To think about kicking out (good) tenants?

[pctmmn]

I've had them for over three years and never missed a payment. But in April they said they were struggling so offered a 1/5th rent discount for three months. When this ended they asked for another three months. It doesn't affect my bottom line has I've taken out a 6 month mortgage holiday and the payments won't increase when they start again as it's added to the term.

I've been able to build up a bit of cash, but one works at a hotel and the other manages a resterant.

Would I be unreasonable to ask them to confirm the full rent needs to be paid for September else I'll give them notice? I really want someone in there paying the full rent and it feels like I'm subbing them right now.

YANBU. If they can’t afford to pay the full rent anymore then they can’t stay there. Where they go and what they do isn’t your problem; this is a business transaction.

It’s really that simple; emotion doesn’t come into it.

We’re the tenants ever expressly told eviction was on the cards?

WombatChocolate Tenants know they can be evicted at any time, it’s not their property, and if they’re not paying full rent they should be expecting their landlord won’t put up with that for long.

do you think those businesses that have topped up their furloughed staff or hung on to people with reduced salaries as opposed to letting them go or had senior staff take the hit on salaries & bonuses are acting like charities?

I’m going to guess they are hoping to still have a business to run at the end of this so need to keep the staff. So they are acting in the businesses best interest long term. So no they are not acting as a charity.

The OP has given over 2k off in rent while one person has been made redundant and now jobless and another on furlough in a trade that is struggling. It is not in her best interest to keep unemployed people renting her property.

They don’t need a 3 bed. They can move if they can’t pay the extra 20%

A payment holiday is not free to the landlord! With the deferral of interest & payment it can add more to the term than people expect.

Yanbu. However, if they lose their incomes and end up on housing benefit, ywbvu to evict them on that basis, if they continue to pay the rent in full.

@heartsonacake

YANBU. If they can’t afford to pay the full rent anymore then they can’t stay there. Where they go and what they do isn’t your problem; this is a business transaction.

It’s really that simple; emotion doesn’t come into it.

Thank you

Won’t UV cover their rent though if the worse comes to the worse?

@heartsonacake

YANBU. If they can’t afford to pay the full rent anymore then they can’t stay there. Where they go and what they do isn’t your problem; this is a business transaction.

It’s really that simple; emotion doesn’t come into it.

I’m sorry but this is bullshit. Emotion does come into it because these are real people who you are making homeless.

I’m sorry but this is bullshit. Emotion does come into it because these are real people who you are making homeless.

RowboatsinDisguise Don’t be so ridiculous. OP is not making them homeless; there are plenty of properties they can rent within their price range.

The point remains though, that even if they were going to be homeless because they couldn’t afford anywhere else, that’s not OP’s problem either. Emotion isn’t relevant.

If a homeless person walks into Tesco and wants to buy a sandwich but they have no money to pay for it, are Tesco making them starve? No, they’re not.

these are real people who you are making homeless

They won’t be made homeless, they will just need to move somewhere cheaper, sure plenty of landlords would have them if they agree to leave in a timely fashion with a good reference from OP

OP just ignore all the nasty comments on this thread. They come from people who have absolutely no understanding of the concept of business.

At the end of the day it’s your property and you’re entitled to have tenants that will pay for it fully. If these tenants won’t, you’ll have no problems finding ones who will.

think posters are being overly optimistic about how easy it will be for a couple who work in hospitality, one of whom has been furloughed and the other has lost their job so won’t be in long term employment even if they do get a new one, to find somewhere to rent quickly in the middle of a recession.

You may believe that isn’t OP’s problem but don’t assume that’s going to be easy for them and use it as a reason to side with her.

@heartsonacake

I’m sorry but this is bullshit. Emotion does come into it because these are real people who you are making homeless.

RowboatsinDisguise Don’t be so ridiculous. OP is not making them homeless; there are plenty of properties they can rent within their price range.

The point remains though, that even if they were going to be homeless because they couldn’t afford anywhere else, that’s not OP’s problem either. Emotion isn’t relevant.

If a homeless person walks into Tesco and wants to buy a sandwich but they have no money to pay for it, are Tesco making them starve? No, they’re not.

There is a middle ground and has been said 100x above its how you communicate with them that’s key, it’s imperative to have some compassion and give as much prior warning and the right for them to reply as they can.

