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)

"It costs a lot more than two months rent to evict a tenant if they are being difficult and repair the damage if they have wrecked the place."

Yes, but that's not going to happen every year , is it?

Tough I agree there. My tenant has been very eclectic with rent payments for a few years but she looked after the property well and she's now claimed some support so her payments are now all up to date and regular.

I do think more needs to be done tackle landlords who cheat, rent or substandard properties etc Many people aren't in a position to move or fight it.

Because making them have a criminal record will help the situation??! I do know someone who chose not to pay, she strung it out for 2 years as the landlord was understanding. But Im pretty sure most who don't pay, can't.

Whilst I get your point there should be more regulation and recourse for tenants and landlords (I'm a private renter myself) I dont believe criminalising non payment will solve anything. The courts will be full of 'they didn't fix my boiler so I didnt pay' cases. One landlord of mine only took cash, he could have turned round and said 'naaa didn't pay a penny'.

As a renter it costs me £3000-£5000 everytime I'm told to move, with just 2 months notice, to find that, find a house, arrange a move, arrange potential new schools. Just something to bare in mind.

I considered renting out my house while buying another. I decided against it because I realised I couldn't afford to keep a capital sum that could cover non-payment for 6 months/emergency repairs/making good damage after vacating tenants/total trashing by tenants. I know several people who have let properties and all of them have experienced tenants who have failed to pay or who have trashed the place. And we're not talking low-end of the market either.

Sadly, unless you can afford to keep a significant capital sum on standby, you cannot afford to be a landlord.

And I agree with other posters that the rule about becoming 'intentionally homeless' if you vacate rather than be forcibly evicted is terrible and benefits no one.

You can buy insurance to over non payment of rent.

You certainly should have enough savings, or enough spare slack in your budget to cover several months of no income.

More fool you if you go into business (yes, it is a business even if you are an 'accidental landlord') and haven't thought it through.

It would be a massive PiTA if I had to cover the mortgage on my rented property and my rent with no rental income coming in for more than a few months, but I wouldn't have to default. I'm not irrisponsible like Greece.

I think criminalising tenants who don't pay is a bit extreme, but landlords should absolutely have more rights when it comes to tenants who don't pay rent or who damage property.

Landlords shouldn't have to go to court to evict non paying tenants, I think they should be allowed to evict four weeks after non payment with the support of the police. The police help Tesco when someone damages their shop front or deprives them of money that is rightfully theirs, so I can't see any good reason why the police shouldn't help landlords as well.

Insurance is irrelevant, this is a moral issue, and if people can't pay their rent then they should leave the property. This is what emergency council housing in B&Bs should be for, it's not right that councils make people run up a fortune in arrears and cost landlords thousands. Obviously, landlords should meet their obligations as well, and I agree with whoever said they should only be allowed to evict tenants if they need to sell or move in themselves, or if the tenant hasn't paid or has caused damage.

knowing they can live free of rent for months with no repercussions

This is simply not true. There are repercussions. Your LL will,most likely, take you to court to get you evicted. If your are evicted it will effect your credit file, you'll find it nigh on impossible to rent privately again, even if you do find a place to rent again you will need a much higher deposit and/or a guarantor, bailiffs will show up at your door, if you fail to comply with anything dictated by the court then you can be arrested. Hardy consequence free.

Has it occurred to you, that sometimes people's circumstances may change once they are in a tenancy; if they are struggling to pay the rent (but managing it nonetheless, perhaps at the expense of other things or by getting into debt), it's not necessarily as simple as making other arrangements &walking away. Many landlords will not consider prospective tenants if they are on any kind of benefits, there are application fees to pay (sometimes many before you are successful in getting a house), a deposit to save up before you get the previous one back, costs of moving, time to take off work. Many people are not eligible for council housing or the like unless they are about to be made homeless, and many are not eligible even then. How would you propose these people make other arrangements?

I think Ptolemy has made some excellent points.

and if people can't pay their rent then they should leave the property. This is what emergency council housing in B&Bs should be

They should be Ptolemy but they're not. If someone leaves a property then they are deemed to have made themselves homeless and the council won't house them. They have to wait to be evicted if they require housing by the council.

