Landlord Vent !!

Wig

Did you bother to read the first line of my previous post?

chugalug

Of course it's not alright Elona. All I was saying was that being a landlord is not an easy way to quick profit on the back of a property boom. Rogue tenants are a hazard of the job so to speak and a good landlord will take as many precautions as possible but no 'job' is 100% risk free, that's life.

Wig - perhaps my post didnt read right. A landlord should serve a S21 notice when a tenant moves into a property. The bottom line is, if the tenant doesnt move out at the end of the agreement then the serving of this notice speeds up the possession proceedings. That's because a tenant should have 2 months notice of proceedings (even with rent arrears there has to be 8 weeks worth of arrears before papers can be served). It's not threatening just a standard piece of paper. Of course a tenant should have regular rent statements and letters if they get into arrears and they would always receive a copy of the court papers if the landlord needs to evict (ie if the tenant hasn't moved out) After all the tenant needs to reply and give the court their side of the story. At the end of the day if the tenancy agreement has finished then the court will award possession. If it's for rent arrears then the accelerated proceedings can't be used but the process is still fairly quick and nowhere near a year.

TheChillPill

chugalug wrote:

It's not true that it takes a year to evict a tenant. If the tenant has broken a term of the tenancy agreement accelerated possession proceedings can be taken. If the reason is rent arrears and the tenant owes at least 8 weeks rent both at the serve of notice and the time of the hearing then possession is automatically granted. So serve notice when the tenant moves in (S21, pretty standard) begin proceedings if rent owed, couple of weeks for a court date in the county court then 2 weeks for bailiff's to execute warrant and there you are. Landlords have plenty of rights - problem is some of them are clueless they just want a fast profit.

Well, 6 court appearances as a landlord would prove the opposite I'm afraid. I tried serving notice upon start of a tenancy once, and when it came to use it, the judge threw the entire thing back on the simple basis of that (claimed abuse of the court system).

Perhaps it varies from one area to another, but minimum period for eviction I have ever known was 8 months, 12 was more common though.

Oh, and my partner was a barrister :rotfl:

Alleycat

Quote: Tenant got sick and lost his job one month after moving in. Ok - Benefits involved, not his fault. So I'll be short on rent because housing benefit doesn't cover full rent but that's life .

You say you will be short of rent as they were claiming hb. You needn't have been. Just because hb will only pay eligible rent, you could still request that your your tenants mee the shortfall. Whether they do or not is a different matter though.

What Chugalug has said about serving an S21 notice is quite common in private rented. It is basically a notice to quit that expires at the end of the contract. A notice only has to be a minimum of 8 weeks or 2 calendar months depending on when rent is due. If the tenant starts getting into arrears, there should be every effort made by the landlord to deal with the issue. I.e. regular reminder letters etc. If the rent arrears build up to owing more than 8 weeks rent then an accelerated possession can be sought.

One thing that makes me cross doing the job that I do is the amount of landlords and even solicitors who think that the expiration of a tenancy agreement automatically gives them immediate possession of the property. They still need to issue the correct notice and go through the courts to gain possession.

I understand that there are plenty of dodgy tenants out there (I work in a homeless advice team and so have seen more than I care to mention) but there are also too many landlords who buy to let and think that all they need to do is collect their nice rent cheque each month (I am not saying that this is you at all). I blame so many of these tv programmes making it seem like easy money to rent out property. Unfortunately you will always get some bad tenants, no matter how well they are treated. That is just life. Roll with it and hope that the next lot are a bit more well behaved!

Alleycat

TheChillPill wrote:

Well, 6 court appearances as a landlord would prove the opposite I'm afraid. I tried serving notice upon start of a tenancy once, and when it came to use it, the judge threw the entire thing back on the simple basis of that (claimed abuse of the court system).

Perhaps it varies from one area to another, but minimum period for eviction I have ever known was 8 months, 12 was more common though.

