No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

No one is suggesting 'a casual attitude' so not sure why you feel the need to state that....

What make people homeless because you "need" the property? Looks casual to me. Very much the attitude during the clearance of the highlands

If a landlord needs his property back then he has every right to have back once the terms of the original contract have been met and after a sufficient notice period has been given.

If you remove this fundamental property right

Fundamental property rights entail fundamental property obligations. The rights of those without property should take precedence as they are by definition in greater need.

from landlords then you will have uneven greater shortage of rental homes on offer and its those that wish or need to rent who will suffer.

I suggest you read the book by Bob Colenutt, see above. It puts the whole issue in perspective.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

What make people homeless because you "need" the property? Looks casual to me. Very much the attitude during the clearance of the highlands

There is a contract between landlord and tenant. For genuine no fault evictions, a fair and reasonable notice period should be - possibly more than the current statutory minimum. There are entirely fair and reasonable circumstances is which a landlord may want possession.

Fundamental property rights entail fundamental property obligations. The rights of those without property should take precedence as they are by definition in greater need.

There is no fundamental good or moral reason why the rights of those without property should take precedence. As members of the same society they should have an equality of rights.

How far property owners should subordinate their rights to the homeless extend. Just to property held only for rental. What about spare rooms in owner occupied houses. What about the rights of the disadvantaged over other assets - cars, TVs, gardens, caravans.

If the local housing officer (kommandant) makes an assessment visit and concludes your two spare bedrooms and second bathroom are just right for a destitute single mum with 2 kids do you (a) smile sweetly and say "I can now play my part", or (b) move your aged mother in law in for a couple of weeks so the rooms seem occupied.

Pursued to its logical conclusion, denying property rights to landlords makes zero difference to the volume or quality of property available to rent or buy. Resolving high property purchase and rental prices is not state asset confiscation but building more property.

I suggest you read the book by Bob Colenutt, see above. It puts the whole issue in perspective.

A brief summary from the usually journalistically reliable Guardian. A single view, a convincing argument does not make! It it has all the hallmarks of one who in an attempt to get attention espouses ever more extreme views.

 

[Jacob]

There is a contract between landlord and tenant. For genuine no fault evictions, a fair and reasonable notice period should be - possibly more than the current statutory minimum. There are entirely fair and reasonable circumstances is which a landlord may want possession.

Not if it would leave people homeless.

There is no fundamental good or moral reason why the rights of those without property should take precedence.

Even if homeless?

As members of the same society they should have an equality of rights.

There's no fundamental reason why property owners' interests should take precedence. It's a historic issue and fought over from early days.
Would you say the highland clearances, or enclosures, were perfectly reasonable?

How far property owners should subordinate their rights to the homeless extend. Just to property held only for rental. What about spare rooms in owner occupied houses. What about the rights of the disadvantaged over other assets - cars, TVs, gardens, caravans.

If the local housing officer (kommandant) makes an assessment visit and concludes your two spare bedrooms and second bathroom are just right for a destitute single mum with 2 kids do you (a) smile sweetly and say "I can now play my part", or (b) move your aged mother in law in for a couple of weeks so the rooms seem occupied.

Pursued to its logical conclusion, denying property rights to landlords makes zero difference to the volume or quality of property available to rent or buy.

Exactly. But may well benefit tenants.

Resolving high property purchase and rental prices is not state asset confiscation but building more property.

You need to read the Colenutt book!

A brief summary from the usually journalistically reliable Guardian. A single view, a convincing argument does not make! It it has all the hallmarks of one who in an attempt to get attention espouses ever more extreme views.

So there is no housing crisis then and nobody has anything to worry about, and challenging the rights of property owners is immoral!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Maybe you could explain why someone who doesn't own the property has more rights to the property than the person who owns it? By the same logic a shoplifter has more rights to the products he stole than the shopkeeper who owns them.

 

[Diver Fred]

>>Snip<<
So there is no housing crisis then and nobody has anything to worry about, and challenging the rights of property owners is immoral!

The bigger Crisis is the (over) population Crisis! More people need more houses, food, clothing, heating, energy, transport, etc. The UK is in the top three most densely populated countries in Europe. Hence the housing crisis.

I very much doubt that the UK landmass could feed all its population on even a most basic diet.

