How can I evict my tenant in rent arrears when I didn’t protect deposit

Balabalabala_and_Volare

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

Think that's where 'Baseball Bill' comes in from your earlier comment..

I think Comms asks a fair question. Perhaps you could clarify a few points from your post....

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

- If the person is not eligible for council help then the Landlord should legally be allowed to kick the tenant out after 2 months of Rent arrears with proof of no rent payments for atleast 2 months.

To whom does the LL have to prove these rent arrears?
Is the tenant allowed to dispute these arrears with evidence that they have been paid?
Should we really allow the LL to just turn up and remove a tenant at will, by force?
Should we really allow the LL to ensure the fair exercise of any contractual agreement?

Pennysmakepounds

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

I think Comms asks a fair question. Perhaps you could clarify a few points from your post.....

All joking aside.

There are occasions when some tenants are genuinely in need of help when they fall into financial difficulties and are unable to pay the bills and rent - especially families with young children (under 16) / Single Parents etc.

It may be that the main breadwinner has lost their job and are desperately seeing another one or asking the council to help with bills/Rent and need a little breathing space (say 3 months) to be able to get themselves sorted. In these type of cases that LL should NOT be able to simply call in ‘Baseball Bill’ and make them homeless as soon as they fall behind with the rent and if they do they should be fully held accountable.

There are other occasions when the LL can clearly see that the Tenants has just decided they don’t want to pay rent and want to live rent free. People who have income and are physically and mentally fit but feel they can live free in a property and pay no bills or rent. Basically use the property as a squat. In these cases I am all for ‘Baseball Bill’.

In most cases its clear to distinguish between the two.

The problem with the law (in my opinion) is that it makes NO distinction between the two (eg. People who genuinely need help and those that are taking the pi*s.) and thus we have this issue where bad tenants feel they can simply abuse the system.

Say what you will but most LL have spent years upon years working and making sacrifices to be able to save and buy an investment property, why should they have to go through months of anguish and legal ramblings when they can clearly see that the tenant is taking the pi*s.

Comms69

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

I think Comms asks a fair question. Perhaps you could clarify a few points from your post....


All joking aside.

There are occasions when some tenants are genuinely in need of help when they fall into financial difficulties and are unable to pay the bills and rent - especially families with young children (under 16) / Single Parents etc. - Yes there are. But actually people who live with benefit top ups are best equipped to handle this. People who lose well paying jobs quickly realise their lifestyle is not possible on state support.

It may be that the main breadwinner has lost their job and are desperately seeing another one or asking the council to help with bills/Rent and need a little breathing space (say 3 months) to be able to get themselves sorted. - That is for the most part the current system. But a family with 3 children, in receipt of benefits following job loss would be taking home approx. £2,000 a month. More than enough to cover rent. In these type of cases that LL should NOT be able to simply call in ‘Baseball Bill’ and make them homeless as soon as they fall behind with the rent and if they do they should be fully held accountable. - Who decides this? Do you think landlords are all saints and omnipotent?

There are other occasions when the LL can clearly see that the Tenants has just decided they don’t want to pay rent and want to live rent free. - How? Some landlords don't live in the same county as their tenants. People who have income and are physically and mentally fit but feel they can live free in a property and pay no bills or rent. Basically use the property as a squat. In these cases I am all for ‘Baseball Bill’. - What is the test for this? You? Me? - oh wait we have a longstanding court system that decides this kind of thing...

In most cases its clear to distinguish between the two. - how? You said it's clear - so elaborate.

The problem with the law (in my opinion) is that it makes NO distinction between the two (eg. People who genuinely need help and those that are taking the pi*s.) - the courts might not distinguish, but the law does. There is more than tenancy law at play here. Benefits are governed by legal mechanisms; and they DO distinguish. Hence sanctions. and thus we have this issue where bad tenants feel they can simply abuse the system. - it simply isn't true. There are bad tenants, but the system does not allow this kind of abuse.

Say what you will but most LL have spent years upon years working and making sacrifices to be able to save and buy an investment property - that is simply not true. I have no issues with good landlords, but the majority are on massive interest only mortgages. , why should they have to go through months of anguish and legal ramblings when they can clearly see that the tenant is taking the pi*s.

Because that is what they signed up for.


You keep ignoring the most important point. No-one forced them to become a landlord.


You seem to think the law should be applied based upon the fact someone lent this person a lot of money; and that therefore makes them a good judge.

Pennysmakepounds

You keep ignoring the most important point. No-one forced them to become a landlord.

I'm confused, why is this point SO important to you. You keep bringing it up.

If someone decides that being a LL is what they want to do to provide a little extra income to support themselves in later life, then that's their choice.

On the same basis no-one 'forced' me to work a 9-5 for 40/50 years of my life either, I 'Chose' to do that too.

Being a LL is a choice, no-one forces you to do it.

I am fully of the mind set that you take the good with the bad, life is never straight forward.

The problem is some people feel they have the god given right to take advantage of others and that’s what annoys me.

If both LL and Tenants were saints we wold have no need for courts.

