No Fault Evictions

[Terry - Somerset]

But it's also somebody's home. Evict them by all means as long as they are not made homeless, or forced into poorer housing, or had all their essential connections with the area and neighbourhood broken (access to work, school, friends, family etc etc).

Judgement is clearly needed with respect to property rights. Although not always a simple black or white choice there are two fundamental approaches.

A tenant may default as life can throw up difficult challenges for all - relationship breakdown, job loss, accidents etc. They need help.

Society needs to operate compassionately to reasonably support the tenant, recognising that ultimately the property owner has rights over the property. The state may either pay the rent due or find alternative appropriate accommodation.

At the other extreme tenants can behave with complete disregard for the property owners rights and the contract signed at the start of the tenancy.

Bluntly, the property owner/landlord has no responsibility for the tenant and must be able to recover their property (and any other costs) quickly and easily. If society still feels obligated to provide accommodation, it must be a cost to society not the landlord.

A personal view - membership of society involves rights and obligations. Those who fail to meet their obligations without good reason are effectively forfeiting their rights.



grossly unpleasant folk - fine. As a landlord I would have no problem letting them

 

[Agent_zed]

You have to ask yourself then; how is it that millions of households (including mine) have air dried their clothes for generations with no damp and mould problem, no tumble driers, no PVUs, no need of advice from a landlord?
The answer is surely that your flats are badly designed, inadequate. not fit for purpose.
Not your tenants' fault.
Not your fault either unless you designed them, but now your problem as the owner, looking for a profit.
PS obvious solution would be for you to provide the PVUs, extra heating bills and running costs FOC.

Weird, as I distinctly remember on a previous thread you mentioning your single glazed windows stream with condensation in the winter. One would have to therefore assume your house isn't as dry as you claim. If you rented your house and the tenants said they didn't want water streaming off their windows would that be your fault then? I assume you would jump to fit new windows, as it must also be haemorrhaging heat (not very env friendly) or would you be paying their additional fuel bills?

It also doesn't take a lot to understand the difference in previous generations. For one thing previous generations mostly had a homemaker/housewife (whatever term fits) that would hang the washing outside for most of the year and secondly they would most likly also air the house while they were there. Now people go out to work all day they leave the washing to dry in the house and leave the windows shut.

Much older houses have fireplaces which naturally air the house in the winter as it draws air through.

Tenants won't run a drier or dehumidifier as it costs them money. They tend to barely turn the heating on and even turn the bathroom extractor off to save electric.

There is only so much you can do, and even the things you do are often undone by tenants that don't want to do it your way. They would literally rather remove smoke alarms and risk dying than have it sound when they burn their toast! (Hence the reason for mains powered alarms being standard now to prevent this).

 

[Jacob]

Weird, as I distinctly remember on a previous thread you mentioning your single glazed windows stream with condensation in the winter. One would have to therefore assume your house isn't as dry as you claim. ......

Quite the opposite!
With trad sash windows condensation drains off through the gap at the meeting rail or from bottom sash through gap to the cill. Hence acting as dehumidifier resulting in drier house.
Without the sash and its inherent gaps a single glazed window needs a catchment channel of some sort to take draining condensation to the outside.
This was a common detail in older buildings particularly public buildings like chapels and halls. Sometime just weep holes or a channel leading to a 1/2" lead pipe etc.
I sometimes wonder if single glazing plus weep holes etc could be the answer in some of these badly designed modern buildings. Better still would be higher levels of insulation in walls so that DG windows remain as the coldest surface attracting condensation, with weep holes, channels to take it away outside.
It's a basic design issue.

......previous generations mostly had a homemaker/housewife (whatever term fits) that would hang the washing outside for most of the year......

Current generations too - if they have an outside space in which to do it. If not there is an inherent design problem and you need tumble driers, artificial ventilation etc.

 

[Jacob]

....

Bluntly, the property owner/landlord has no responsibility for the tenant ....

Bluntly, the landlord takes on responsibility for the tenant, just like the provider of any other service.

 

[Agent_zed]

Bluntly, the landlord takes on responsibility for the tenant, just like the provider of any other service.

So, when you rent a car and red-line it till the oil rings are shot and there is smoke pouring out the back and smoke a load of fags so it stinks and drop your milkshake over the seats and grind takeaway into the carpet. You can then just take it back to the rental place and it's all on them right?

 

[Agent_zed]

Current generations too - if they have an outside space in which to do it.

Most people (especially renters) go out to work. They aren't there to put the washing out or open windows.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Bluntly, the landlord takes on responsibility for the tenant, just like the provider of any other service.

Absolutely not. There is a contractual obligation in which the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the property but to say the landlord has a responsibility for the tenant is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Jacob]

Absolutely not. There is a contractual obligation in which the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the property but to say the landlord has a responsibility for the tenant is just plain ridiculous.

It's a simple glaringly obvious fact of life for anybody providing any service to the general public. Difficult to see why property owners should think they are an exception.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Bluntly, the landlord takes on responsibility for the tenant, just like the provider of any other service.

Rubbish.

Making comparison of property rental with other items which may frequently be rented, not where ownership is transferred, may include car rental, use of a hotel room, airline or train seat etc.

In all cases the buyer of these services will typically have obligations - to pay on time, take care of that which they have been entrusted, use in accordance with contract/instructions etc.

Smoke in a no smoking hotel room, take prohibited items on an aircraft, drive a hire car off road, fail to pay/credit card rejected etc etc etc can all result in the offer of service being withdrawn or terminated early. Why should property be ay different.