 

[Diver Fred]

There's no fundamental reason why property owners' interests should take precedence. It's a historic issue and fought over from early days.
>>Snip<<

Exactly. But may well benefit tenants.

So what would have done in the following situation?

Some years ago the Tenant failed to pay his rent for 4 months; the first I knew about was when the agent contacted me to tell me that there is rent owing; and they had already used the Deposit to pay me.
They suggested that eviction process was started (which would mean I have fees to pay and I'd likely loose the owing rent). Or we could ask the tenant to pay the missing amounts quickly - i.e. double his rent for the next 5 months. At the time the tenant was the chef at a local establishment.

My first resolution was to take the second option - that lasted for 2 months when I discovered a problem with the way the rent money due two me was being paid so I ceased my contract with them. I then sat down with the tenant and came up with a repayment plan - an extra sum on the rent for 18 months. During that time I bought the tenant £100 of heating fuel to ensure he didn't get cold.
When I had to change the heating system to meet the EPC requirements because of the increased energy costs I gave a £15 discount on the rent for 8 months when the heating was needed.

As I reported in posting No. 279 the tenant couldn't be happier to have been given the S.20 notice, it has prompted him to consider moving closer to Doctors, hospitals and shops.

 

[niemeyjt]

Now it is reported that "hardship tests" may be applied before an eviction is allowed.

All this will do is ensure that no-one will be able to rent a property without a rock-solid guarantor.

As for those without one . . . it looks like getting your next home just got a whole lot harder.

Nice one!

There is no situation a politician cannot make worse.

 

[Cabinetman]

Now it is reported that "hardship tests" may be applied before an eviction is allowed.

All this will do is ensure that no-one will be able to rent a property without a rock-solid guarantor.

As for those without one . . . it looks like getting your next home just got a whole lot harder.

Nice one!

There is no situation a politician cannot make worse.

Is that the "hardship " of the tenant or the landlord?

 

[Sachakins]

@Jacob you have used the phrase earlier that as a landlord "...you are in it for the duration..."
As you appeared to have missed or ignored my earlier question, I'll ask again.

How long do you consider is this duration you mention. 1, 2 10 years, please let us know what you consider is an acceptable time duration a landlord must rent their property out for?

 

[Diver Fred]

@Jacob you have used the phrase earlier that as a landlord "...you are in it for the duration..."
As you appeared to have missed or ignored my earlier question, I'll ask again.

How long do you consider is this duration you mention. 1, 2 10 years, please let us know what you consider is an acceptable time duration a landlord must rent their property out for?

Guess he would like a return to the days of Registered Tenancies.

 

[Jacob]

Guess he would like a return to the days of Registered Tenancies.

Well yes why not? Bring back civilisation, it's a jungle out there!

 

[Spectric]

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?

Because they had airflow, they opened windows to get fresh air and many also had open fires, today people seem afraid of having windows open and like living in a hermetically sealed box kept at high temperatures and we all know warm air holds more water vapour.

 

[Jacob]

Because they had airflow, they opened windows to get fresh air and many also had open fires, today people seem afraid of having windows open and like living in a hermetically sealed box kept at high temperatures and we all know warm air holds more water vapour.

It's generally attributable to poor maintenance, design and build. People haven't just recently gone stupid.

 

[Diver Fred]

Because they had airflow, they opened windows to get fresh air and many also had open fires, today people seem afraid of having windows open and like living in a hermetically sealed box kept at high temperatures and we all know warm air holds more water vapour.

And don't forget those (Calor Gas) portable heat cabinets. Or even the fixed, un-flued, catalytic gas fires that some people install. All produce water vapour as a part of the combustion process - roughly 1Kg of gas produces 1.5Litres of water.

 

[Jacob]

And don't forget those (Calor Gas) portable heat cabinets. Or even the fixed, un-flued, catalytic gas fires that some people install. All produce water vapour as a part of the combustion process - roughly 1Kg of gas produces 1.5Litres of water.

All part of the problem of badly designed and poorly equipped housing. Used to be paraffin heaters in the old days, or are they still with us?
Also a problem of sheer poverty - you could still heat your home even with gas/electric cut off - no money for the meter etc.