Oh, and my partner was a barrister :rotfl:

For what reason did the judge claim that serving notice was an abuse?

Also, why did it take 8 to 12 months to gain possession? Which part of the process made it take so long?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am mystified as this sounds a bit nuts. It is your property and you have every right to regain possession.

elona

Wig

I read all of the post and do not know what you are referring to?

chugalug

ChillPill, with all due respect having a partner as a barrister doesnt mean they are a specialist in housing law. Thats like saying a GP is the same as an orthopedic surgeon!! If your cases kept getting thrown out of court then you were doing something wrong - if the paperwork isn't right, or you haven't followed the correct procedure, given the right notice etc then the Judge will err on the side of caution and throw the case out basically telling you to get it right. If it took you a year to get your tenants out you weren't doing it right - that's the bottom line!!

Somerset

Wig wrote:

every two months doesn't sound enough to me, I'd want every month. And how do you know the agents aren't lying to you?

My point is you should be proactive in stopping this from occuring in the first place, and the old saying is "if you want a job doing properly you do it yourself". Having had the problem, you should be able to afford to fix it, because you have a deposit and a months rent. And on top of this there is an element of your rent which theoretically tots up over time to cover for these events.

At the end of the day you have the money to get it sorted.

I'm getting better with this quote thing.

Every two months is pretty standard - tenants are entitled to their privacy.

On the money side - no I don't have the deposit and a month's rent (overall ).
First month paid in full ( in advance ). Thereafter the HB was roughly £ 180pm short of the rent. Over the 5 month balance period that's a shortfall of £ 900. Yes the agent has the deposit which may/may not cover the damage but that still leaves the £ 900 short.

And incidentally, the full rent was not enough to cover the mortgage on the property - I was subsidizing that. My choice - this ia long term investment that is my pension rather than a traditional pension plan.

Anything you take a risk on is risky. I accept that. Perhaps what I felt, even if it didn't come across, is the tenant's actions/behaviour felt abusive. I decorated that house, I took pride in making it a beautiful place to live. I lived in it.

I treat people with respect ( or I try to ) and I don't understand the mentality of people who treat others like dirt.

It's not always about money - it's about respecting others and their property. That's what hurt.

Alleycat

I understand what you are saying. You let a decent, well maintained property and some idiots had absolutely no respect for that. What I would suggest for next time is to try and make sure the agents get references from the prospective tenants.

Re the rent issue. If both partners were unemployed then they would most probably be entitled to full housing benefits and I would say that the rent is pretty steep as hb would allocate what they feel is a reasonable rent on the property. Obviously this would be different if they were underoccupying, so maybe not so straightforward in this case. If you are stuggling to get enough rent to cover the mortgage repayments, it may be a good idea for your agents to only rent the property out to a family big enough to qualify for full HB (whether they would be currently claiming or not, just in case they did in the future) i.e. if its a two bedroom, then a couple/single with one/two children. Maybe contact the HB office and enquire what they have as eligible rent for your property. This would be a good indicator of how much rent to charge and if it is worth hanging onto the property if it is going to be majorly short of your monthly mortgage.

Somerset

Alleycat wrote:

Quote: You say you will be short of rent as they were claiming hb. You needn't have been. Just because hb will only pay eligible rent, you could still request that your your tenants mee the shortfall. Whether they do or not is a different matter though.

Unfortunately you will always get some bad tenants, no matter how well they are treated. That is just life. Roll with it and hope that the next lot are a bit more well behaved!

Alleycat I agree on both points.

Because the main breadwinner was ill and subsequently unemployed, in this case I realised early on the shortfall wouldn't be paid. If someone doesn't have it, they don't have it. And probably because I feel both I and the agent behaved symphatically towards their situation, their behaviou at the end was just taking the p**s.

Trouble with the 'next lot' is I'll be less easy-going. The immediate reaction is to take a larger deposit, be more selective, and be less tolerant of people's changing circumstances.

Selfish behaviour has a greater impact than people realise.