Non oaying tenants should be arrested!!

[JakieOH]

Just watching a programme about landlords and tenants. I know there are bad landlords out there, however, surely it should be a criminal offence not to pay rent on a property?? It can take months and months to evict a tenant from your property and it costs a fortune too. Meanwhile the landlord has to pay the mortgage etc. it's awful, these people should be arrested for theft because that's what it is.

More a rant than a question really, I rent out my old flat and it worries me a lot! If my tenets decided to stop paying rent I would most likely default on the mortgage and loose the property. There would be very little comeback to retrieve the money Owed.

I'm lucky because I have great tenants, they get a lovely oroperty at a very very reasonable rate (just covers the mortgage and any breakdowns/upkeep etc)

needmorespace I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem that you are actually reading my posts, rather than misconstruing or entirely making bits up in your head just so you can have an argument. I've never stated I support BTL - please, if you can point out the post where I said I did and I'll retract it. There's no point in conversing/debating with you until you respond to what I've actually posted, rather than what you think I've posted.

I never said you did (or at least I don't think I did). When I said I disagreed with you owning more than one house... I meant 'one' not you specifically.

needmorespace you said this - 'And I totally disagree that if you have more than one house you are not privilidged.'

in response to this - 'not every person who owns a house they don't live in is 'priviledged' either'

Then you said 'You support the btl market, I don't' - I've never said I support btl. What are you on???

not making anything up at all.
All of your posts seem to support having a property rented out and therefore supporting the btl market (even if you are an accidental landlord)
not looking for an argument with you, just trying to point out the unfairness that you needed to 'hold on' to your property whilst someone else pays the mortgage so that you can return to it at a later date - why should the market be like that?
Perhaps things are getting lost in translation?

not sure what the confusion is

you seemed to say that if some people have more than one house they are not privileged. I think the opposite.

And, yes, I think your posts do seem to support the btl market (for whatever the personal reasons) even though it is not explicitly said. If that is not the case then I apologise. But there is a bit of a contradiction there no? Given that you have a mortgaged house which is, er, rented out.

Not on anything at all - are you?

Just read my posts as I've typed them rather than how they 'seem' to you. I'm pretty straight forward in that respect.
And just for info, the rent we charged barely paid more than half the mortgage. Take away fees for the agent, the gardener we pay to maintain the lawn, the money spent to service/repair the boiler, to replace the dishwasher, to repair the garden fences 3 times in last years storms etc etc etc, no one but us is paying our mortgage. I agree, the market shouldn't be like it is - but why should landlords (accidental or other) be forced to sell or let their house sit and rot?

I'd be very interested to here how many of you landlord haters think that the pension bill should be cut. But that's another thread entirely.

I did well in my GCSEs. And my A levels. And my first undergrad degree. And my second undergrad degree. And my MSc. Still can't afford to buy a fucking house though.

And before any smart arse implies otherwise, I have worked full time for twenty years, mostly in good professional jobs. I still can't afford to buy a house.

The wilful blindness of some on this thread is staggering. That's life, eh? Just another way of saying I'm alright Jack, imo.

Needmore people (who either choose to or have to rent) would have to live where the government built social housing or associations built housing. Thereby segregating renters and owners. I don't think that's right.

The reason why btl is such a boom industry is because successive governments have allowed social housing to be bought and have not built more thereby leaving often vulnerable tenants to the mercy of slum landlords who set their prices to match benefits.

The issue is not about who owns the property but about security for who lives there. Changing the law so that tenants have long term security and basic standards of housing quality is what is needed.

People will always need to rent property for a variety of reasons not just because they can't afford a deposit.

For the last time (I'm starting to think you're on a wind up)... Yyou have just said - 'you seemed to say that if some people have more than one house they are not privileged'.

I said not every person who owns a house they don't live in is 'priviledged. A house, not plural, not more than one - read my posts properly!!!!!!

ElectraCute - so because you're not 'alright Jack', no one else should be?

Unfortunately, until we get governments and councils who are committed to the provision of enough social housing, we are going to go on needing private landlords.

If I have remembered correctly, I don't think any council or government has made sure that enough new social housing has been built to replace what has been sold off under Right To Buy - which is what was promised. And whilst it is great for those people who have been able to buy their homes under this scheme, the depletion of social housing stock is possibly too high a price to have paid.