Not only is it just the morally right thing to do but here in Scotland it can actually sway the First Teir Tribunal as you whether your Notice to Leave (S21 down south) can still be enforced.

I’m going to guess they are hoping to still have a business to run at the end of this so need to keep the staff. So they are acting in the businesses best interest long term. So no they are not acting as a charity. And how is that different to a landlord business dropping rent to secure tenants as opposed to taking the risk of a house with no tenants? Why do you think some LLs prefer to have the same tenants who look after the property for 5 yrs paying under the market rate as opposed to new ones every 6 months with potential periods of no tenants?

@heartsonacake

OP just ignore all the nasty comments on this thread. They come from people who have absolutely no understanding of the concept of business.

At the end of the day it’s your property and you’re entitled to have tenants that will pay for it fully. If these tenants won’t, you’ll have no problems finding ones who will.

The last sentence is debatable! That’s the point. She might Have no problem sourcing tenants. They might Pay the rent on time. It’s a gamble actually.

just ignore all the nasty comments on this thread. They come from people who have absolutely no understanding of the concept of business.

so the other LLs who posted are not running a business?

At the end of the day it’s your property and you’re entitled to have tenants that will pay for it fully. If these tenants won’t, you’ll have no problems finding ones who will.

no problem? when we are approaching winter in the middle of a pandemic, when we have just entered a recession & more people then ever can work remotely. Ok...

emotion doesn’t come into it

Yes and no; I'd suggest emotion tends to cloud things and doesn't necessarily help, but that still leaves decency and going about processes the right way - and while the situation's unfortunate I've seen nothing from OP to suggest she intends doing otherwise

I had to smile at "have they been told explicitly that they could be evicted?" though
Clearly nobody needs a PhD to know the consequences of unpaid rent - they just need to read their contract - but the comments if OP laid this out would have been all too predictable:

"How dare you threaten these poor people?", "Have you no compassion for their terrible circumstances?", "Do you realise what this could be doing to their mental health?" and so on ad nauseam

I’m sorry but this is bullshit. Emotion does come into it because these are real people who you are making homeless.

She's not a one woman housing association... And neither does she own the only available rental property in the country.

If they've been good tenants, I'd consider it, but make it clear it's the last extension. You still have to pay your mortgage, whereas they're getting a nice discount from you.

If you're not comfortable with it, just say no.

Clearly nobody needs a PhD to know the consequences of unpaid rent

Who's not paid rent? I thought the tenants & the LL agreed to a temporary reduction?

Yes, deposits just spring out of the ground. We really are developing a nice big parasite class in the this country (and I dont mean people who claim benefits, or the op)

I thought the tenants & the LL agreed to a temporary reduction?

They have - although the "temporary" seems in question here
However I was referring to the overall principle, rather than just this one case

If I was this tenant and I get served a section 21 at the end of Aug, without the landlord having warned me at least a couple of months before that this would happen if there wasn’t a return to something pre-agreed, I would be shocked and horrified
The onus on communication lay with the tenants. THEY are the ones not fulfilling the terms of the contract. THEY should be the ones contacting OP and telling her that they don't think they'd be able to start paying full rent and would she be willing to extend again and not evict whilst providing assurance of what they are doing to change their circumstances.

Whereas I agree that some flexibility should be considered, which OP has indeed done above what she had to, it shouldn't be her contacting them to chase about their situation and providing them reassurances.

”She might Have no problem sourcing tenants. They might Pay the rent on time. It’s a gamble actually.“

This is exactly my point, @Thewheelsfelloffthebus - she currently has good tenants, but there are no guarantees that she will find new tenants easily, or that her new tenants will be as reliable as her current ones. She might evict good tenants and end up with nightmare ones who trash the place or default on the rent.

Better a bird in the hand (especially during the current situation) than two in the bush.*

• • apologies for misquoting this saying in my previous post.

However I was referring to the overall principle, rather than just this one case

But the people who made the point re eviction & temporary reduction are referring to this case are they not? So what you said below doesn't make sense if you're referring to the overall principle as above?

I had to smile at "have they been told explicitly that they could be evicted?" though

Fergus Wilson - a delightful chap:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-41915889