I want my non paying tenant to have a CCJ

CurlySue2017

motorman99 said:

Curly sue…..following on from a previous question I asked.
if you found a £50 note in the street and no one claimed it, would you sell it to me for £45 just because you found it and it didn’t cost you anything?
of course you wouldn’t. 

So can explain why the OP should do the equivalent? After all, he has something worth £850, why should he ‘sell’ it to the tenant for £550?

Following on from your previous question, it will be ignored once again
Silly comparison

BikingBud

Exodi said:

I'm really suprised that some people have been giving the OP a hard time in this thread for his below market rate rent increase proposal... (well by some, it seems to predominantly be Grizebeck and CurlySue2017 flooding the thread).

I wonder if they'd hold the view that landlords should operate as charities should they ever become landlords themselves...

BikingBud said:

Based on the steady, long-term relationship the OP was receiving £6600 but has now lost out significantly with scope for yet still more losses. Is that sound business?

<edited to be a bit more polite>: this is very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Fixing rent at the original price indefinitely because you're too scared to ever negotiate an increase is obviously not sound business. The OP could not have predicted their tenant would throw their toys out the pram and not agree to a below market-price increase - this was not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not hindsight it's basic commercial nous.

We are complaining about profiteering and the fact that many unnecessary increases are being loaded up, this feeds the fire and pushes the prices of many items up. Rent is not exempt from this consideration but the OP advised that they did not need to respond to those pressures. Therefore clearly an unnecessary rent increase putting unnecessary pressure on a previously sound tenant. 

So a happy tenant paying up regularly and keeping the property occupied has been forced out by a greedy landlord who now spitefully wishes to ruin the tenant's life by ensuring they get a CCJ.

Steady business is business, cashflow is king and killing the cashflow because you wanted more is not only greedy by somewhat shortsighted. Even if the OP now manages to get £850 pcm, taking into account lost rent, refresh or refurb costs and potentially void periods, how far behind (out of pocket) are they really?

Perhaps it's the realisation that being a landlord and especially banking on capital gains may not be what it was once professed to be.

Perhaps in a moment of honest reflection they may understand cause and effect.

elsien

BikingBud said:

Exodi said:

I'm really suprised that some people have been giving the OP a hard time in this thread for his below market rate rent increase proposal... (well by some, it seems to predominantly be Grizebeck and CurlySue2017 flooding the thread).

I wonder if they'd hold the view that landlords should operate as charities should they ever become landlords themselves...

BikingBud said:

Based on the steady, long-term relationship the OP was receiving £6600 but has now lost out significantly with scope for yet still more losses. Is that sound business?

<edited to be a bit more polite>: this is very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Fixing rent at the original price indefinitely because you're too scared to ever negotiate an increase is obviously not sound business. The OP could not have predicted their tenant would throw their toys out the pram and not agree to a below market-price increase - this was not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not hindsight it's basic commercial nous.

We are complaining about profiteering and the fact that many unnecessary increases are being loaded up, this feeds the fire and pushes the prices of many items up. Rent is not exempt from this consideration but the OP advised that they did not need to respond to those pressures. Therefore clearly an unnecessary rent increase putting unnecessary pressure on a previously sound tenant. 

So a happy tenant paying up regularly and keeping the property occupied has been forced out by a greedy landlord who now spitefully wishes to ruin the tenant's life by ensuring they get a CCJ.

Steady business is business, cashflow is king and killing the cashflow because you wanted more is not only greedy by somewhat shortsighted. Even if the OP now manages to get £850 pcm, taking into account lost rent, refresh or refurb costs and potentially void periods, how far behind (out of pocket) are they really?

Perhaps it's the realisation that being a landlord and especially banking on capital gains may not be what it was once professed to be.

Perhaps in a moment of honest reflection they may understand cause and effect.

Alternatively, your happy tenant, paying up regularly, has decided to stop paying rent completely for no obvious reason whatsoever, thus necessitating the landlord to take action to evict. 

Whatever your views of rent rises or otherwise the tenant did not need to stop paying the previously agreed rent so any enforcement action is on them. 

BikingBud

elsien said:

BikingBud said:

Exodi said:

I'm really suprised that some people have been giving the OP a hard time in this thread for his below market rate rent increase proposal... (well by some, it seems to predominantly be Grizebeck and CurlySue2017 flooding the thread).

I wonder if they'd hold the view that landlords should operate as charities should they ever become landlords themselves...

BikingBud said:

Based on the steady, long-term relationship the OP was receiving £6600 but has now lost out significantly with scope for yet still more losses. Is that sound business?

<edited to be a bit more polite>: this is very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Fixing rent at the original price indefinitely because you're too scared to ever negotiate an increase is obviously not sound business. The OP could not have predicted their tenant would throw their toys out the pram and not agree to a below market-price increase - this was not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not hindsight it's basic commercial nous.

