What should the politicians do?

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

It's not uncommon in the UK either. Average tenancy length is 2 years nationally, but in many places it's as high as 4/5 years (that's an average, so there must be quite a few towards 10 years)

That might be how long the tenant remains in the property, but we're talking about the minimum term of the lease - how many (private sector) tenants sign up to anything giving them security of tenure lasting over 12 months?

chappers

leslieknope wrote: »

longer tenancies and rises only with inflation, as is done in most european cities. you can't live your life year to year, you need more security than that. it's not uncommon for tenancies in mainland europe to run to 10 years which offers more stability for the tenants and the landlords know they have a guaranteed income for that long period. obviously if the tenant is being destructive or not paying rent, there would be an eviction process.

But that's the problem, the cumbersome eviction process.
Over the years there has been loads done to clamp down on rogue LLs, but virtually nothing to clamp down on rogue tenants.

Try staying in a hotel and saying I'm not paying and I'm not leaving until you give me written notice that you want me to leave in a months time, then after that write to me again telling me you are taking me to court, then wait a prescribed period before instructing bailiffs, then wait for a bailiff appointment then move me on and if you get any of that process slightly wrong then I can stay even longer.
If you want more security of tenure for good tenants then you also need more protection for good LLs against poor tenants.

A rogue LL who wrongly evicts/tries to evict his tenant usually does so because the rental agreement has broken down for some reason, such as non payment of rent etc and usually ends up incurring costs and out of pocket and that's before any award to the tenant might be made in court.

The rogue tenant who refuses to leave, stops paying rent etc also ends up costing the LL money

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

That might be how long the tenant remains in the property, but we're talking about the minimum term of the lease - how many (private sector) tenants sign up to anything giving them security of tenure lasting over 12 months?

Oh I see, misunderstood.

Comms69

chappers wrote: »

But that's the problem, the cumbersome eviction process.
Over the years there has been loads done to clamp down on rogue LLs, but virtually nothing to clamp down on rogue tenants.

Try staying in a hotel and saying I'm not paying and I'm not leaving until you give me written notice that you want me to leave in a months time, then after that write to me again telling me you are taking me to court, then wait a prescribed period before instructing bailiffs, then wait for a bailiff appointment then move me on and if you get any of that process slightly wrong then I can stay even longer.
If you want more security of tenure for good tenants then you also need more protection for good LLs against poor tenants

- I agree to a point. Certainly about rent arrears etc. Rogue tenants tend to get caught out with good due diligence.


Without being difficult, hotels are covered by different legislation, so it's a bit apples and oranges.


A hospital had to evict a patient once, exactly the same process as a tenant funnily enough.

steampowered

chappers wrote: »

If you want more security of tenure for good tenants then you also need more protection for good LLs against poor tenants

Why do you think it is the job of government to protect landlords?

Sorry, but you are running a business. You have to take business risks.

If you start a business you don't ask the government to bail you out if it does badly. And if you buy shares you don't ask the government to bail you out if the company performs badly.

If you don't want to take the risk of bad tenants you shouldn't be a landlord. Or you should buy insurance to cover yourself.

Pixie5740

The process for evicting a tenant in arrears is far less onorous than evicting a mortgagor who has fallen into arrears.

seven-day-weekend

My tenant has been in situ for nearly two years, he is now on a rolling tenancy (i.e no fixed term). He pays his rent on time, looks after the flat and doesn't bother the neighbours.

Therefore he can stay as long as he likes.

That's the way to get security of tenure. Most landlords who own one property like me wouldn't want to commit to ten years. I would not object to two, after a trial six months.

mrginge

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

For Landlords: The tenant should have to leave at the end of the notice period if they are being evicted for non-payment of rent, not looking after the property or anti-social behaviour. Why should the landlord have to put up with hassle?

If a home owner doesn’t pay their mortgage or smashes up their house, the house should be repossessed at the end of the mortgage fixed term.

why should the lender have to put up with the hassle of due process.

For tenants: After a year, there should have to be three months notice instead of two. No rent rises above inflation.

Three months I would tend to agree with. Rent controls i’m not so sure.

chappers

steampowered wrote: »

If you don't want to take the risk of bad tenants you shouldn't be a landlord. Or you should buy insurance to cover yourself.

Within reason yes.

I can give you an extreme case though.
I know someone who rented a house to a lovely couple, never missed their rent, looked after the house etc. until the girlfriend ran off with the boyfriends Dad.
The boyfriend kept the house on and for the first few months everything was rosy until the boyfriend started drinking heavily.
Cut a long story short rent payments started to be come erratic and eventually tenant was over 5 months in arrears and not looking after the house, so my friend started eviction proceedings.
Not sure if it was the eviction process or what, but the tenant started acting very irrationally and started causing wilful damage to the property, my friend had to watch as they smashed every pane of glass from the windows and boarded them up with ply, over a period of time burnt most of the furniture in the back garden.
When the case came to court the council successfully petitioned for the tenant not to be evicted on the grounds of mental health and he was granted a further 3 months to stay in the property to allow the council to re-house him.
In that time he ripped up floorboards kicked holes in ceilings and ripped radiators off the wall and even went up in the loft and pushed tiles off the roof from the inside.
Anyway the three months came to an end and he still hadn't left so my friend had to go back to court to get permission to instruct the bailiffs, on the day of the eviction the bailiffs gained entry to find the tenant hanging in the hallway from the stairs.

The estimated damage to the property is somewhere in the region of £80k before even considering the lost rent and legal costs, my friend is still in what has been a 2 year legal battle to get the insurance company to pay up. Part of their reason for not paying out is that my friend should have taken better steps to evict the tenant sooner as they knew he was causing damage to the property.

Do you think that is acceptable risk to be taking as LL.
A swifter more robust eviction process could have stopped all of the damage and costs and might even have saved this poor mans life.

Pixie5740

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My tenant has been in situ for nearly two years, he is now on a rolling tenancy (i.e no fixed term). He pays his rent on time, looks after the flat and doesn't bother the neighbours.

Therefore he can stay as long as he likes.

That's the way to get security of tenure. Most landlords who own one property like me wouldn't want to commit to ten years. I would not object to two, after a trial six months.

That’s not security. The tenant is still at the mercy of your whims.