By your logic OP then everyone who defaults on a bill of any kind should be arrested. Cant pay your phone bill? Prison. Cant pay your electric bill? Prison.

Yeah that would really sort the problem, 'cause there is loads of room in prisons and entering one gives you an automatic incomd sufficient enough to pay your bills

We own a letting agency. The law infuriates me. Had a possession order for 1st July. sent in a request that the bailiffs go in on the 2nd. We knew they wouldn't leave on the 1st because the council told us they had advised them to stay until the bailiff order was received. Rejected because we applied before the order. Have now applied again. Why isnt it seen as contempt of Court not to move out when the Court says to?

I know Nicky, that's what I'm objecting to! It seems crazy that local government can cause those sorts of issues to people that pay them tax. I realise they only have a limited amount of housing to give out and they have to prioritise somehow, but if people genuinely can't pay rent and get evicted, then they'll end up on the housing list anyway. Why can't they just skip all the bollocks that causes so much upset to tenants and costs LLs thousands?

I agree, landlords definitely need more power to evict non paying tenants. Being too poor to pay is never an excuse for stealing, and I don't see much difference between squatting/ not paying rent and theft.

It is a ridiculous notion to think that people should be able to live somewhere that they aren't paying for. The world doesn't work that way.

I don't think it should be a criminal offence but I do think the eviction process should be quicker and simpler and less costly.

Tenants can't just move out, because then they will be classed as having made themselves homeless and the council won't house them. The only way the council will help house you is if you are evicted.

This is what needs to change.

No idea Ptolemy. There was an incredibly sad thread a while back with a single mother facing eviction (the LL wanted to sell) and she couldn't find anywhere else to live (no LL would take her). She was put in the ridiculous position of having to wait to be evicted to get council help but the act of being evicted would have damaged her ability to privately rent therefore making her relient on the council help. Ridiculous.

Jakie a lot of ppl have nowhere to go.

In that programme the landlord took a look at the boiler and said it was fine. Is he qualified?

The tenant claimed she had been without heating and hot water for months. He claimed that was untrue.

Well towards the end of the programme i saw him having to break into his own place. Apparently she locked it so he couldnt gain access at all. I concede that was wrong.

But i also saw a landlord wrecking his own front door because he was too cheap to call a locksmith Coupled with the fact that he took the lid off the boiler and said "yeah thats fine" i drew my own conclusions from what i saw. She said she had been without hot water and heating for months and if he didnt want to fork out for a locksmith its not a stretch to assume he didnt want to fork out for other things.

Why just tenants?

If you think people should be imprisoned for being in debt or financial difficulty, that's one (mad, unworkable, unpleasant) notion.

But tenants specifically? Odd.

The whole law regarding landlords, tenants and letting residential property needs massive overhaul. More protection for both landlords and tenants, tighter restrictions on letting. It is far too easy to just become a landlord. Far too many in it simply for the money and not giving a shit about providing the service they are being paid for. And those that are being screwed over by tenants are losing thousands over months. The law sucks wrt renting in the UK. Personally i dont think people's homes should be other people's investments or businesses.

BTW, if you're going to be a LL, you should probably learn to spell "tenants".

In that programme the landlord took a look at the boiler and said it was fine. Is he qualified?

He also had the benefit of being able to switch the cameras off while he fixed it before switching them on again for him to "discover" it working.

Maggie it's not about punishing people for being in difficulty, but stopping them from punishing others in the process. Non paying tenants deprive others of income.

What is wrong wrong with wanting people to take responsibility for themselves instead of passing the buck onto someone else? No problems are solved by squatting.

What is wrong wrong with wanting people to take responsibility for themselves instead of passing the buck onto someone else? No problems are solved by squatting.

This isn't about squatting.

Most tenants who fall behind with rent are in dire financial straits. Housing benefit is slow and limited. What possible good would imprisoning a recently unemployed person who has slipped into rent arrears do? They can't work or job-search from their cell.

Is the attraction that it would function as an alternative route to vacant possession?

Even ptolemy thinks it's too harsh. That's saying something.