However, when it comes to the Rent arrears and damage, its almost always the LL that takes the hit (Yes he/she may have insurance to offset the costs).

theartfullodger

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

.................
However, when it comes to the Rent arrears and damage, its almost always the LL that takes the hit (Yes he/she may have insurance to offset the costs).

"Almost always" only if landlord fails to pursue the offending tenant through the courts. (That's "landlord" as in council, housing association, private or other landlord btw...)

So many landlords don't bother. Yes, it may take time (years..), effort and diligence. But the happiness gained on seeing an ex-tenant who you dragged even only £5 out of, hailing them with a cheery wave and calling, clearly and loudly, "thanks for the money" then watching the tenant's fury. Especially if a CCJ also resulted (future landlords see issue if they bother to credit check, tenant finds loans, mobile 'phone contracts etc expensive or impossible: Ah.....)

I 'ates crooks and cheats, be they landlord, agent, tenant, MP.....

Pennysmakepounds

theartfullodger wrote: »

So many landlords don't bother. Yes, it may take time (years..), effort and diligence.

Life is too short to spend years on wasters.

Besides by the time you have been through the system (and the mental anguish) to get rid of scum bag(s) from your property, who wants to be reminded for of that for years to come.

For private LL it’s easier to learn from the mistake, write off the debt and move on.

Why do you think it’s SO hard for benefit tenants and un-employed people to get a rental property in the Private sector. I'm not saying everyone in this category is the same, but a small number make it hard for the rest.

Private LL treat everyone with the same suspicion that they are the most likely to cause them issues financially down the line.

Pixie5740

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

I'm confused, why is this point SO important to you. You keep bringing it up.

If someone decides that being a LL is what they want to do to provide a little extra income to support themselves in later life, then that's their choice.

On the same basis no-one 'forced' me to work a 9-5 for 40/50 years of my life either, I 'Chose' to do that too.

Being a LL is a choice, no-one forces you to do it.

I am fully of the mind set that you take the good with the bad, life is never straight forward.

The problem is some people feel they have the god given right to take advantage of others and that’s what annoys me.

If both LL and Tenants were saints we wold have no need for courts.

However, when it comes to the Rent arrears and damage, its almost always the LL that takes the hit (Yes he/she may have insurance to offset the costs).

It's important because becoming a landlord is a choice not a mandatory obligation. There are many other investment vehicles available to people and if after investigating all the options available someone decides that BTL is the best option for them then they have to accept the risks associated with that investment it can't just be all reward. It's no different to any other investor, if you want the rewards you have to accept the risks. Essentially if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

I think it would be very dangerous to allow a landlord to end a tenancy because it would be far too open to abuse. Yes a non paying tenant is a PITA for a landlord and will cost the landlord some money but a tenant faces losing their home due to a rouge landlord. Landlords can protect themselves to a certain extent by doing some due diligence when selecting a tenant. Good tenants don't suddenly wake up one day and decide to be bad tenants. I know that some people's circumstances change during the tenancy but if you get a tenant that's a stinker from the start chances are they have always been a stinker and that should have been picked up during referencing.

Edit to add:

The fact that landlords in England and Wales can issue a Section 21 for no reason whatsoever and providing they manage to dot the i's and cross the t's there is no defense against it makes the Section 21 a very powerful tool for the landlord.

Pixie5740

I see that not only are you (Pennysmakepounds) the kind of landlord who fails to do their due diligence but you are also the type of poster who asks for help and then deletes your posts. How rude!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5131894/tennant-issue

:rotfl:

Comms69

Pennysmakepounds wrote: »

I'm confused, why is this point SO important to you. You keep bringing it up.

If someone decides that being a LL is what they want to do to provide a little extra income to support themselves in later life, then that's their choice. - yes and it comes with responsibilities and regulations...

On the same basis no-one 'forced' me to work a 9-5 for 40/50 years of my life either, I 'Chose' to do that too. - exactly; and you wouldn't think it was appropriate for your employer to sack you after years of service

Being a LL is a choice, no-one forces you to do it. - exactly, and that choice is governed by laws of the land

I am fully of the mind set that you take the good with the bad, life is never straight forward.

The problem is some people feel they have the god given right to take advantage of others and that’s what annoys me.

If both LL and Tenants were saints we wold have no need for courts.

However, when it comes to the Rent arrears and damage, its almost always the LL that takes the hit (Yes he/she may have insurance to offset the costs).

and when it comes to profit, who gets that?!

Pennysmakepounds

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I see that not only are you (Pennysmakepounds) the kind of landlord who fails to do their due diligence but you are also the type of poster who asks for help and then deletes your posts. How rude!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5131894/tennant-issue

:rotfl:

That was the young (well youngish )'stupid' me that ignored his own rule about letting partners move in without doing full checks.


I did it because the tenant was fully vetted and never caused an issue and she vouched for him.


Then within 6 weeks she realised her mistake, he refused to move out and she left. Leaving me to deal with the issue of removing the waster that refused to pay rent and trashed the property.


Will NEVER make that mistake again, I can tell you.