Tenants won’t move out…how does this work?

[SisforSarah]

Explain to me how this works please. Tenants moved in 2 years ago, it was a long let. The landlord served notice over 6 months ago. They can’t find anywhere else to rent or buy (they are in a particularly busy property hotspot) so are refusing to leave indefinitely, and apparently that’s legal. So the landlord can’t sell his property and benefit from the inflated prices, or move back into his house. How long can they stay there? I’m a bit dumbstruck at this? What would happen if the landlord needed the money from the house sale for something else? Would he be forced to remortgage? I am neither this tenant or landlord or a tenant or landlord of any other property.

@MiddleParking I’m dumbstruck that investments carry risk. I’m a bit taken aback that someone can ask for their home back and the people living in it can just stick 2 fingers up to them and say ‘tough we aren’t moving’.

Is that what they've actually said? With the rude finger gestures too? My word. Housing law should definitely not apply to them in that case.

Yes that’s right the insurance landlords think covers them for this doesn’t in fact cover them. Yes the people it would cover would be tenants that would be highly unlikely to default in first place.

@MesMidgeMaisel That’s their problem; they can’t expect other people to have to put up with it too.

@NoSquirrels This year. Rented for twenty years.

[quote mercimacherie]@MiddleParking

Have you considered negative equity, having to move away for a fixed period, renting a property out to subsidise care home fees, moving in with a partner but not wanting to sell straight away?

There's many reasons someone might want/need to rent a property out and some LL don't even break even. [/quote]
Negative equity - stay put.

Negative equity and absolutely have to move (overcrowding, job elsewhere) - rent it out, fine plan because you don’t need to sell quickly or move back in. Do it properly and act fairly to your tenants.

Having to move away for a fixed period - again, you could sell but if you don’t choose to you can rent it but you must understand you run a risk in doing so. Ideally you’d make it clear to prospective tenants that this property is on a fixed, non-extendable term so they’re not surprised when you want it back.

Renting a property out for care home fees - as the previous occupant isn’t likely to want the house back, you could sell instead of rent. If you rent, again ideally the tenants would understand this property might get sold at some point when care home fees aren’t an issue.

Moving in with a partner and not wanting to sell straight away is a pure choice and you need to understand the risk in renting.

I hate “accidental” landlord- it makes it sound as if they were extremely unfortunate and this was unforeseen. Any time you let out property you’re just a bog-standard landlord with the exact same responsibilities, risks and rewards as everyone else who lets out property.

If you're in the South West the tenant may not be going because there literally is NOWHERE for them to go. I have a friend (she is a fabulous nurse who works incredibly hard in her job in the NHS) who has a section 21 hanging over her currently, she is DESPERATE to find somewhere else, there is nowhere, literally nowhere. She pays her rent and is a good tenant, the landlord wants to sell. If she presents at the council as homeless with her children she will be put in a B&B or single hotel room for the foreseeable future as there are no houses for long term rent. Thank air B&B.

I’m dumbstruck that investments carry risk.

Really?

@NoSquirrels

I’m dumbstruck that investments carry risk.

Really?

A fairly obvious typo

@SpittinKitten no! I don’t think they’ve actually shown the landlord 2 fingers! The tenants rent a large desirable property. The landlord wants it back. They’ve were given 6 months notice. They claim they can’t find anywhere to live (their budget is probably around £4K/month- not London/SE). I find it hard to believe that in 6 months they haven’t been able to find a 4 bed property in a 10 mile radius of where they are, which is a very convenient location. I don’t think they’ve tried very hard and I feel sorry for the landlord. I don’t have a vested interest in either party, but the scenario presented to me was that their actions were entirely legal…which it appears they are. What happens if it’s the landlord who ends up homeless because his tenants won’t move out?

My question on this topic is...

Once a tenant has been court evicted is there a way for future prospective landlords to track down this info so as not to rent to them, or does it all come down to references which may or may not mention it.

Surely being a tenant and pushing things to the point of court evictions could cause them a lifetime of homelessness (unless they buy a property or get council housing), it strikes me as a dangerous game to play.

Once a tenant has been court evicted is there a way for future prospective landlords to track down this info so as not to rent to them, or does it all come down to references which may or may not mention it.

If the Landlord goes fir just eviction without a monetary judgement, I don't think there is no.

@Cyw2018

My question on this topic is...

Once a tenant has been court evicted is there a way for future prospective landlords to track down this info so as not to rent to them, or does it all come down to references which may or may not mention it.

Surely being a tenant and pushing things to the point of court evictions could cause them a lifetime of homelessness (unless they buy a property or get council housing), it strikes me as a dangerous game to play.

No there isn't any way this information gets recorded. There was a landlords' register of bad tenants, started by a disgruntled landlord, but it wasn't well used and I think got pulled due to data protection eventually. So no, no consequences, and some tenants do this again and again. Move in, stop paying, maybe get evicted a year or so later, do it again. Of course if the LL pursues a ccj, that would be recorded, but many don't as it's extra bureaucracy and throwing good money after bad.

@Shouldbedoing

In defence of the tenants, they can't present at the council as homeless until they've been evicted

That's incorrect. The council will class tenants who have been served with a Section 21 eviction notice as homeless when there are only 56 days left from the end date on the notice.

I don’t have a vested interest in either party, but the scenario presented to me was that their actions were entirely legal…which it appears they are. What happens if it’s the landlord who ends up homeless because his tenants won’t move out.

