What should the politicians do?

chappers

mrginge wrote: »

That is exactly the scenario we have at the moment.

But it's so cumbersome with extended timeframes between stages and too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the law.
Say under section 8 you wish to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. It goes 2 months, you then give them notice, they still don't leave so you go to court etc etc etc.
The tenant knows that they should be paying rent, it's in the contract, two months of not paying has already past before you threaten court. that tenant should be under threat of eviction at a moments notice.
If the LL has a watertight case why shouldn't say the bailiffs office be able to over look the case and instantly instruct the bailiffs why does it need to go through all the rigmarole of the extended process.
If it turns out the LL hasn't acted fairly , and hasn't followed procedure then he should be punished and punished hard.
Taking 6 months, plus to evict a tenant who has breached a mandatory possession criteria at 2 months is just totally unacceptable.

Comms69

chappers wrote: »

But it's so cumbersome with extended timeframes between stages and too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the law. - And you think that any new system you introduce wont have the same extended timeframes, without at the very least significant funding from somewhere?
Say under section 8 you wish to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. It goes 2 months, you then give them notice, they still don't leave so you go to court etc etc etc.
The tenant knows that they should be paying rent, it's in the contract, two months of not paying has already past before you threaten court. that tenant should be under threat of eviction at a moments notice. - Indeed, but by who? You and your mates? Bailiffs act on court orders.
If the LL has a watertight case why shouldn't say the bailiffs office be able to over look the case and instantly instruct the bailiffs why does it need to go through all the rigmarole of the extended process.- because without a court order, there is no statutory powers for bailiffs to act. What you're suggesting doesn't work, because of the way our whole legal system is structured.
If it turns out the LL hasn't acted fairly , and hasn't followed procedure then he should be punished and punished hard.
Taking 6 months, plus to evict a tenant who has breached a mandatory possession criteria at 2 months is just totally unacceptable.

What you're suggesting would open the floodgates for a whole draft of civil claims who want special treatment because 'its not fair'

Pixie5740

chappers wrote: »

But it's so cumbersome with extended timeframes between stages and too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the law.
Say under section 8 you wish to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. It goes 2 months, you then give them notice, they still don't leave so you go to court etc etc etc.
The tenant knows that they should be paying rent, it's in the contract, two months of not paying has already past before you threaten court. that tenant should be under threat of eviction at a moments notice.
If the LL has a watertight case why shouldn't say the bailiffs office be able to over look the case and instantly instruct the bailiffs why does it need to go through all the rigmarole of the extended process.
If it turns out the LL hasn't acted fairly , and hasn't followed procedure then he should be punished and punished hard.
Taking 6 months, plus to evict a tenant who has breached a mandatory possession criteria at 2 months is just totally unacceptable.

What bailiffs office? To legally evict a tenant a county court bailiff or a high court enforcement officer would need to be used and a landlord is neither a county court nor a high court.

Pixie5740

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Wouldn't they be given notice in the normal way?

Given notice by whom? The landlord burying their head in the sand about the arrears or the mortgage lender going for repossession who doesn't know the tenants are there?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes I do know that but so many obviously don't take any notice of the law, do they? I was talking about tightening up on this and enforcing the law.

Why did you say that the law needs clarifying then? How do you propose the law is tightened up and how should it be enforced? There are plenty of landlords out there who threaten eviction if a tenant requests vital repairs. This was sort of dealt with in the Deregulation Act 2015 but that only gives the tenants a 6 month reprieve and is of no use to tenants who request repairs during the first half of a 12-month AST.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I personally would always want to keep my property in good repair, it's my investment as well as the tenant's home. However, it is not always the fault of landlords if repairs are not done - some tenants I know caused a massive damp problem in their landlord's house because they did not report a leak, and would not allow him in the house for inspections. It cost the landlord £1000s, when he eventually got in, to have it repaired.

Yes but not every landlord thinks in the same way you do. Some tenants don't report repairs because they are scared of eviction and others are just eejits. I'd wager that there are more tenants living in substandard conditions because the landlord doesn't care or can't afford to carry out repairs than there are eejits who don't report leaks.

mrginge

chappers wrote: »

But it's so cumbersome with extended timeframes between stages and too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in the law.
Say under section 8 you wish to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. It goes 2 months, you then give them notice, they still don't leave so you go to court etc etc etc.
The tenant knows that they should be paying rent, it's in the contract, two months of not paying has already past before you threaten court. that tenant should be under threat of eviction at a moments notice.
If the LL has a watertight case why shouldn't say the bailiffs office be able to over look the case and instantly instruct the bailiffs why does it need to go through all the rigmarole of the extended process.
If it turns out the LL hasn't acted fairly , and hasn't followed procedure then he should be punished and punished hard.
Taking 6 months, plus to evict a tenant who has breached a mandatory possession criteria at 2 months is just totally unacceptable.

You’re not seriously suggesting that bailiffs should be able to determine if someone is in arrears or not?

Comms69

mrginge wrote: »

You’re not seriously suggesting that bailiffs should be able to determine if someone is in arrears or not?

No he seems to be suggesting that bailiffs accept the landlords word (evidence) that there are arrears

mrginge

Comms69 wrote: »

No he seems to be suggesting that bailiffs accept the landlords word (evidence) that there are arrears

Oh my misunderstanding. That sounds a lot more reasonable.

:eek::eek:

westernpromise

Comms69 wrote: »

Do you have an example of the kind of crime and effective punishment you'd like to see?

Criminal damage and theft of fixtures and fittings, typically.

Rogue tenants should receive a damn good thrashing in front of the whole house.

Comms69

westernpromise wrote: »

Criminal damage and theft of fixtures and fittings, typically.

Rogue tenants should receive a damn good thrashing in front of the whole house.

Ok allow me to clarify a couple of things.


1: Criminal damage is already a crime.
2: So is theft.


Neither of those require a new law, nor a particular emphasis on being a tenant.


As for your suggestion of punishment... You're a moron. And frankly I'm not fussed if I get a card for that.

bris

I am currently in an abandoned property scenario (Scotland)


The rent didn't get paid so that was one month, the chasing and trying to contact the tenant took nearly another month that's 2. The Notice to quit and Section 33 took another 3 months due to the minimum notice required, two months but miss the tenancy start date and it can extend this to almost 3 that's nearly 5 months.


The notice is now up but can I just take the property back, can I hell as they can't be contacted to give me the keys back, it would at this point still be classed as an illegal eviction.


I now need a court order for possession. Paper work was drawn up but no forwarding address for the tenant so I can't serve it. I can serve notice on the walls of the court but first I must prove to the Sheriff that the tenant can't be traced. I instruct a Sheriff's officers track and trace service to do this. Cant find any trace of them so a letter to the sheriff is sent and 3 weeks later they accept the application to serve notice on the walls of the court. I'm now nearly 6 months in at this point.


The calling date is 23rd November 8 weeks after the Summary cause summons was served on the courts walls so in all it will be nearly 8 months before I get an order for possession. Is this fair?


I can handle it but how many LL's would this break, how many has it already broken.


In Scotland from December a new tenancy agreement comes into law where we can't evict a tenant at the end of the minimum period, they can give 28 days notice, we cant give any unless we have grounds to do so, so in effect there can be no "revenge evictions". In other words LL's can't get their house back unless the tenant is 3 months in arrears or you want to sell the house. There are other grounds but most are relatively unlikely.


This will come to England too as far as I know.