Evicting tenants - Any advice?

I am okay for anyone who can afford to purchase multiple properties to purchase them off the bat. I am against the too easy to get mortgages on houses people dont live in that are paid off by other people who cant afford a deposit, yet have to pay more in rent than the mortgage cost.

Professional landlords and property investment is fine if you have the money to invest but if you dont, are you not just taking advantage of people who cant when you cant afford the house yourself?
 
Well they can afford it enough to be accepted for a mortgage - and cover the repayments for the times when they are not renting. As long as the rent is fair then I personally don't see the issue. But I rented for nearly a dozen years so I guess it doesn't bother me as much as I felt it to be relatively normal. :)
 
Rent has become unfair in comparison to mortgage costs though.

The requirements to obtain these mortgages are far too low and by the looks of the thread, it seems many cant even afford their tenants to pay a week late!
 
Do people who are employees in the private sector and hate or resent landlords also hate or resent the shareholders of the companies they work for?
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Rent has become unfair in comparison to mortgage costs though.

The requirements to obtain these mortgages are far too low and by the looks of the thread, it seems many cant even afford their tenants to pay a week late!
Click to expand...

That's not something I can comment on, but what sort of yield would you find acceptable? Surely they should make a little money from it, for maintenance, other fees and also, you know, to earn a bit of extra or only income?

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just trying to get a full grasp of the issue just so I'm better informed in my opinions. I'm not really on any "side" per se.
 
Its more that our current system makes it far easier for someone who already owns one house and cant afford another can arrange to invest in another property for monetary return, than people who are renting and are looking to get into the property market.

I am not saying give people looking to buy for the first time handouts but rather there is no need for these mortgages which hinder first time buyers.

dowie said:
Do people who are employees in the private sector and hate or resent landlords also hate or resent the shareholders of the companies they work for?
Click to expand...

I would imagine so if the employees pay are stunted due to having to pay out to shareholder of which couldn't afford the shares they manage to purchase for monetary gain in the first place.


To be clear, i am not against private landlords, just private landlords who cant afford the houses they rent out. Property market was much better pre-buytolet.
 
Last edited:
If they can't afford the house they'll get it repossessed, ditto to companies that can't afford to keep on running - they go bankrupt.
 
Freefaller said:
Well they can afford it enough to be accepted for a mortgage - and cover the repayments for the times when they are not renting. As long as the rent is fair then I personally don't see the issue. But I rented for nearly a dozen years so I guess it doesn't bother me as much as I felt it to be relatively normal. :)
Click to expand...

that statement means nothing because banks whether they beleive they can or can't afford them ae always going to win. If they can't afford them send in the bailiffs and if the can then they get paid. Buy to let mortgages should never have been allowed. Leveraging average salary workers to effectively cover your mortgage costs because they can't afford the deposit but could afford the monthly mortgage payments whilst not illegal is morally wrong to the same level of moral outrage the SJW's show towards the rich Toffs offshoring their fortunes to reduce their tax liabilities.
 
Freefaller said:
But you'd be totally okay for a cash buyer purchasing a property and getting rent instead?
Click to expand...

This - why?

Freefaller said:
I don't see why people hold such a negative view to property investment/professional landlords.
Click to expand...

It's because they've been demonised by the press for apparently causing the "housing crisis".

Instead of boosting demand by help to buy schemes etc, the government should be encouraging building by boosting supply. This is a London specific view but I believe you can do this by heavily taxing under occupied properties (aka bedroom tax) and encouraging developers to build new properties (enforcing a small % of "affordable" homes will not do this). Ensure that tenants have sufficient protection against rogue landlords (which I believe are very much the minority) and accept that whilst people want to move to X, you will have rising prices - a good problem to have (vs the alternative) and therefore more people will end up renting.

As an aside, I struggle to understand why we're so fixated on owning a property here - look at the rest of the big cities around the world - the vast majority either have a huge % of renters, with almost no interest in purchasing - or have registered huge (double digit % yoy) increases in property prices recently. There is no "solution" to this "problem".
 
