Evicting tenants - Any advice?

[Freefaller]

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.

I'm all for being able to reducing your tax liabilities if you can do it legally.

I think as long as the rent is fair, and that the landlords behave appropriately, and can afford the repayments - then good for them. If they can't they'll just sell the property - which costs a lot of money anyway - you still have to cover the stamp duty when you purchase a buy to let as well, so they have some spare cash to invest, why not put into property if you can?

I'm not in a position to own lots of properties, I wish I were, but to me it seems like a sensible retirement plan if you can do it!

This - why?

Just trying to understand the full context of the conversation. Although I appear to be on the "landlord" side of the fence, I'm just joining in the conversation to get a feel for whether my perceptions/thoughts are correct or not, I am starting to realise there's a lot more to it. Not trying to be awkward.

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.

That I agree with - but at the same time, a lot of the new builds are flimsy, plasterwalled properties which may put people off? And the fact they may be mass built, medium to low quality, fast to erect and cheap to build I think is also unfair. Absolutely increase the property supply, but at least make them decent quality.

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).

Would you be in favour of taxing a couple who happen to have 2 bedrooms? What if the 2nd bedroom is a study because one of the couple works from home say 50% of the time? What about if the couple have bought a 4 bed in the hope to start a family, do they still pay the bedroom tax? What about the 2nd lounge, that COULD be a bedroom, but is a cinema room, or a kid's play room? How do you evaluate such things fairly? What's the cut off? And, how much would it cost to keep that register up to date? Is this not adding more bureaucracy to it all?

Not being difficult, genuinely interested in getting the full understanding. I think you may be onto something, I'm just interested to see how it would be fair and work.

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.

I think there will always be a rental market and it makes sense for it to exist.

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".

Having lived in several countries, and being from a culture where home ownership is less prevalent I completely agree. However the "system" established in those places are much fairer for tenants - and long term rental schemes and good protection for tenants.

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.

But isn't that just shrewd business strategy? Or am I missing something other than a bit of envy? Again not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just interested in fleshing out the debate

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.

That, I do think is a fair comment - I guess as an investor one would choose for the properties that allow the biggest yield, or if you can get 2 properties for your budget then you probably make a more healthy return.

Would this still be an issue if a BTL investor's purchase did not affect the house prices?

 

[psd99]

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.

thanks for the reply - great advice

what do you mean to a non legal person by the text in bold?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Why? what difference doe it make?

And in the context of affordability what do you mean by your comment re: shareholders?

Difference is that the proportion of the population that can take houses away from first time buyers to rent it out go from people with a few 100k in their bank account to anyone earning 25k+ a year with a house already paid for. This heavily upsets the market.



As for shareholder affordability comment. As far as i am concerned, if you require to borrow money to purchase something, you cannot afford it. Though you might be able to afford the loan that doesn't mean the house itself is affordable, especially once you consider the lax requirements for a btl mortgage. So the analogy of an employee resenting shareholders would work if the employee pay is stunted due to the shareholders payout (same way rent prices are pushed up by the btl market) and the shareholders would have taken out a loan (mortgage) to obtain said shares (house) since they could not afford to purchase them right out.

 

[Kemik]

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.

Nope and nope.

Mortgage interest is no longer a deductible expense.
Enhancements are capital in nature and are therefore not deductible.

 

[dowie]

Difference is that the proportion of the population that can take houses away from first time buyers to rent it out go from people with a few 100k in their bank account to anyone earning 25k+ a year with a house already paid for. This heavily upsets the market.

You can say that about anyone buying a house with a high leverage. I think there are issues from a risk perspective with too many loans being given to BTL landlords too quickly but they're being cracked down upon and other measures being taken like removing tax relief for interest payments and hiking stamp duty (with an exception for the larger landlords).

As for shareholder affordability comment. As far as i am concerned, if you require to borrow money to purchase something, you cannot afford it. Though you might be able to afford the loan that doesn't mean the house itself is affordable, especially once you consider the lax requirements for a btl mortgage. So the analogy of an employee resenting shareholders would work if the employee pay is stunted due to the shareholders payout (same way rent prices are pushed up by the btl market) and the shareholders would have taken out a loan (mortgage) to obtain said shares (house) since they could not afford to purchase them right out.

It makes no difference to the employees whether a shareholder has bought shares outright or is leveraged? Why do you think it matters?

As for that general quote:

"As far as i am concerned, if you require to borrow money to purchase something, you cannot afford it."

If people took that attitude we'd not have had much of the growth we've had over the past few decades and would be considerably poorer + without various goods and services we currently take for granted.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

But isn't that just shrewd business strategy? Or am I missing something other than a bit of envy? Again not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just interested in fleshing out the debate

Envy of those who have enough yet are given easier opportunity to obtain more at the expense of those who don't have enough. Shrewd business strategy. Exploitation of those at an economical disadvantage over those who do have an economical advantage using loans offered by banks.

You can label it any number of ways but the bottom line is:

The people who benefit from BTL are middle-class house owners who have paid a property outright already and banks. The benefits they get come at the cost of taking away housing from first time buyers who are renting (with the cost ever increasing) and also driving prices of housing up making it even harder to make the leap from rent to buy.

I just feel that the scheme is just a redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction. I am not saying we should redistribute it another way, just take away the opportunity to exploit first time buyers and those who cant afford to buy.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

you can say that about anyone buying a house with a mortgage

You can, except originally mortgages are so people can buy houses to have a shelter they can live in and eventually own completely. BTL mortgages are just a money making scheme which feeds from those who are looking to buy houses to have shelter they can live in and eventually own.