 

[John Hughes01]

As I have pointed out we make a point of becoming "friends" with our tenants and would always discuss and talk about their tenancy. It is our son's house in the UK while he works in the USA. He is now approaching retirement so is considering selling his UK house when the tenancy contract ends in two years time. We manage the property for him as you do and have made the well aware of his intentions well in advance.. The tenant was brought over here by a local company on a three year contract. Initially we set up a one year contract which is then renewed if both partys are in agreement. Our tenant has just signed up for another two years. If the company wish to extend his work contract then we would sell it with a sitting tenant or even consider extending his stay depending upon the duration of the extension. If it is permanent he could even buy the property as they are extremely happy with living there.
However,as a private landlord, I am very concerned about our future as landlords especially with Labour in power. It appears that making a profit is "dirty". Although I am well retired I have always regarded myself as a working man but was encouraged by my parents to save and put money away for a "rainy day". I now find myself in a comfortable situation in retirement and what wrong with that. Labour tend to put us in the "filthy rich" class of capitalists and this is worrying. Is it a crime to be prudent throughout your life thereby saving the nation lots of money eg care homes. We are not looking forward to the October budget as we fear middle England will be hit hard.

 

[Jacob]

As I have pointed out we make a point of becoming "friends" with our tenants and would always discuss and talk about their tenancy. It is our son's house in the UK while he works in the USA. He is now approaching retirement so is considering selling his UK house when the tenancy contract ends in two years time. We manage the property for him as you do and have made the well aware of his intentions well in advance.. The tenant was brought over here by a local company on a three year contract. Initially we set up a one year contract which is then renewed if both partys are in agreement. Our tenant has just signed up for another two years. If the company wish to extend his work contract then we would sell it with a sitting tenant or even consider extending his stay depending upon the duration of the extension. If it is permanent he could even buy the property as they are extremely happy with living there.
However,as a private landlord, I am very concerned about our future as landlords especially with Labour in power. It appears that making a profit is "dirty". Although I am well retired I have always regarded myself as a working man but was encouraged by my parents to save and put money away for a "rainy day". I now find myself in a comfortable situation in retirement and what wrong with that. Labour tend to put us in the "filthy rich" class of capitalists and this is worrying. Is it a crime to be prudent throughout your life thereby saving the nation lots of money eg care homes. We are not looking forward to the October budget as we fear middle England will be hit hard.

What do you think Labour should do about the housing crisis?

 

[paulrbarnard]

What do you think Labour should do about the housing crisis?

Force developers to build affordable housing rather than the way over priced ‘executive’ homes they squeeze in to developments. It’s how my house ownership started out 45 years ago with a one bed starter home on a new housing estate. They only build four or five of them but would probably not build anybody.

 

[Ozi]

Labour have said they will reform the planning system.

If this is done so that local plans include in detail the number and type of homes actually required, the infrastructure required to support ie, shops, schools, surgeries, water and power supply etc. Compiled as part of a coherent national plan.

If new build planning permission (preferably excluding self-build) is only granted in line with this plan.

If objections to planning proposals have to be objective and evidence based before they can be considered.

If where compulsory purchase is necessary it is done at a compensation price ie. above original value.

If immigration is controlled (I'm not talking about small boats 30,000 out of 732,000 people) but in the manor of New Zealand where they publish a list of people they need, if you fit the criterion you can apply.

If suitable runways are built for all classes of pig.......

We could sort out both the housing and social care crisis, it would take time and require people to understand where we were headed over a time scale greater than up to the next election, the Victorians managed this unhindered by democracy, the results were often far from great but you can't fault the long term success of their infrastructure projects. Do we have the leadership and collective intelligence required or will we all be bribed by tax cuts or handouts depending on personal finances.


It would be expensive. We would all have to pay our share in tax. The rules need to apply to everyone but it could be done. I put little faith in any political party, the last lot appalled me, this lot need to be given time to show their true worth, in the end we get what the majority vote for.

No breath was held while writing this.

Off to do another days work maintaining houses - this retirement lark is hard work

 

[Morty]

I purchased my first BTL 35 years ago and ended up with 3 BTL flats to provide a pension top up in retirement and not to take too big a financial hit when I retire.
Note to Jacob, I consider that having provided a home to 3 families for 35 years is sufficiently "long term" to satisfy even Jacob's rather odd logic, so come on Jacob how long is "long term" I now need to realise my assets to fund the monthly care for my severely disabled wife, we are both in our late 70s and beginning to struggle with the additional financial burden we now face.