What should the politicians do?

steampowered

chappers wrote: »

Within reason yes.

I can give you an extreme case though.

I'd suggest this sort of case is the reason why you have insurance.

In exactly the same way that any other business has insurance for catastrophic events.

I don't know why the insurer is not paying up.

westernpromise

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The landlord should put up with the hassle because the list you have given are all risks associated with letting property.

Nah, the tenants should put up with the hassle because being evicted is part of the risk associated with renting property.

westernpromise

Pixie5740 wrote: »

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

So it should be - the mortgagee has security for what he is owed, in the form of the house, so any additional costs recovered by the delay can come out of what the house is sold for when recovered.

chappers

Comms69 wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise, I tend to agree with the insurers, rent late, serve notice. 5 months is far too long to wait and then complain the process is slow.

most of the damage was caused after the eviction process was started, I do realise this was an extreme case and the tenant was suffering from mental health issues, but it was the court that extended the eviction process. my point isn't so much about the length of the process but the ambiguity built into the process there needs to be a clarity as to when there should be a mandatory eviction.

mrginge wrote: »

Perfectly acceptable risk given the probability of such a scenario.

You don’t make policy based on the most extreme cases.

It’s often the case that people write or say things in the order of importance to them. It’s something subtle that I always look for as it can be quite revealing.

Risk was probably the wrong term to use as obviously the risk of this happening is very small. But do you think this was an acceptable procedure to have to go through to evict a tenant who was clearly in arrears, had mental health issues and causing damage to the property. The court shouldn't have even had the option to grant leave to remain in the property.

mrginge

chappers wrote: »

Risk was probably the wrong term to use as obviously the risk of this happening is very small. But do you think this was an acceptable procedure to have to go through to evict a tenant who was clearly in arrears, had mental health issues and causing damage to the property. The court shouldn't have even had the option to grant leave to remain in the property.

I think it's perfectly acceptable that there is a legal process to follow before someone can be removed from their home.

chucknorris

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree it is not security of tenure as a social tenancy would be, but we don't want to change tenants just for the fun of it. If he continues to be a good tenant he can stay.

We gave up trying to get longer term rental agreements, no tenants ever wanted them. We wanted them because there is a lot of work generated at the change of tenant. So it would have been nice to minimise that with much longer tenancy agreements. But we never found even one tenant (over 8 properties and 26 years) that wanted a tenancy agreement over 12 months, although many stayed on for years later (our longest was 12 years, with plenty 5 years plus).


I have to admit though that was probably because our target tenants were sharing professionals, rather than families (although we did end up with a few families now and again).

chappers

mrginge wrote: »

I think it's perfectly acceptable that there is a legal process to follow before someone can be removed from their home.

Totally agree, but it needs to be proportionate. there are two parties to a rental contract and for the considerations of that contract to be fulfilled the rules of that contract have to be followed.

Are you saying you think it's fair that a supposedly mandatory reason for a judge to grant possession back to a landlord, was circumvented, especially in light of what happened subsequently.

mrginge

chappers wrote: »

Totally agree, but it needs to be proportionate. there are two parties to a rental contract and for the considerations of that contract to be fulfilled the rules of that contract have to be followed.

Are you saying you think it's fair that a supposedly mandatory reason for a judge to grant possession back to a landlord, was circumvented, especially in light of what happened subsequently.

How can anyone reasonably comment on one particular case where you have presented one side of the argument?
There may be an issue with that judgement or there may not.

In general though, in my view the balance of legislation should be weighted towards protecting the consumer rather than the supplier. I don't therefore believe a reduction in all tenants rights just to protect a minute number of landlords from extreme cases like the one you describe is justifiable.

volare11512

The banning of letting agent fees and ending of section 21. As a T I understand why there is a section 21, but it hurts the majority is great tenants. However, those eviction notices have been used as a threat against Ts. For example I see one post on another forum. about a broken sink and one poster pipes up with serving a S21 against the T. Total misuse. However, if LA fees get banned then it will make it easier for Ts to move so I think this will stop the action of S21 being handed out like sweets and could bring potential voids for LLs.

FBaby

The landlord should put up with the hassle because the list you have given are all risks associated with letting property. If you can’t handle them don’t become a landlord.

Any intelligent person doesn't go ahead and take risks for the good of society. They take calculated risk because it is worth for them to do so because there is a at least equal if not better chance of a gain.

Unfortunately, your attitude is what has led the government to make it not worthwhile to be a LL because the risks are becoming greater than the rewards, hence more and more LL selling up. Of course, that is great for those who can become home owners, but not so much for those who can't, who are already struggling to find properties to rent, and who will face even more competition to get a decent place to rent.

he problems with renting that I can see are that there is no security for tenants. If people are going to renting for all/most of their lives they need to have security

Again, totally disagree with this. Besides people who are disabled, or with learning disability, we all start with the same opportunities to become home owner. We can all decide to study hard, go to Uni, earn a decent salary, become a home owner. Of course some people will face more difficult hurdles than others, but the opportunity is there.

The problem is that some people are not prepared to invest the efforts to get there. They are happy with lower paid jobs, reduced hours, less stressful conditions, being SAHM etc... There is nothing wrong with these choices, but you can't have your cake and eat it and think you should then be entitled to the same than people who have put more in to get more, and security is one of these luxuries.

That's not even going into the security of home ownership vs social housing. I also think there is a mislead view of the richness of LLs.