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.

There is no stipulations on how much the tenants have to earn like i said.

i never heard of the agent thing til now

Well I've no idea what you can be talking about purple. Can you post a link?

i have already said if you would like more details you can pm. i'm just mentioning it to you as you said it was impossible.
i'm not sure why you're saying you don't know what i'm talking about though we've just had several post back and forth

@thecatneuterer

Well I've no idea what you can be talking about purple. Can you post a link?

I think purple is just talking about rent guarantee insurance.

The irony of this situation (and a similar one in Cornwall today where protesters prevented a lawful eviction from proceeding is that landlords are trying to sell up. Which is exactly what Shelter and Generation Rent have been demanding for several years.

And yet when they try to, they are lambasted for doing so.

sorry purple I didn't see you'd mentioned pm ing. Will do that.

My previous comment wasn’t about the law but the moral stance all tenants should have regarding the property and are given notice to leave.

Staying past the eviction notice is morally repugnant.

@Mariell

My previous comment wasn’t about the law but the moral stance all tenants should have regarding the property and are given notice to leave.

Staying past the eviction notice is morally repugnant.

It is NOT morally repugnant. Landlords have to abide by the law and the law states they need to get a Possession Order. Perhaps landlords shouldn't be landlords if they don't want to do that. This is typical of the stupid discussions I had when I worked as a homeless officer.

I’d say it is morally repugnant that anyone with that attitude becomes a landlord. Renting out a property comes with risk and potential losses as well as potential financial gain. It is a risk. If unable to understand that relatively simple concept then it is to everyone’s advantage to not become a landlord.

@dreamingofsun

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

You discriminate against single parent families? Good, glad you don't get any of my money or any of the the other thousands and thousands of hard working (mainly) women

Imagine being dumbstruck that the system doesn't speedily make people homeless for the landlords convenience to allow someone treating a home as a commodity to make even more money 🙄

@LoislovesStewie

Of course it's morally wrong for Tenants not to abide by their Tenancy agreements. They may not want to move out but they signed an agreement which states notice periods on each side. A Possession Notice is only required if the tenants have broken the agreement they signed,

If the LL is breaking the agreement that's different but generally why should anyone feel entitled to do something that potentially causes someone else distress and certainly expense?

It is not the LL issue if tenants can't find somewhere else to move to, or that they are not in a position to buy.

@LoislovesStewie You mentioned you worked in homelessness, do you happen to know the correct info about when tenants can present as homeless? Is it correct what a previous pp said about 56 days from before end of eviction period? Does it vary from LA to LA? Just wondering whether its an urban myth or not about tenants having to stay put till bailiffs come to be abke to get help from the council? TIA!

Once again; they aren't squatters, they are tenants and continue to be so until the landlord has obtained an order of possession from the courts and then a bailiffs warrant. that is the due legal process. Squatters are a different matter entirely and have illegally occupied a property without permission from the start.

Legally, maybe not. But if they squat in the house after their eviction date then that's what I would call them. Landlords really shouldn't have to go to court to get back their property once the period agreed has ended. It's immoral.

[quote mercimacherie]@LoislovesStewie

Of course it's morally wrong for Tenants not to abide by their Tenancy agreements. They may not want to move out but they signed an agreement which states notice periods on each side. A Possession Notice is only required if the tenants have broken the agreement they signed,

If the LL is breaking the agreement that's different but generally why should anyone feel entitled to do something that potentially causes someone else distress and certainly expense?

It is not the LL issue if tenants can't find somewhere else to move to, or that they are not in a position to buy. [/quote]
I suggest you read the appropriate landlord and tenant legislation, you clearly don't think that the law should apply to everyone. No-one is obliged to be a landlord and should not do so unless they understand what the law says. We shouldn't pick and choose what bits of legislation we abide by, that way is chaos.

The renters who have such negative opinions of private landlords should perhaps get themselves on a council housing waiting list. They'll most likely be waiting a while but then at least their money (or benefits) won't be going to some rich, morally corrupt, evil landlord 🙄.

Seems like there are a lot of bitter people who resent others being able to own property, and god forbid, more than one. I assume this is because they are unable to buy, which in many cases (ime) is of their own doing.

There are some terrible landlords and some very rich landlords but the majority I know are good landlords and are certainly not massively wealthy.

@R0tational, yes people should approach the L/A when they are in receipt of the notice as the law has been changed.

@Patapouf

Imagine being dumbstruck that the system doesn't speedily make people homeless for the landlords convenience to allow someone treating a home as a commodity to make even more money 🙄

Imagine not being dumbstruck when the owner wants to return to live in the home he paid for after leaving the army. Or after a marriage break up one partner needs the home.

Their needs are every bit as great as the tenants that refuse to move and morally they have more rights to the home.

But the usual MN LL bashers jump in and don't like that idea. Imagine, someone wants to live in a house they bought and paid for!

@LoislovesStewie

Wtf are you going on about? I an fully aware of the legislation. Luckily I've only had good tenants who have (mostly) abided by their Tenancy agreements.

I'd be furious if I had a tenant who refused to leave MY PROPERTY if I had given the correct notice. Forcing me to go down the eviction route, it is of no benefit to anyone.

I had the same issue with my tenants. Turned out that they actually wanted me to go to court to get them evicted through bailiffs. So that they could use that eviction notice to get housing from the housing association. I had no clue and had waited a year for them to leave. But then was wondering how they could not find another place to live over a year. I would suggest if the property is needed vacant soon, start the eviction process through court and be prepared to cough up the court cost and also tenants not paying rent.

If it was a choice between my family being homeless, or staying in the property until every legal process had been exhausted, buying myself more time and chance to sort out housing my family, my morals wouldn’t be here nor there.

It doesn’t matter about morals because the law is clear on this.

It’s frustrating for landlords, yes - but it was a business decision they made to rent out a property. The risk of this happening should have been factored into their business decision.

[quote mercimacherie]@LoislovesStewie

Wtf are you going on about? I an fully aware of the legislation. Luckily I've only had good tenants who have (mostly) abided by their Tenancy agreements.

I'd be furious if I had a tenant who refused to leave MY PROPERTY if I had given the correct notice. Forcing me to go down the eviction route, it is of no benefit to anyone. [/quote]
You clearly think that following the legal process is an inconvenience to you when it is your legal obligation to obtain a PO if you wish to take possession of a property. I fail to understand why you think that landlord and tenant legislation should not apply to you. Do you think that you should just be able to throw a tenant onto the street perhaps? Or not carry out repairs? Should you be able to let yourself into the property whenever you like because you own it? The law covers all of those too, and as I said it's not pick and mix what bits you choose to obey.

I'd be furious if I had a tenant who refused to leave MY PROPERTY if I had given the correct notice. Forcing me to go down the eviction route, it is of no benefit to anyone.

It’s of benefit to the tenants if they’re otherwise homeless.

Being furious is fine - perfectly reasonable human emotion to a costly and time consuming process. But you’d also understand that not everyone is doing it to be an arsehole, I assume? It’s not personal.

@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.

This is why private landlords should be abolished. People want to be able to settle in homes and feel secure. They can't do that it they're worried their landlord is going to sell up or massively hike up the rent.

Homes are for living in and not investment and profit. Lesson learned eh.