What should the politicians do?

thepurplepixie

I've got two rental properties at the moment. One tenant has been in the house for just over 6 years. I've just spent £4,000 on the house but it has cost me very little in the previous six years. He is a good tenant and I suppose he hasn't got legal security but he knows he can stay indefinitely. My other house has a young family in, again they don't have legal security but we have told them we won't be looking to sell the house while their children are school age so they hopefully feel secure. They are both nice houses, I would be happy to live in either of them and they are both within walking distance of my own home. They are excellent tenants and I imagine they will either decide to leave or I will die and my kids will sell the houses.

Pixie5740

bris wrote: »

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.

If your tenant was 3 months in arrears why didn't you use the AT6 using ground 8? That way you would only have had to wait 2 weeks before applying for a court date.

bris wrote: »

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.

Can't you just use the rental property's address since that's the last known address of the tenant? Genuine question because I'm sure creditors can use the last known address when chasing debtors.

bris wrote: »

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?

That's a risk of letting a property. However, I'm surprised by the number of landlords in Scotland and England who use the "no fault" notices for eviction rather than the grounds specifically for rent arrears since you can apply to the courts much sooner.

bris wrote: »

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

How many tenants' lives are ruined by rogue landlords? In an ideal world your tenant would now be renting from one of the rogue landlords. A match made in heaven or should that be hell?

bris wrote: »

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.

What other reasons would you have for wanting to evict a tenant?

seven-day-weekend

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If your tenant was 3 months in arrears why didn't you use the AT6 using ground 8? That way you would only have had to wait 2 weeks before applying for a court date.




Can't you just use the rental property's address since that's the last known address of the tenant? Genuine question because I'm sure creditors can use the last known address when chasing debtors.




That's a risk of letting a property. However, I'm surprised by the number of landlords in Scotland and England who use the "no fault" notices for eviction rather than the grounds specifically for rent arrears since you can apply to the courts much sooner.




How many tenants' lives are ruined by rogue landlords? In an ideal world your tenant would now be renting from one of the rogue landlords. A match made in heaven or should that be hell?




What other reasons would you have for wanting to evict a tenant?

You might want to live in the house yourself, or a family member might want to, or the tenant may have trashed the place and you would prefer it not trashed.

Pixie5740

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You might want to live in the house yourself, or a family member might want to, or the tenant may have trashed the place and you would prefer it not trashed.

Grounds for eviction already covered by the Section 8 in England & Wales and the AT6 in Scotland then.

FBaby

Yes supply of rental properties will drop but if there are now more owner-occupiers there will be less demand for rental properties too.

This assumes that current a significant number tenants would be in a position to become home owner if prices went down. Is this definitely the case? Won't it instead leave more families, still not earning enough to afford a mortgage with even less rental properties?

This is a whole other discussion but I'm not certain than couple number 1 in your scenario are necessarily right in the way they run their family. What's the point of having children if the couple are going to stick them in nursery as soon as possible to go back to long commutes and working full time? What couple 1 have that couple 2 won't is choice.

Exactly, it's the choice of being able to offer security! I suppose it just comes down to this, your belief that the government should offer security to all and that somehow this is affordable, whilst my belief is that although this is honourable, the reality is that if security is offered to those who opt for a nicer work-life balance, then what becomes the incentive for families to work longer hours and therefore pay more tax into the system? Anyone would be mad to want to be a home owner, let alone a landlord if you can get the same advantages being a tenant, having a better life and not having to worry about all the problems that comes with home ownership or being a LL.

chappers

Comms69 wrote: »

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

No I'm not suggesting that under the current court/bailiff system, but there is no reason that the whole system couldn't be reformed.
For example whereby a judge fast tracks clear cut cases direct to the bailiffs.
For example your tenant goes into arrears by the qualifying period, what ever that is set at, you give notice via a prescribed court form, which gives clear instruction on how the tenant can defend the notice and the timeframe for doing so, as soon as that timeframe expires the judge makes a judgement that yes the eviction is valid and instructs the bailiffs or else denies the claim. Simple all tied up say within a single month. cutting the process to 3 months instead of the cumbersome unknowns we have at present.

Comms69

chappers wrote: »

No I'm not suggesting that under the current court/bailiff system, but there is no reason that the whole system couldn't be reformed. - There are many, but to name a few money and lack of court time.
For example whereby a judge fast tracks clear cut cases direct to the bailiffs. - in what way are they clear cut? Anyone could fabricate evidence to show whatever they wanted if the other party cannot challenge it.
For example your tenant goes into arrears by the qualifying period, what ever that is set at, you give notice via a prescribed court form, which gives clear instruction on how the tenant can defend the notice and the timeframe for doing so - so the current system? , as soon as that timeframe expires the judge makes a judgement that yes the eviction is valid and instructs the bailiffs or else denies the claim. - so you simply want to shorten the timeframe? I don't understand what it is you actually want Simple all tied up say within a single month. cutting the process to 3 months instead of the cumbersome unknowns we have at present.

The process is only 3 months for a mandatory s.8 notice because of lack of court time and resources, so who pays for this?

Crashy_Time

This politician gets it, pity he doesn`t have much power.....


http://www.onenewspage.com/n/Markets/75eh23b4b/Xi-Jinping-Speech-Housing-Is-For.htm

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

This assumes that current a significant number tenants would be in a position to become home owner if prices went down. Is this definitely the case? Won't it instead leave more families, still not earning enough to afford a mortgage with even less rental properties?

It's not necessarily that house prices will go down it's that buyers would be less likely to compete with landlords for the same properties. There isn't a market for first time buyers and a market for landlords it the same, limited pool of housing stock. In 2010, there was over five times more lending to first-time buyers, compared to buy-to-let landlords. Over the next five years, this dropped considerably. In 2011, there was only 3.8 times as much lending to first-time buyers, which fell to 3.7 in 2012, then to 3.6 in 2014. Finally, in 2015, there was just three times more lending to first-time buyers than landlords.


