causes no issues to the LL. But a S21 is NOT normally be a route that a LL will want to take. If it’s a good tenant the LL will normally speak to the tenant and advise of the situation and ask then to vacate, before going down the route of the S21.

When a S21 is issued there will normally be a underlying reason, LL don’t do it for fun to see the tenants out on the street.

The bottom line is, that the property does NOT belong to the tenants and the LL should have a right to decide what he wants to do with the property.

However, I agree that this does cause inconvenience to good tenant of having to find somewhere else to live.

theartfullodger

Landlords evict for all sorts of reasons -
... They want to sell...
.. they want to do major refurbs
.. to move a relative/mate/mistress/toy-boy in
.. brain storm...

..all when tenant is perfect..

Unfair on tenants perhaps, & perhaps part of why Scotland is abolishing their s21 equivalent..

deFoix

I've been a tenant most of my working life and never been a landlord.

I believe the 'theft' analogy mentioned a few posts up is accurate. The eviction process for tenants who don't pay what they owe should be quicker and more efficient. The reasons:

1. It pushes up costs/deposits etc for 'good' tenants.
2. Reduces stock of private rented accommodation (my parents gave up renting out their 2nd home after dealing with dodgy tenants).
3. Increases likelihood of LLs taking things into their own hands. Why go though the courts when you can just cut the services or take the front door off its hinges.
4. Allows councils and ultimately government to be let off the hook for keeping those in genuine need off the streets.

Regards

Guest101

Boler1985 wrote: »

I've been a tenant most of my working life and never been a landlord.

I believe the 'theft' analogy mentioned a few posts up is accurate. The eviction process for tenants who don't pay what they owe should be quicker and more efficient. -The eviction process for tenants who don't pay, is quicker and more efficient. The reasons:

1. It pushes up costs/deposits etc for 'good' tenants. - In what way?
2. Reduces stock of private rented accommodation (my parents gave up renting out their 2nd home after dealing with dodgy tenants). - So they've kept the property empty since then?
3. Increases likelihood of LLs taking things into their own hands. - Really? Why go though the courts when you can just cut the services or take the front door off its hinges. - Prison, hefty fine and even larger civil law suit?
4. Allows councils and ultimately government to be let off the hook for keeping those in genuine need off the streets. - In what way? The tenants have a valid tenancy.

Regards

Are you seriously suggesting that LLs think, why bother issuing a few bits of paperwork, I'd rather get arrested, criminal conviction, banned from being a landlord and sued for thousands?

Pennysmakepounds

Guest101 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that LLs think, why bother issuing a few bits of paperwork, I'd rather get arrested, criminal conviction, banned from being a landlord and sued for thousands?

To be honest some tenants just need some personalised love and attention from a few classy people from their OWN CLASS and standing, can work wonders in motivating them to do as they are told. :rotfl:

If i was 6 foot 5 and built like a brick sh*t house i may be tempted...lol

LL of that calibre do exist, i've heard of a few stories of assisted house moves.

The truth is that it's the LL that has to follow procedure to evict the tenants, go to courts file papers, pay fees etc etc.

If you do 'Assist' BAD tenants to move out, they have to go though the whole court process and you can sit and wait for the snail legal system to move.

Pennysmakepounds

Guest101 wrote: »

-The eviction process for tenants who don't pay, is quicker and more efficient

So in your opinion 5/6 months for the process to evict a NON-PAYING tenant, who is trashing your property is quick.

I'd love to live on the same planet as you.:cool:

deFoix

Guest101 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that LLs think, why bother issuing a few bits of paperwork, I'd rather get arrested, criminal conviction, banned from being a landlord and sued for thousands?

It's not uncommon for LLs to lose over 10k in lost rent waiting for bad tenants to be evicted. I'm not proposing that people take the law into their own hands but I suspect the chances of being charged for 'problems with the electricity supply' and 'random vandalism of the front door' are very remote. Just saying.

Sibley

My friend rents around 10 properties.
He uses a specialist tenant removal service that costs about £600.

They are brilliant.

Pixie5740

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

In most cases LL will NOT want to get rid of GOOD tenants, who pay the rent on-time and look after the property - at the end of the day it is an income for LL. That’s like quitting a job you love for no apparent reason or shooting yourself in the foot – as the old saying goes

And this has what to do with deanna's LL selling?

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

When Section 21 notices are issues by the LL there are always underlying reason/issues.

Well yes I imagine there are always reasons for issuing Section 21 notices. The landlord wants to sell (numerous reasons for wanting to sell), the letting agent is using the notice as an aggressive tactic to get the tenant to pay exorbitant fees for signing a new fixed term tenancy, the tenant is a PITA, the landlord wants to move back into the property themselves, the tenant is in arrears but for some inexplicable reason the landlord isn't using the quicker Section 8 route, tenant has requested repairs (thankfully not such a problem now for tenancies starting after 1st Oct 2015). Plenty of reasons a Section 21 can be issued and not that many of them to do with the tenant.

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

Now I’m not saying it’s always the tenant who is at fault when a NO REASON section 21 is issued. BAD LL may want rid of a tenant because they are asking for improvements or something else that the LL SHOULD provide and is unwilling to do so. Therefore the LL sees the S21 as a way of removing the problem by getting rid of the tenant.

So you're now saying there aren't always underlying issues?

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

However, more often than not a S21 eviction notice is issued because there is a underlying issue between the tenant and the LL.

Do you have evidence to back this up? I thought a lot of Section 21 notices were issued by landlords/letting agents right at the start of tenancies, a kind of Sword of Damocles if you will. Thankfully for AST that started 1st Oct 2015 or after this is less of an issue but before some LL and LA were dishing Section 21 notices out like sweeties. That doesn't stop letting agents threatening tenants with Section 21 notices if they want the tenancy to become periodic rather than paying hundreds of pounds for a new fixed term contract every 6 or 12 months.

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

Now I agree that there will be times when a LL is forced to issues a S21 to a tenant who pays the rent on time and causes no issues to the LL. But a S21 is NOT normally be a route that a LL will want to take. If it’s a good tenant the LL will normally speak to the tenant and advise of the situation and ask then to vacate, before going down the route of the S21.

So why can't that have been the case in deanna's situation? Why assume what she is saying is cat's !!!!?

What does it cost to issue a Section 21, the price of a stamp that's all. Certainly call the tenant and say that you need them to vacate if you have a good relationship with them but keep things professional. It's the same as a tenant telling the landlord that they wish to end the tenancy but still keeping things right by sending notice in the post.

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

When a S21 is issued there will normally be a underlying reason, LL don’t do it for fun to see the tenants out on the street.

Yes I think we have established that there is usually a reason for issuing a Section 21.

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

The bottom line is, that the property does NOT belong to the tenants and the LL should have a right to decide what he wants to do with the property.

That's just where you are wrong. It does belong to the tenant. When the tenancy was created the landlord gave possession to the tenant and that's why possession can only be given back by the tenant or a court. If people cannot cope with that concept then being a landlord is not for them.

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

However, I agree that this does cause inconvenience to good tenant of having to find somewhere else to live.

Well we agree on something.

Pixie5740

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

So in your opinion 5/6 months for the process to evict a NON-PAYING tenant, who is trashing your property is quick.

I'd love to live on the same planet as you.:cool:

If you go down the Section 8 route then it shouldn't take 5/6 months.

Where do landlords find these non-paying tenants who go around trashing properties? Have they always been model tenants beforehand which is why they have such glowing references from previous landlords? Then for some reason wake up one day and decide to stop paying rent and trash their home?