Freefaller said:
I don't see why people hold such a negative view to property investment/professional landlords.
Click to expand...

Because landlords get to put mortgage interest and furniture/maintenance/enhancements against their tax liability and therefore have an unfair advantage over private buyers who would like to buy the same property as a home rather than an investment but cannot offset these costs.

Additionally, landlords operate in the low-end of the market, where first-time buyers usually congregate. The easier access to mortgages and tax advantages for BTL landlords over inflates the prices at the bottom end so people cannot afford their 1st home when they don't have these advantages due to actually wanting to live in the house they're looking to buy.
 
Last edited:
But why do we require buy-to-let mortgages as a form of monetary gain?

Why should that outbalance the needs of first time buyers?

I think the housing crisis needs to be tackled by increasing supply through building and discouraging purchases of extra non essential housing which require large loan amounts.
 
Rifte said:
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?
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't worked in finance for a business, so let me educate you.

You'll find that companies have loans and liabilities (your wages/rent/utilities etc) which they need to pay monthly but supply goods and services on the terms laid out by their customers 60/90/120 day payment terms (if they're lucky, their customers will actually stick to these payment terms). They therefore need to make sure that they have enough cash flow to cover the ebbs and flows of receiving money they are due. A lot of viable companies go out of business due to cash flow issues.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
But why do we require buy-to-let mortgages as a form of monetary gain?

Why should that outbalance the needs of first time buyers?

I think the housing crisis needs to be tackled by increasing supply through building and discouraging purchases of extra non essential housing which require large loan amounts.
Click to expand...

Buy to let mortgages need to be scraped. Entry level housing needs to exist in order to provide first time buyers with an actual chance to become property owners rather than getting hoovered up by either faceless letting agency corporations or people looking at ways to further exploit the average wage worker for a quick buck. If yo are going to buy a property to let it out the property vendor should be paid in full up front for the current going rate and the banks should not bank roll the further exploitation of the poor through the buy to let market. If you can't afford to buy the house outright as a prospective landlord then you should not be entitled to buy it period. If the houses that are built can not be sold to private owners they should be sold to the councils at reduced rates to further increase the council house stock that was savagely depleted in the 80's without being replaced
 
Firstly I'd say if the guy is still paying but in difficulties maybe some sympathy should be shown, as ultimately he is still paying.

However since it sounds like the contract has ended and is on a monthly rolling contract is there anything to stop you putting up the rent quite steeply if he does not leave by the end of the notice? I.e. give notice for him to leave or accept new higher monthly rent and pressure him out and give you higher monthly rent costs to claim if it goes to court (which will not help much if he cannot pay anyway).

That said I do not think that should be done if it is genuine hardship and he is not trying to be a difficult tenant. Maybe attempt to help him out if he is otherwise a good tenant that has fallen on hard times.
 
Orion21 said:
However since it sounds like the contract has ended and is on a monthly rolling contract is there anything to stop you putting up the rent quite steeply if he does not leave by the end of the notice? I.e. give notice for him to leave or accept new higher monthly rent and pressure him out and give you higher monthly rent costs to claim if it goes to court (which will not help much if he cannot pay anyway).
Click to expand...

Surely this is illegal?

What is to stop all landlords essentially blackmailing tenants like this?
 
Avenged7Fold said:
By cant afford the house i mean cant afford it without a mortgage if they already own a house. As without that loan, they wouldn't be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

Why? what difference doe it make?

And in the context of affordability what do you mean by your comment re: shareholders?
 
Orion21 said:
However since it sounds like the contract has ended and is on a monthly rolling contract is there anything to stop you putting up the rent quite steeply if he does not leave by the end of the notice? I.e. give notice for him to leave or accept new higher monthly rent and pressure him out and give you higher monthly rent costs to claim if it goes to court (which will not help much if he cannot pay anyway).
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that...

"dear court, my client is 3 months behind in rent, the first month's rent was £500, however I then put the rent up to £500,000/month, so he owes me £1,000,500"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom