The mortgage companies who provide the finance for these BTL homes do not adhere to this 30/60/90 payment policy. So why should a landlord accept it?
Evicting tenants - Any advice?
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
The mortgage companies who provide the finance for these BTL homes do not adhere to this 30/60/90 payment policy. So why should a landlord accept it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Awaits GD thread titled:
Landlord trying to evict me for paying his mortgage late by a week after i lost my job. Help!
Landlord trying to evict me for paying his mortgage late by a week after i lost my job. Help!
lol
^^^
in no way will I go over and change the locks- that's just playing into his hands and a very stupid way of dealing with this.
I see the thread has divided opinion. If he don't leave on time then I will seek legal action indeed. He is probably talking to the council right now and also taking legal advice about everything.
How long do you think it could take for the eviction to take place? up to 6 weeks?
^^^
in no way will I go over and change the locks- that's just playing into his hands and a very stupid way of dealing with this.
I see the thread has divided opinion. If he don't leave on time then I will seek legal action indeed. He is probably talking to the council right now and also taking legal advice about everything.
How long do you think it could take for the eviction to take place? up to 6 weeks?
It also says you cant forcibly evict them or change the locks whilst they were out. Doesn't say you can't remove the windows and doors. Start renovating the place as it would probably cost less than taking it to court
Depends how many times you have to renovate it after the unsecured property is damaged by "random passers by" or it gets burnt out
I sympathise with the OP and think it's ridiculous that tenants can hang on to a property for months after being "evicted", all while the LL has to spend thousands in legal fees AND losing out on the rent, but if the OP actually wants to get his property back with as little pain as possible, he is unfortunately going to have to do things by the book.
If you start being an **** and playing silly buggers, don't be surprised if the tenant decides to reciprocate - bear in mind, as the LL you have a lot more to lose.
Last edited:
It's normally months rather than weeks.
It also says you cant forcibly evict them or change the locks whilst they were out. Doesn't say you can't remove the windows and doors. Start renovating the place as it would probably cost less than taking it to court
It does sound like a situation of cut your nose off to spite your face. But i suppose in theory you could smash in all the windows/doors, the police couldn't get involved as you're not vandalising anyone else's property. The house would then be draughty/freezing and will probably just make him want to move out.
Yes OTT much.
To be fair I think those laws are to protect from the minority of landlords who'd actually do such a thing. The rest of them get stuck with painful tenants.
Although in this case I'm happy as long as the money comes in. Don't really care where it comes from.
Of course the police could get involved that then becomes harassment.
Most people who aren't stupid don't think that landlords are watching the money roll in, they just think that its a good wheeze getting someone else to pay off your house for you whilst ensuring that not only will you end up with a house you haven't paid that much for but you are likely to have benefitted from a considerable value increase in the mean time.
When so many people struggle to afford a property it galls them that their rental payments are going towards paying off a mortgage for (in most cases) a second, third, etc home for their landlords.
We have just bought a flat and our mortgage payments are roughly half what it would cost us to rent the flat. Its insane.
When so many people struggle to afford a property it galls them that their rental payments are going towards paying off a mortgage for (in most cases) a second, third, etc home for their landlords.
We have just bought a flat and our mortgage payments are roughly half what it would cost us to rent the flat. Its insane.
OP - you have to weigh up the options.
1.) Leave him there and deal with some late payments.
You will still get them eventually, you will not have an estate agent to pay when they re-rent it for you and your house won't get damaged. While he is there, I wouldn't entertain any repairs other than essentials.
2.) You kick him out.
Assuming all goes to plan he leaves and doesn't cause damage, he also leaves with all rent paid up!
3.) He kicks up a stink and drags it through the court.
Costs you in legal fees, when he does go he causes a lot of damage to the house. He has no job / money so its more wasted money chasing him to repair anything (If you can even track him) and he hasn't paid the last 3 months rent...
Which do you think has the best outcome and likelihood?
I think at this stage you need to talk directly to the tenant, cut the estate agent out. They never tell you or the tenant the whole story. Explain that the late payments are causing you hassle with the bank. See if you can come to an amicable arrangement over payments or moving on.