I have rented a number of times - shared houses when I was a student nurse, when I was working, when I went to university as a mature student, and a couple of times since, when dh and I have had to rent for 6 months or so, whilst relocating.

I have never had a problem with the private landlords I was renting from, and in my circumstances, they were providing a service which I needed. I don't think I would have been entitled to social housing, in the circumstances in which I was renting, so the private landlords were providing a service I really needed.

Yes, of course that's my argument bb

My position is that I'm not against private landlords,so much as for tenants.

I think the balance has been tipped too much in favour of landlords in the landlord/tenant relationship and its time to ensure tenants have better basic rights.

The deposits are too high,and too easily withheld.
The rents need capping.
The security of tenants needs increasing -the costs of being moved on after a short period because of selling or refurbishment are atronomical for the tenant.
The tenant should have basic expectations when it comes to freedom of a normal family life.

As it stands at the moment,so many private rentals are managed by agencies who insist on credit checks,references,and large deposits along with advance rent.
Its becoming impossible for families who have perhaps got into some money trouble when the shit hit the fan,and defaulted on some payments (not necessarily rent -maybe credit made too easily available prior to the crunch,and used as a get out at the time).
Its getting scary out there.

Jesus wept - you are on one aren't you?

Let's be clear, I think:

If you own more than one house you are very, very, privileged.
If you own one house and don't live in it (for whatever reason) you are still privileged. Especially if that house isn't sitting empty and someone else is paying the mortgage (or some of the mortgage).

I think I read your posts perfectly well and not sure what the confusion is but oh well.

I totally agree ThatBloodyWomen

soapboxqueen I couldn't agree with you more.

There is obviously a need for some private lettings. But that balance has tipped far too far in the balance of btl landlords and the die are pretty much all in their favour.

I do think though that if a government was brave enough to undertake a massive social housing building programme a lot of the problems would be solved. And remove the right to buy. Unless, of course, it is extended to those renting privately

Why would you want to put housing under Tory control?? Seems like that would be out if the frying pan into the fire! Landlords do not force people to rent their properties?

If there is not enough social housing around then these people would be homeless if it wasn't for landlords. They are providing a service and enabling people to have a roof over their heads. I actually think we should have a national landlord day, no more ludicrous than some of the suggestions ive seen on here!

I agree that it shouldn't be a criminal offence for social reasons but I do wonder how the criminal/civil distinction came about. Any lawyers to explain that to me?

If you don't (but could) pay your gas bill it's a civil issue but if you tamper with the meter then it is criminal I think. I'm not sure what's behind this distinction.

And to refer back to an earlier thread non paying tenants have intentionally deprived a LL of their rent or their property.

I'm not saying it should be criminal at all but that that definition doesn't help explain why it's not.

If a landlord unecessarily witholds deposit it is also a civil matter.

Payment between landlord and tenant is a contractual agreement and falls under common law not criminal law.

eh, btl landlords have flourished exactly because there is no social housing - a lot of them own former la stock.

I personally wouldn't want anything under tory control but I couldn't care less which government introduced a massive building programme I just wish one would. Or given that this is not likely to happen any time soon, introduce rent controls and greater security of tenure.

And end right to buy and not introduce the rent to buy scheme about to be introduced.

Or, to balance things up, offer right to buy to private tenants. A home is for living in not financial speculation or gain.

Feel like I have spent far too much sunshiny time on this thread.

for obvious reasons I have not read the whole thread as there will be too much 'make property free' from the playground-thinking brigade. Who do of course all work for nothing and think that people get given houses to rent out. And also believe dumb tv programmes and red-top newspapers that being a landlord is free money.

but as you've been advised, OP, you need rent guarantee insurance, malicious damage insurance (NOT included in all policies) and legal expenses cover. If you don't have those you are at very high risk and you should not be in the property rental business.

and that, boys and girls, is why tenants need to pass referencing so the insurances are valid, and why many decent people cannot get a landlord to accept them because of the non-decent thieving tenants.

if you don't pay for it, it isn't yours. Suck it up or go live in North Korea.

specialsubject lol. indeed

The level of civility on this thread is quite a sight to behold

It always gives me a good ol' giggle when specialsubject pops up on these threads.