Since the introduction of the higher rate of SDLT and changes to mortgage interest relief the average first-time buyer in London is now nearly half as likely to find themselves competing with a landlord buyer for a desired property than in 2015. The research by Countrywide, the estate agency group, found 39 per cent of London first-time buyers came up against a landlord buyer in 2015, but the proportion had fallen to 21 per cent in the first six months of 2017.


More owner-occupiers = less tenants. The supply of rental properties might drop as landlords decide to sell up or invest elsewhere instead of increasing their property portfolio but as there will be less people wanting to rent there will be less demand for those rental properties available.


You also need to consider the type of properties for rent. There are properties that are suitable for transient tenants, students, young people starting out, professionals who move for work. Those sorts of tenants might only be looking for security for 6 months to 3 years. Then there are the properties more suited to family life where the tenant is looking for much more security with children at school etc. Landlords letting those types of properties, I would have thought, would be looking for very long term tenants because that's the sort of tenant the property will attract.


Every bona fide reason a landlord would want to evict a tenant is already covered by the Section 8 in England/Wales and the TA6 in Scotland and will be covered by he new Property Rental Tenancies in Scotland so why is there a need to be able to evict tenants for no reason whatsoever. It's a Sword of Damocles that dangles above tenants' heads and is misused and abused by so many landlords and letting agents.

FBaby wrote: »

Exactly, it's the choice of being able to offer security! I suppose it just comes down to this, your belief that the government should offer security to all and that somehow this is affordable, whilst my belief is that although this is honourable, the reality is that if security is offered to those who opt for a nicer work-life balance, then what becomes the incentive for families to work longer hours and therefore pay more tax into the system? Anyone would be mad to want to be a home owner, let alone a landlord if you can get the same advantages being a tenant, having a better life and not having to worry about all the problems that comes with home ownership or being a LL.

No that choice would not be security. Couple #1 would have more choice in where to live which also means a wider choice of schools for their children, living in a lower crime rate area, the size of house - siblings don't have to share rooms, a garden, a larger garden, room for a pony, more living space. More choices than someone on a more limited budget would have. If those things are important to you and your family then that is your incentive to work longer longer hours. Other people will prioritise more time with their families over working longer hours accepting that means making doing with less (money). Some people will be somewhere in the middle.


Social housing was originally created to take working class people and their families out of the privately owned slums they were living in. Did the supply of council housing disincentivise all those people from working hard? Unfortunately many of those people took advantage of RTB, although I can't hand on heart say I wouldn't have done the same in their shoes, worse still is that a third of them have put the properties they purchased with a whopping great discount into the private rental sector.


You still haven't answered my point about people who do important but low paid jobs from whom home ownership might never be an option. Should they have to live their lives with the constant thread of the Section 21 looming in the background.

Comms69

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not necessarily that house prices will go down it's that buyers would be less likely to compete with landlords for the same properties. There isn't a market for first time buyers and a market for landlords it the same, limited pool of housing stock. In 2010, there was over five times more lending to first-time buyers, compared to buy-to-let landlords. Over the next five years, this dropped considerably. In 2011, there was only 3.8 times as much lending to first-time buyers, which fell to 3.7 in 2012, then to 3.6 in 2014. Finally, in 2015, there was just three times more lending to first-time buyers than landlords.


Since the introduction of the higher rate of SDLT and changes to mortgage interest relief the average first-time buyer in London is now nearly half as likely to find themselves competing with a landlord buyer for a desired property than in 2015. The research by Countrywide, the estate agency group, found 39 per cent of London first-time buyers came up against a landlord buyer in 2015, but the proportion had fallen to 21 per cent in the first six months of 2017.


More owner-occupiers = less tenants. The supply of rental properties might drop as landlords decide to sell up or invest elsewhere instead of increasing their property portfolio but as there will be less people wanting to rent there will be less demand for those rental properties available.


You also need to consider the type of properties for rent. There are properties that are suitable for transient tenants, students, young people starting out, professionals who move for work. Those sorts of tenants might only be looking for security for 6 months to 3 years. Then there are the properties more suited to family life where the tenant is looking for much more security with children at school etc. Landlords letting those types of properties, I would have thought, would be looking for very long term tenants because that's the sort of tenant the property will attract.


Every bona fide reason a landlord would want to evict a tenant is already covered by the Section 8 in England/Wales and the TA6 in Scotland and will be covered by he new Property Rental Tenancies in Scotland so why is there a need to be able to evict tenants for no reason whatsoever. It's a Sword of Damocles that dangles above tenants' heads and is misused and abused by so many landlords and letting agents.





No that choice would not be security. Couple #1 would have more choice in where to live which also means a wider choice of schools for their children, living in a lower crime rate area, the size of house - siblings don't have to share rooms, a garden, a larger garden, room for a pony, more living space. More choices than someone on a more limited budget would have. If those things are important to you and your family then that is your incentive to work longer longer hours. Other people will prioritise more time with their families over working longer hours accepting that means making doing with less (money). Some people will be somewhere in the middle.


Social housing was originally created to take working class people and their families out of the privately owned slums they were living in. Did the supply of council housing disincentivise all those people from working hard? Unfortunately many of those people took advantage of RTB, although I can't hand on heart say I wouldn't have done the same in their shoes, worse still is that a third of them have put the properties they purchased with a whopping great discount into the private rental sector.


You still haven't answered my point about people who do important but low paid jobs from whom home ownership might never be an option. Should they have to live their lives with the constant thread of the Section 21 looming in the background.

Good examples are: 90% of the public sector workforce