Good luck!
1.) Leave him there and deal with some late payments.
You will still get them eventually, you will not have an estate agent to pay when they re-rent it for you and your house won't get damaged. While he is there, I wouldn't entertain any repairs other than essentials.
2.) You kick him out.
Assuming all goes to plan he leaves and doesn't cause damage, he also leaves with all rent paid up!
3.) He kicks up a stink and drags it through the court.
Costs you in legal fees, when he does go he causes a lot of damage to the house. He has no job / money so its more wasted money chasing him to repair anything (If you can even track him) and he hasn't paid the last 3 months rent...
Which do you think has the best outcome and likelihood?
I think at this stage you need to talk directly to the tenant, cut the estate agent out. They never tell you or the tenant the whole story. Explain that the late payments are causing you hassle with the bank. See if you can come to an amicable arrangement over payments or moving on.
Good luck!
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2015
- Posts
- 1,125
- Location
- London
Contact your local Mafia agent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
i can completely understand this view. I am of the opinion that you should not be allowed to take out a mortgage to let if you already own a house. Taking away property from the market to earn money and further increase the difficulty for people looking to buy into the market, is ridiculous when you consider that many of these people cannot afford the house they charge tenants and so have to take out a mortgage for it when they do not require the house nor loan.
Something we can agree on.
What about deprived areas and areas of high unemployment. How could anyone on benefits ever get a mortgage to buy a house?
Or should everyone on benefits be given a house owned by the state?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Why would anyone on benefits need a mortgage if they already own a house?
Or are you suggesting there would be a shortage on rentable accommodation?
There will be no shortage on places to rent if private landlords who are on buy-to-let mortgage schemes suddenly were no longer allowed to take out any more mortgages. Buy to let mortgages have not been around for long and since coming in, have wrecked havoc on the property market.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
A landlord cannot unilaterally terminate a tenancy. It also isn't your house for the duration of the tenancy (you have assigned a number of your rights as owner to the tenant, so you don't have those rights until the tenancy ends).
The notice you have served is "Intent to seek possession" i.e. a notice that you will go to court and get the court to terminate the tenancy. The notice does not end the tenancy.
If the T doesn't leave, you can recover all your court costs from them if they have the means to pay.
Court is the *only* way if the T doesn't cooperate. Or you sweeten the deal for the T.
And get a proper solicitor to do the work for you. So many agents mess up the paperwork. Things like proper dates on the notice are often wrong and invalidate it. Equally, late protection of a deposit (or late issue of Prescribed Information including on any renewals/rollover into periodic) invalidates a S21 unless the deposit is returned in full, in advance of notice being served.
It is a minefield, especially if the tenant knows what they are doing. Many will do the paperwork on a fixed price basis.
The notice you have served is "Intent to seek possession" i.e. a notice that you will go to court and get the court to terminate the tenancy. The notice does not end the tenancy.
If the T doesn't leave, you can recover all your court costs from them if they have the means to pay.
Court is the *only* way if the T doesn't cooperate. Or you sweeten the deal for the T.
And get a proper solicitor to do the work for you. So many agents mess up the paperwork. Things like proper dates on the notice are often wrong and invalidate it. Equally, late protection of a deposit (or late issue of Prescribed Information including on any renewals/rollover into periodic) invalidates a S21 unless the deposit is returned in full, in advance of notice being served.
It is a minefield, especially if the tenant knows what they are doing. Many will do the paperwork on a fixed price basis.
I sort of disagree, I'd limit it to one additional house, purely based around the logistics of relocation - you should be able to get a mortgage on a single additional property while you own another, with the condition that you will live in the new property.
Any more than that and I agree.
The problem is people will always find loopholes like starting a business and for the business to own the properties etc. How do you control that without impacting on businesses which have a legitimate need for multiple properties?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 92,036
- Location
- Falling...
But you'd be totally okay for a cash buyer purchasing a property and getting rent instead?
I don't see why people hold such a negative view to property investment/professional landlords.