 

[Jacob]

...... Why should property be ay different.

.....because a home is a fundamental necessity of life, unlike all the other things in your list, which can be terminated and alternatives found quite easily.
Even then, sudden termination creates a crisis such as long waits and holidays cancelled at airports, but very trivial compared to losing a home. If this does happen the airlines take all the blame, not the passengers. You don't get airlines endlessly whingeing on about troublesome clients, except the odd exception of course. Or bus drivers suddenly announcing the "no fault" end of a service and expecting everybody to pile off at the next stop.

 

[Agent_zed]

You don't get airlines endlessly whingeing on about troublesome clients, except the odd exception of course. Or bus drivers suddenly announcing the "no fault" end of a service and expecting everybody to pile off at the next stop.

eh? If you cause a problem you get escorted off the plane or bus. If they sell the plane or bus company and the new company decides not to run that route anymore, you have to find a new company.

 

[Jacob]

eh? If you cause a problem you get escorted off the plane or bus.

"no fault evictions"?

 

[paulrbarnard]

"no fault evictions"?

water in the aisle of a plane get escorted off. water in the hall of your rented house then expect the landlord to replace the carpets for you.

Edit: references in case you need them Jacob
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/trave...-pees-on-plane-american-airlines/74307203007/

 

[Agent_zed]

"no fault evictions"?

where was the other part of my post?

'If they sell the plane or bus company and the new company decides not to run that route anymore, you have to find a new company.'

oh yeah this part which doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Jacob]

where was the other part of my post?

'If they sell the plane or bus company and the new company decides not to run that route anymore, you have to find a new company.'

oh yeah this part which doesn't fit your narrative.

see my post 290 above.

 

[Jacob]

water in the aisle of a plane get escorted off. water in the hall of your rented house then expect the landlord to replace the carpets for you.

Edit: references in case you need them Jacob
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/trave...-pees-on-plane-american-airlines/74307203007/

Title of thread is "no fault evictions". One thing at a time!

 

[monster]

That’s a childish fallacy. I personally only own one property. It’s mine to do with as I wish. The moment I acquire another one and let it out I acquire certain moral as well as legal responsibilities. I can’t just do what I want with it now as another person now has moral and legal right to take into account. That’s how civilised societies and decent people operate

No one is suggesting that tenants don't have rights, and no is suggesting a landlord shouldn't take into account the tenants situation in a sympathetic manner.

But the fact remains that the house is the property of the landlord - and if that ultimate control is removed or stifled to an increasingly greater degree then you will find a growing shortage of rental properties on offer as more and more landlords sell up or turn to Airbnb Holiday Lets.

 

[monster]

You have to ask yourself then; how is it that millions of households (including mine) have air dried their clothes for generations with no damp and mould problem, no tumble driers, no PVUs, no need of advice from a landlord?
The answer is surely that your flats are badly designed, inadequate. not fit for purpose.
Not your tenants' fault.
Not your fault either unless you designed them, but now your problem as the owner, looking for a profit.
PS obvious solution would be for you to provide the PVUs, extra heating bills and running costs FOC.

Is yours an old draughty house with single glazed windows?

As landlords we are required that all our rental properties reach an Energy Rating of 'C' or above - this means that cavity wall and loft insulation are essential, as is double glazing etc. This creates an extremely warm and draught free environment were if the windows are never opened any drying of clothes etc immediately condensates on the wall.

 

[monster]

But it's also somebody's home. Evict them by all means as long as they are not made homeless, or forced into poorer housing, or had all their essential connections with the area and neighbourhood broken (access to work, school, friends, family etc etc).

Of course its someone else's home, and in my 25 years of letting I have never evicted anyone. My tenants love me as a landlord and I have provided accommodation for hundreds of people over the years some who have made their homes in my property for over a decade.

I find it funny that those who have provided homes for no one else see fit to lecture them in a righteous manner.

But when all is said and done, it is my property, and I should have the right to evict anyone who is not keeping to the terms of the contract they agreed too. I should also have the right to evict if at such time I need to sell the property.

 

[monster]

Weird, as I distinctly remember on a previous thread you mentioning your single glazed windows stream with condensation in the winter. One would have to therefore assume your house isn't as dry as you claim. If you rented your house and the tenants said they didn't want water streaming off their windows would that be your fault then? I assume you would jump to fit new windows, as it must also be haemorrhaging heat (not very env friendly) or would you be paying their additional fuel bills?

It also doesn't take a lot to understand the difference in previous generations. For one thing previous generations mostly had a homemaker/housewife (whatever term fits) that would hang the washing outside for most of the year and secondly they would most likly also air the house while they were there. Now people go out to work all day they leave the washing to dry in the house and leave the windows shut.

Much older houses have fireplaces which naturally air the house in the winter as it draws air through.

Tenants won't run a drier or dehumidifier as it costs them money. They tend to barely turn the heating on and even turn the bathroom extractor off to save electric.

There is only so much you can do, and even the things you do are often undone by tenants that don't want to do it your way. They would literally rather remove smoke alarms and risk dying than have it sound when they burn their toast! (Hence the reason for mains powered alarms being standard now to prevent this).

I doubt he would be allowed to rent his house out if it has single glazed windows as it wouldn't achieve an EPC of 'C' or above.

It sounds like we provide a better standard of accommodation to our tenants than Jacob supplies to his wife!