We are complaining about profiteering and the fact that many unnecessary increases are being loaded up, this feeds the fire and pushes the prices of many items up. Rent is not exempt from this consideration but the OP advised that they did not need to respond to those pressures. Therefore clearly an unnecessary rent increase putting unnecessary pressure on a previously sound tenant. 

So a happy tenant paying up regularly and keeping the property occupied has been forced out by a greedy landlord who now spitefully wishes to ruin the tenant's life by ensuring they get a CCJ.

Steady business is business, cashflow is king and killing the cashflow because you wanted more is not only greedy by somewhat shortsighted. Even if the OP now manages to get £850 pcm, taking into account lost rent, refresh or refurb costs and potentially void periods, how far behind (out of pocket) are they really?

Perhaps it's the realisation that being a landlord and especially banking on capital gains may not be what it was once professed to be.

Perhaps in a moment of honest reflection they may understand cause and effect.

Alternatively, your happy tenant, paying up regularly, has decided to stop paying rent completely for no obvious reason whatsoever, thus necessitating the landlord to take action to evict. 

Whatever your views of rent rises or otherwise the tenant did not need to stop paying the previously agreed rent so any enforcement action is on them. 

But we all know that's not what is claimed to have happened!

Don't try and muddy the waters with hypothetical scenarios, the LL took action but didn't like the reaction. No pontificating or suggestion of alternative events or trying to blame the tenant can change that trigger event. 

It seems the OP was wanting to see the back of the tenant:

@mr_goldmine said: in fairness the TnT has known that we have wanted him out for at least 2 years...... i should think he has had more than enough notice. 

So was quite content to force the situation. 

Someone considered that being a landlord is running a business. In the same way that if the OP's tenant running his coffee shop decides to increase his prices and then finding that customers no longer come in as they feel it is not good value for money, the OP should have been aware that preparing poorly and not understanding your liabilities and risks will lead to issues in any business. Additionally, a normal risk for all LLs is tenant stops paying rent, you may have heard you can get insurance for it! Not sure if the OP had insurance, perhaps another indication of lack of business acumen?

But of course most of us are only aware what the OP has deigned to share with us, we have not seen the tenant's side of the story so we are likely working with less than 40% of the facts. 

motorman99

motorman99 said:

Curly sue…..following on from a previous question I asked.
if you found a £50 note in the street and no one claimed it, would you sell it to me for £45 just because you found it and it didn’t cost you anything?
of course you wouldn’t. 

So can explain why the OP should do the equivalent? After all, he has something worth £850, why should he ‘sell’ it to the tenant for £550?

It’s not. It’s exactly the same. Would you let something go for less than it’s known value? The OP doesn’t want to. 

And you wouldn’t either?

or would you?

BikingBud

motorman99 said:

motorman99 said:

Curly sue…..following on from a previous question I asked.
if you found a £50 note in the street and no one claimed it, would you sell it to me for £45 just because you found it and it didn’t cost you anything?
of course you wouldn’t. 

So can explain why the OP should do the equivalent? After all, he has something worth £850, why should he ‘sell’ it to the tenant for £550?

It’s not. It’s exactly the same. Would you let something go for less than it’s known value? The OP doesn’t want to. 

And you wouldn’t either?

or would you?

It's not the same £50 = £50 no ifs or buts it's 50 quid.

The price someone may wish to charge and what others may be willing to pay are dependent upon the negotiation, that's why it is called a consideration.

motorman99

Well no, it is the same insofar as would you let something go for less than it’s value just because you ‘could’.?

The OP doesn’t want to.
I don’t want to.
and let’s be honest, you and curly don’t want to either. 

caprikid1

motorman99 said:

Well no, it is the same insofar as would you let something go for less than it’s value just because you ‘could’.?

The OP doesn’t want to.
I don’t want to.
and let’s be honest, you and curly don’t want to either. 

Anyone happy to sell me their car for 30% less than it's worth even though the value went up due to Covid ? Probably not ? Happy to take offers on cars 30% under valued.

Mr_GoldMine

BikingBud said:

elsien said:

BikingBud said:

Exodi said:

I'm really suprised that some people have been giving the OP a hard time in this thread for his below market rate rent increase proposal... (well by some, it seems to predominantly be Grizebeck and CurlySue2017 flooding the thread).

I wonder if they'd hold the view that landlords should operate as charities should they ever become landlords themselves...

BikingBud said:

Based on the steady, long-term relationship the OP was receiving £6600 but has now lost out significantly with scope for yet still more losses. Is that sound business?

<edited to be a bit more polite>: this is very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Fixing rent at the original price indefinitely because you're too scared to ever negotiate an increase is obviously not sound business. The OP could not have predicted their tenant would throw their toys out the pram and not agree to a below market-price increase - this was not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not hindsight it's basic commercial nous.

