Renting: Security of tenure

moneysavinmonkey

BobProperty wrote: »

No they have to go through the courts and it takes several months. Same as a landlord getting a tenant out. What's your point? Did I say this should apply to mortgage holders? NO. I said IF the TENANTS breach THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

exactly! you think a 14 day eviction rule should apply to tenants only - an example you gave was if you were in rent arrears...

why is it that you don't think that this should also apply to those who are in mortgage arrears?

if someone looses their job for a couple months and has money problems you think they should be treated differently depending on whether they pay money to live in a property each month to the bank or to a landlord. I'm just asking you morally why you think that is?

You statement just goes to prove that you look down on tenants as second-class citizens.

olly300

BobProperty wrote: »

I'd be happy with that so long as I could get the tenants actually evicted and out of the property within 14 days of a major breach of their tenancy agreement or within say 14 days of being 2 months in arrears. Currently the court system means waiting several months, usually without any rent coming in, before the tenant can be removed.

What do you mean by a "major breach"?

BobProperty

olly300 wrote: »

What do you mean by a "major breach"?

Easy one first. I think I mis-interpreted monkey's post and they'll need a more considered reply.
There are some in AST's already. Things like faking references, fraud, using the place for illegal purposes.

BobProperty

First I mis-interpreted what you were saying. You were comparing 14 days notice to get out as opposed to the months it takes to get a mortgagee out of a property. Sorry. Right back to the full half-hour.....

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

exactly! you think a 14 day eviction rule should apply to tenants only - an example you gave was if you were in rent arrears...

why is it that you don't think that this should also apply to those who are in mortgage arrears?

I think it should. Then people would take their borrowing and responsibilities more seriously.
Alternatively, tenants should be allowed the current several months timescale for eviction procedures provided they have put up a deposit to the value of 75% of the value of the property, thereby putting themselves on a par with mortgage holders. (you can't see it on my avatar but my tongue is in my cheek)

Evee2000 wrote: »

if someone looses their job for a couple months and has money problems you think they should be treated differently depending on whether they pay money to live in a property each month to the bank or to a landlord. I'm just asking you morally why you think that is?

No, so lets have a level playing field. Two months rent arrears or two months mortgage arrears and you can be evicted. Oh, hang on, that's about what the law says now. Only difference I'm after is that the whole process is speeded up and doesn't drag through the courts for months on end. Benefits system will have to speed up probably too.

Evee2000 wrote: »

You statement just goes to prove that you look down on tenants as second-class citizens.

I am a tenant.

coal9011

But why be a Landlord if you are not prepared to offer "short to medium term" security of tenure to the Tenant? By this I mean a tenancy period of 12 to 36 months?

Surely the the "perfect" senario for a Landlord is to have a property occupied by a Tenant for a long period of time who appreciates the fact that they can stay long enough to get "settled". A Tenant who respects the property, taking care of it, eliminating the cost of too frequent mainenance or repair, leaving the Landlord to just sit back and pocket uninterupted rental income.

The effect of "little" security of tenture is that the Landlord has more regular turnover of Tenants resulting in more frequent "property expenses" more: lock changing, re-decoration, changes or cleaning of carpets, fixtures & fittings, vetting and interviewing of new tenants and all the other "hassle" that goes with the change-over of Tenant's, on a much more regular basis then necessary.

It's "false economy" not being prepared to grant better security of tenure to good tenants. The County Courts have been - and always will be - in position to deal with the bad one's.

This whole situation is being approached from what looks like "fear" on the part of the Landlord (fear of hosting & not being able to get out a bad tenant) which is then interpreted as "contempt for tenants" on the part of good Tenant's by never (or very rarely) being offered decent security of tenure.

"live and let live" ......... Is my sentiment.

moneysavinmonkey

lol - ok i'll get down off my highhorse then BobProperty - thankfully you saw how I was intepreting your posts!

I'm in agreement with you now - except I don't see why tenants should put up a 75% deposit.. i see little difference between a tenant and someone with a 100% IO mortage.

moneysavinmonkey

coal9011 wrote: »

But why be a Landlord if you are not prepared to offer "short to medium term" security of tenure to the Tenant? By this I mean a tenancy period of 12 to 36 months?

Surely the the "perfect" senario for a Landlord is to have a property occupied by a Tenant for a long period of time who appreciates the fact that they can stay long enough to get "settled". A Tenant who respects the property, taking care of it, eliminating the cost of too frequent mainenance or repair, leaving the Landlord to just sit back and pocket uninterupted rental income.

The effect of "little" security of tenture is that the Landlord has more regular turnover of Tenants resulting in more frequent "property expenses" more: lock changing, re-decoration, changes of carpets, fixtures & fittings, vetting and interviewing of new tenants and all the other "hassle" that goes with the change-over of Tenant's, on a much more regular basis then necessary.

It's "false economy" not being prepared to grant better security of tenure to good tenants. The County Courts have been - and always will be - in position to deal with the bad one's.

This whole situation is being approached from what looks like "fear" on the part of the Landlord (fear of hosting & not being able to get out a bad tenant) which is then interpreted as "contempt for tenants" on the part of good Tenant's by never (or very rarely) being offered decent security of tenure.

"live and let live" ......... Is my sentiment.

there are many kind and sensible landlords to be found on MSE - looks like coa9011 is one of them. But in the real world my experience is very different. Four years ago i never would have dreamed about the nutty things that people would do to me. There are plenty of stories on here, including mine so i won't go into them all again.

I have been told by one landlady not to call her (heating was broken for over 2 weeks at that point) as i was staying in 'her house' and could not tell her what to do! The other thing you have to understand is that when you are in that situation it is incredibly stressful and upsetting. It doesn't matter if the law is on your side and a county court judge will be sympathetic if you are dreading going back to your home everyday and worried about where to move to and the financial implications.

moneysavinmonkey

perhaps as well as additional security of tenure (which it seems would be in everyones interests) there should be some kind of licencing/compulsary training? What do people think to that?

Gorgeous_George

Many homeowners pay for a mortgage protection policy to cover payments in the event of redundancy. Should tenants be encouraged to do something similar to cover their rent payments?

Unless lenders were keen to become LLs, unlimited security of tenure would be impossible. A six month rolling contract would, at least, provide some security for the tenant. LLs would not be able to evict on impulse but tenants would also be required to give 6 months' notice. However, the LL would still be expected to minimise the tenant's losses by finding a new tenant as soon as reasonable possible.

I suppose the question (of rolloing contracts) should be psosed to mortgage companies.

GG

Gorgeous_George

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

perhaps as well as additional security of tenure (which it seems would be in everyones interests) there should be some kind of licencing/compulsary training? What do people think to that?

Great idea! I'd love fully trained and licenced tenants. I might even be able to offer a small discount.



GG