It makes no difference to the employees whether a shareholder has bought shares outright or is leveraged? Why do you think it matters?

As for that general quote:

"As far as i am concerned, if you require to borrow money to purchase something, you cannot afford it."

If people took that attitude we'd not have had much of the growth we've had over the past few decades and would be considerably poorer + without various goods and services we currently take for granted.

Yes but if you took the attitude of allowing borrowing to those in upper bracket of society and allowing it to affect mainly the lower bracket negatively, the growth happens at the top and just lets the poor-rich gap grow

 

[UTmaniac]

Getting thread back on topic (rather than the morals of BTL mortgages)...

Wait for two month notice to come into force, if no response from tenants, give them 24 hours notice of a plan to enter the property and then kick them out at gunpoint.

 

[dowie]

Yes but if you took the attitude of allowing borrowing to those in upper bracket of society and allowing it to affect mainly the lower bracket negatively, the growth happens at the top and just lets the poor-rich gap grow

I was talking about economic growth as a whole. Whether you like the fact credit exists or not you'd personally be a lot poorer if it didn't.

you've still not clarified your shareholder commnet

 

[wildman]

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.

exactly. If these buy to let exploiters cannot pay for the house up front in full then they should not be extended the privilege of a mortgage, because it simply means that they are exploiting someone else in order to pay that mortgage.

 

[Usher]

The Agency must have given the tenant a contract so therefore you can't try evicting someone who pays the rent until the contract ends so how long is the current contract??

 

[UTmaniac]

The Agency must have given the tenant a contract so therefore you can't try evicting someone who pays the rent until the contract ends so how long is the current contract??

OP states it is now a periodic tenancy in first post.

 

[EddScott]

Can those that have such a poor attitude towards BTL mortgages and/or landlords explain how they expect those that live in rented accommodation to find a roof over their head?

If there was no longer the ability to purchase a house to rent where would people live?

And suggesting that it's OK to be a landlord as long as you can pay for the house outright is laughable. It really is.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I was talking about economic growth as a whole. Whether you like the fact credit exists or not you'd personally be a lot poorer if it didn't.

you've still not clarified your shareholder commnet

??

I did clarify the comment, even added brackets to link the analogy.

It is not i dislike the fact credit exists, i just feel teh way BTL credit is handled is irresponsible and needs further restraints for it to be viable. It didn't exist 20 years ago and we still had loans, mortgages and credit.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Can those that have such a poor attitude towards BTL mortgages and/or landlords explain how they expect those that live in rented accommodation to find a roof over their head?

If there was no longer the ability to purchase a house to rent where would people live?

And suggesting that it's OK to be a landlord as long as you can pay for the house outright is laughable. It really is.

It was the case years ago and the housing market was fairer.

 

[Haggisman]

Getting thread back on topic (rather than the morals of BTL mortgages)...

Wait for two month notice to come into force, if no response from tenants, give them 24 hours notice of a plan to enter the property and then kick them out at gunpoint.

That would certainly help the tenant, as the OP isn't going to evict them while he's in prison

 

[dowie]

??

I did clarify the comment, even added brackets to link the analogy.

no, maybe you missed my question then:

It makes no difference to the employees whether a shareholder has bought shares outright or is leveraged? Why do you think it matters?

It is not i dislike the fact credit exists, i just feel teh way BTL credit is handled is irresponsible and needs further restraints for it to be viable. It didn't exist 20 years ago and we still had loans, mortgages and credit.

It is one thing to suggest that banks are being reckless with the amount they're lending to BTL landlords(that it being addressed at the moment) it is another to suggest that people should only own BTL properties if they can afford to purchase them outright - that would cause some serious issues for the rental sector, which is actually needed by people.

 

[grumpysculler]

what do you mean to a non legal person by the text in bold?

Tenants provide a security deposit against damage. That needs to be protected within IIRC 30 days of the start of the tenancy AND certain info called the prescribed information has to be given to the tenant (it basically tells them where the deposit is secured).

If you don't secure the deposit on time, or don't issue the prescribed info on time, the T can claim a penalty from you. Additionally, S21 notices are invalid until the deposit is returned. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/tenancy_deposits/tenancy_deposit_protection_schemes

Then there was a landmark case (superstrike) that really messed up the rules (because parliament messed up writing them) but looking up a reference for it I now see that it was fixed last year. You used to have to reissue the documentation sometimes, but now you just do it once at the start.

Main thing is not to rely on agents for this sort of thing. Many of them are rather amateur and they can't act for you in court proceedings anyway.

It may be worth joining one of the landlord's associations. They can be very helpful.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Rental sector was better before these BTL mortgages though and there is no need for buy-to-let with that in mind.

As for the shareholder comment. If i found out my pay rise that i get annually was heavily stunted to pay dividends to shareholders that didn't actually invest their own money into supporting the business, i would be annoyed. I wouldn't be annoyed that money was invested, as companies need money to function but i would resent the person profiting from their IOU investment naturally. Call it envy if you wish but it isn't hard to see my view even if you disagree with it.

 

[Nix]

no, maybe you missed my question then:

It makes no difference to the employees whether a shareholder has bought shares outright or is leveraged? Why do you think it matters?



It is one thing to suggest that banks are being reckless with the amount they're lending to BTL landlords(that it being addressed at the moment) it is another to suggest that people should only own BTL properties if they can afford to purchase them outright - that would cause some serious issues for the rental sector, which is actually needed by people.

BTLing has ruined the rental sector, artificially inflated a housing bubble giving us a precarious economy and crippled social mobility in the UK. What you're suggesting is rather circular.