poppet2 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Tough isn't it, I hear some landlords just end up burning the money as they have literally no idea what to do with it. Sad times. Do you mean like this couple. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431224/How-maths-teachers-clocked-707-houses-240m-fortune.html ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:06 ---------- BTL investors are all millionaires - didn't you know :hihi::hihi: They buy up all the decent properties in an area, then put the left over money in a bag and flog a horse to death with it. Thats what rich people do. Like the landlords in the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Yes I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to get rid of a tenant that doesn't want to move. Yes it should only be in one direction unless they breach your terms and conditions. Why else would you want them to leave? Sorry, exactly why should it all be in one direction ? Can you explain ? What happens if you want to sell the property, or the landlord dies come to that. How exactly does "the tenant should be able to live in a property till they choose to leave" going to work ? Have you thought this through ? In the old days when I was naïve and less fussy about who I`d have in my flats I was shocked when a solicitor told me how long and how much it`d cost me to get rid of a tenant who just stopped paying the rent. So here`s a question for you : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? Edited April 28, 2015 by Justin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) No they didn't. Transactions fell because lending became extremely constrained and FTB could no longer buy the houses that were on offer at the new lower prices. Coupled with the fact that those in negative equity were unable to sell because they wouldn't get another mortgage and those who were in no rush decided to postpone selling. And this was all triggered by a minor price correction, you were talking about the greatest crash in history. Some buyers couldn't afford them because banks were no longer prepared to lend people the money to buy houses that were for sale for more than their value, but the sellers that offered them for sale at more realistic price had no difficulty in selling. There was plenty of houses for sale but very few sellers were prepared to sell at the right price, the ones that were, sold. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:19 ---------- Sorry, exactly why should it all be in one direction ? Can you explain ? What happens if you want to sell the property, or the landlord dies come to that. How exactly does "the tenant should be able to live in a property till they choose to leave" going to work ? Have you thought this through ? In the old days when I was naïve and less fussy about who I`d have in my flats I was shocked when a solicitor told me how long and how much it`d cost me to get rid of a tenant who just stopped paying the rent. So here`s a question for you : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? You sell it with a tenant, why should the tenant have to leave just because you no longer want the property? Edited April 28, 2015 by loraward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Some buyers couldn't afford them because banks were no longer prepared to lend people the money to buy houses that were for sale for more than their value, but the sellers that offered them for sale at more realistic price had no difficulty in selling. There was plenty of houses for sale but very few sellers were prepared to sell at the right price, the ones that were, sold. Don`t forget my questions ! : Sorry, exactly why should it [rights and the law] all be in one direction ? Can you explain ? What happens if you want to sell the property, or the landlord dies come to that. How exactly does "the tenant should be able to live in a property till they choose to leave" going to work ? Have you thought this through ? In the old days when I was naïve and less fussy about who I`d have in my flats I was shocked when a solicitor told me how long and how much it`d cost me to get rid of a tenant who just stopped paying the rent. So here`s a question for you : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Some buyers couldn't afford them because banks were no longer prepared to lend people the money to buy houses that were for sale for more than their value, but the sellers that offered them for sale at more realistic price had no difficulty in selling. There was plenty of houses for sale but very few sellers were prepared to sell at the right price, the ones that were, sold. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:19 ---------- You sell it with a tenant, why should the tenant have to leave just because you no longer want the property? I know you may have missed it but could you answer my question in post #131 please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 You sell it with a tenant, why should the tenant have to leave just because you no longer want the property? What if you`re dead ? ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:23 ---------- I know you may have missed it but could you answer my question in post #131 please? And these please L ! : So here`s a question for you : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 What if you`re dead ? Your heirs sell it with a tenant or keep it as an investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Your heirs sell it with a tenant or keep it as an investment. That`ll be nice for them, they have to keep the tenant in there till the tenant dies. How come him dying gets him out of it then ! But still, thanks for that. Here`s the question I`m really looking forward to you answering ! : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 That`ll be nice for them, they have to keep the tenant in there till the tenant dies. How come him dying gets him out of it then ! But still, thanks for that. Here`s the question I`m really looking forward to you answering ! : If a tenant just stops paying the rent how long should the landlord have to wait (whilst the tenant gets yet more rent free accommodation) before they get kicked out ? And how much should it have to cost the landlord (in court and possibly bailiffs) to get them out ? And, bearing in mind the tenant has effectively stolen £100s or even £1000s of pounds from the landlord, mainly due to the government insisting on all this delay, who should have to pay for all this ? Or until the tenant breaches the terms and conditions, in which case a week should be enough before starting court proceeding to have them evicted, obviously the tenant should be responsible for all the costs incurred by the landlord, but in realty the landlord would very likley have to suck it up because the tenant that didn't pay is unlikely to have the funds to cover their costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Or until the tenant breaches the terms and conditions, in which case a week should be enough before starting court proceeding to have them evicted, obviously the tenant should be responsible for all the costs incurred by the landlord, but in reality the landlord would very likley have to suck it up because the tenant that didn't pay is unlikely to have the funds to cover their costs. You`re right there, but how fair is that ? When I last checked a landlord has to give the tenant two months notice of eviction even if they`ve stopped paying the rent. In actual fact the tenant would usually get away with more than 2 months rent free because it`d take weeks or even months for the landlord to realise he wasn`t actually going to get paid, and the two months notice goes from that point, not the point that the tenant stopped paying. Personally, with the worst tenant I had I waited as long as I could (you know he kept saying I`ll pay on Friday and all that b******s and I kept hoping it`d all get better.......) before issuing him with an eviction notice because you know you`re definitely not going to get paid then. So the question is, is it fair that the tenant gets two additional rent free months (in addition to the month of two he already owes you) ? Should that 2 months be shortened ? At a minimum to include any back rents owed, i.e. if they`re two months behind with the rent ? This is what I mean by the law is already way biased in favour of the tenant, and you seem to be arguing it should get even worse ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now