I'm sure they would have factored into their plans before renting their property out.

Have they applied for a Possession Order yet?

@DominicRaabsTravelAgent and @thecatneuterer

Thanks for the answers.

agree thecatneuterer - we had a tenant who paid no rent for over six months and totally trashed the place. it would have been cheaper to have left the place empty for the 18 months she was there. And since she doesnt appear to want to earn any money there is no point us trying to get back what she owes.

Sad thing is that we are now even more careful who we let to and people we may have considered, like single parent families, are much less likely to be considered. And we get every credit check under the sun, so its more expensive for potential tenants

@thecatneuterer

All that will happen is that more landlords will learn how the process actually works and will stop being so short sighted and will actually get insurance against it happening.

To repeat my post above: LL insurance (for non payment of rent/eviction) is extremely difficult to get and is only offered on the most gold-plated tenants with very high credit scores and who are earning a huge multiple of the monthly rent. Really the only tenants you could get it for are the sort of tenants you would be unlikely to need it for.

The last house I rented out none of the applicants would have been eligible for me to get insurance on them.

The vast majority of tenancies cannot be insured.

Both of my tenancies are insured despite both being on benefits (and will likely always be).

It took a lot of hunting down and it’s expensive, but it’s worth it.

I hate these threads because those on the side of the tenants never seem to be a be able to grasp the fact that not all LL are property magnate investors or rolling in it. Some inherit and need to rent to cover costs while probate is sorted. Some have to move away or abroad for work and need to rent out what is and will again be their home, and need the rent to themselves rent in their temporary location.

I have a property currently sat empty which could be rented out but for many of the reasons mentioned on here I'm choosing to let it sit empty until I decide what to do with it.

Return it to the market for someone to buy might be an old fashioned solution.

@Marmaladeagain
For various reasons it can't be sold yet, it could be rented out but I can't be bothered with the hassle at the moment.

[quote SisforSarah]@SpittinKitten no! I don’t think they’ve actually shown the landlord 2 fingers! The tenants rent a large desirable property. The landlord wants it back. They’ve were given 6 months notice. They claim they can’t find anywhere to live (their budget is probably around £4K/month- not London/SE). I find it hard to believe that in 6 months they haven’t been able to find a 4 bed property in a 10 mile radius of where they are, which is a very convenient location. I don’t think they’ve tried very hard and I feel sorry for the landlord. I don’t have a vested interest in either party, but the scenario presented to me was that their actions were entirely legal…which it appears they are. What happens if it’s the landlord who ends up homeless because his tenants won’t move out?[/quote]
The LL for whatever reason they're an LL has the choice to sell or rent out.
If they choose to rent out then there's risks attached that when they decide they want the property back, it's not going to happen immediately just because they say so.
Tenants who can't afford to buy don't have the option to, they only have the option to rent, which is why it can take longer than whatever timeframe the LL decides is appropriate. Even for tenants that can afford to buy, it's still not going to run to the LL's schedule. If you're not willing to accept those risks then don't become an LL. LL's have a choice on whether to rent or sell, many tenants don't have the choice to rent or buy, it's rent or nothing. LL's are benefitting from that by renting out, recieving money for it and still owning the property. There's a downside to everything, the downside to being a tenant is being in the situation of needing to move and having nowhere to go, and having to wait until the bailiffs turn up to turf you out, before anyone will help, or until someone allows you to rent their property, the downside of an LL is that it can take longer than would be liked to get the property back, and cost to do so (I believe the costs are recoverable though?) If you don't have a choice but to rent, then you don't really have a choice over accepting rental terms, LL's always have that choice.
The law is there to ensure there's not hoards of people on the street because an LL wants to sell for any reason, because without it there'd be many people who would simply have nowhere to go.
The impact of that would be felt deeply across society, people having to quit jobs because they don't have the facilities to be clean or have an address, children taken into care as they have nowhere to live.
Add to that that many LL's refuse to rent to those on benefits (even in work benefits, though I don't think that's allowed any more) people with animals, people with children, people who aren't 'professional' (despite being able to prove I had a ft job and had never defaulted on rent and am a good tenant, I have been turned down more than once because I don't have a good enough job - care assistant, therefore am not a professional)
A previous LL of mine paid the deposit on my next rental (the amount I'd paid in deposit to them) and then when the deposit was released they got it back, they weren't out of pocket and I could move quicker.
A scheme around that, whereby the current LL agrees the deposit can be returned, but the tenant gives permission for that to go straight to the next LL, I think would help.

@JustLyra Well you were lucky. I've tried previously and not managed it. And post Covid it's been impossible. I spent a couple of days doing nothing but trying to find insurance and would have paid huge premiums, but there was just none available. Many brokers told me that post Covid most policies had been withdrawn.

Eviction notice. Then court hearing to "grant possession" - which is when the eviction can be struck down if the landlord has made any mistake. Lots of things they have to get right, mostly about meeting their legal obligations like gas safety and deposit protection. Then bailiffs or sheriffs to actually carry out the process.

It's a long process, expensive for the landlord, and will bite them in the arse if they've not been doing everything by the book.

Or, bribe the tenants to surrender the tenancy and move out - but make sure they actually have vacated before giving them anything. For example the landlord might put in writing that their ex-tenant no longer owes any rent arrears. It probably sticks in the throat for the landlord but often it's the most pragmatic solution to avoid further losses.

I don't mean to be funny but as a tennant why would you deliberately try to be awkward especially if you needed a reference for another house.