We are complaining about profiteering and the fact that many unnecessary increases are being loaded up, this feeds the fire and pushes the prices of many items up. Rent is not exempt from this consideration but the OP advised that they did not need to respond to those pressures. Therefore clearly an unnecessary rent increase putting unnecessary pressure on a previously sound tenant. 

So a happy tenant paying up regularly and keeping the property occupied has been forced out by a greedy landlord who now spitefully wishes to ruin the tenant's life by ensuring they get a CCJ.

Steady business is business, cashflow is king and killing the cashflow because you wanted more is not only greedy by somewhat shortsighted. Even if the OP now manages to get £850 pcm, taking into account lost rent, refresh or refurb costs and potentially void periods, how far behind (out of pocket) are they really?

Perhaps it's the realisation that being a landlord and especially banking on capital gains may not be what it was once professed to be.

Perhaps in a moment of honest reflection they may understand cause and effect.

Alternatively, your happy tenant, paying up regularly, has decided to stop paying rent completely for no obvious reason whatsoever, thus necessitating the landlord to take action to evict. 

Whatever your views of rent rises or otherwise the tenant did not need to stop paying the previously agreed rent so any enforcement action is on them. 

But we all know that's not what is claimed to have happened!

Don't try and muddy the waters with hypothetical scenarios, the LL took action but didn't like the reaction. No pontificating or suggestion of alternative events or trying to blame the tenant can change that trigger event. 

It seems the OP was wanting to see the back of the tenant:

@mr_goldmine said: in fairness the TnT has known that we have wanted him out for at least 2 years...... i should think he has had more than enough notice. 

So was quite content to force the situation. 

Someone considered that being a landlord is running a business. In the same way that if the OP's tenant running his coffee shop decides to increase his prices and then finding that customers no longer come in as they feel it is not good value for money, the OP should have been aware that preparing poorly and not understanding your liabilities and risks will lead to issues in any business. Additionally, a normal risk for all LLs is tenant stops paying rent, you may have heard you can get insurance for it! Not sure if the OP had insurance, perhaps another indication of lack of business acumen?

But of course most of us are only aware what the OP has deigned to share with us, we have not seen the tenant's side of the story so we are likely working with less than 40% of the facts. 

Mate tenant has been living there since 2016 with his wife and 3 kids... happily ... and still happy to stay there until eviction and still happy to withhold rent...

who is the oppressed one here? from your view, you are saying and assuming it is the tenant who is the oppressed one?

when this dude leaves, i have £k's worth of repair, big cleaning bill, garden is stacked full of rubbish, neighbours have complained to council, i've complained to council. tnt has been negligent to his duties ever since i suggested to raise the rent. he's using this as a temporary rubbish pad and will surely leave a mark on his departure...

still though eh lesson learnt.... i know..... but to take a tenants side like that given the history.... nah mate, you obviously aint read the whole thread.......

BikingBud

It's not about 50 quid!

It's also not about a car, that you may feel is worth more than the market is willing to pay, as you will rapidly realise that no buyers are willing to meet you there for any number of reasons, bald tyres, cracked windscreen, scratched paintwork, worn seats, brakes juddering, shock absorbers shot, cam belt needing replacing or any mix of many more possible indicators of a poorly maintained vehicle.

It's also not about you coming along after covid and trying to tell me you need 30% more as the price of cars have gone up. We agreed a price and we were both happy. The price was sufficient to cover your outgoings and did not need to generate any more cash from that deal. So any subsequent approaches are merely profiteering.
 
We also have no indication of the state of the property, kitchen, bathroom, carpets, windows, boiler and energy efficiency only the OP's expectation that it is worth more!

motorman99 said:

Well no, it is the same insofar as would you let something go for less than it’s value just because you ‘could’.?

The OP doesn’t want to.
I don’t want to.
and let’s be honest, you and curly don’t want to either. 

Unsure if this is pointed at me but I would suggest that many businesses, especially local butchers (extra couple of sausages or some extra mince) and bakers (never heard of the bakers dozen) would frequently consider these an investment to ensure repeat custom.

Large supermarkets and many other businesses frequently have BOGOF offers and mainstream motor dealers, as well as back streets will offer deals on car finance. The whole perspective is to ensure continued sales, long term cash flow, not maximise individual prices. It's called business. 

I feel that people are deliberately trying to deflect so let's get back to the facts as we know them. The OP came shouting: 

"I want my non paying lodger to have a CCJ"

and then changed it, after prompting, to tenant. So at best a minor typo error or perhaps again a lack of understanding of the contract they had entered into, poor business knowledge? Moreover if when the OP realised in 2021 that the tenant was a "wrong un"
but did little to mitigate their exposure you must again consider their preparedness for being a landlord.

In an attempt to get an extra £100 pcm the OP now appears to be ~£10k down how is that good value? And will satisfying his spite get him any of that cash back?

Anyway as the OP seems to have stopped contributing this discussion seems to be complete.