Saturday, Feb 21, 2009
BBC mentions tenants
BBC: 'Steep rise' in tenant evictions
"There has been a "steep rise" over the last six months in numbers of tenants evicted after landlords defaulted on mortgages, Shelter has warned.
Tenants can get just days' notice to leave their home, says the charity, which wants ministers to "act quickly to give tenants far, far longer". "
Posted by phdinbubbles @ 10:09 AM (798 views) Add Comment
13 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. fun 4 now said...
what about squatters rights?
2. mark wadsworth said...
More fact free reporting from the BBC. Agreed, there are about three million households who rent privately, but where in the article does it say how 'steep' the 'steep rise' was? The number of such evictions may have doubled - last year there were 100 and this year 200? Or what? Is 200 significant out of 3 million households?
I went to the Shelter website - who are a fakecharity, by the way, they get £12 million a year, see bullet point 5 here, so it's hardly surprising that they peddle the government line that we need to build more houses - and I couldn;t find the original press release that may actually have given some figures.
And I'm not convinced that we have a shortgage of homes, we're just not using the ones we've got efficiently enough. Land Value Tax would sort that out of course, and if we collect enough LVT to not just replace Council Tax, Inheritance Tax and so on, but to start cutting taxes on productions and incomes as well, then we'll have more houses that are cheaper (to rent or to buy) and there'll be more jobs so we'll have higher net incomes to pay for them.
3. paul said...
Don't forget folks, under the Protection From Eviction Act 19777 which forms part of the Housing Act 1988, you can sue not only the landlord but also his bank if you are unlawfully evicted (with a month's Notice to Quit notice) and add all relocation and temporary accommodation costs (including hotels) to the settlement.
If the estate agent or letting agent didn't perform any credit checks on the landlord, you can probably sue them too!
Kerching!
4. guiriduro said...
Seems odd that tenant's rights are so weak in the UK. I mean, the bank can reclassify a personal mortgage to a business mortgage on the basis of letting to a tenant, yet in the event of a default, the bank can evict the tenant wtf?
In Spain, the standard 5 year tenancy agreement is a lien on the property - if the owner sells (or is forced to) it must be sold tenant in situ for the remaining term on their tenancy agreement.
5. paul said...
No, strictly speaking the bank can only repossess in 'vacant possession'.
This means that the property has to be empty. Now the bank will say that means the tenant has to get out, but it actually means that the bank has to wait for the Notice To Quit period to finish.
I should add too, that eviction without one month's notice is a criminal offence, meaning that the bank's legal representative can be arrested on the spot.
6. inbreda said...
the problems occur where the landlord fails to make payments on an ordinary (i.e. not buy to let) mortgage. IMO if he does not have a landlords mortgage, but he is letting the property, it is fraudulent. The banks should be forced to pursue "landlords" through the courts on fraud charges, and the bank should have to put up the tenant and recover costs from the fraudster landlord. Simple. Fair.
7. uncle tom said...
Mark,
I agree, an article totally devoid of evidencial statistics, and yes, they may well be acting as the government's lackeys to pave the way for some minister to try to look like he's doing something useful..
8. paul said...
As a tenant, there are two ways to safeguard against unlawful eviction.
1. Insist that the letting agent includes a clause in the tenancy agreement that the landlord MUST pay monthly mortgage repayments for the agreement to be binding. This assumes that there is a mortgage outstanding on the property of course.
2. Ask the letting agent to perform a credit check on the landlord (at the landlord's expense of course). They will likely refuse to, but then you should put the request in writing, and keep the response. By refusing to do a credit check, it has been shown on a number of occasions in small claims courts that when the letting agent says "we don't need to do a credit check on the landord", that the letting agent is effectively underwriting the landlord's ability to pay, and therefore has liability!
9. growler said...
The point of the article - call me a cynic - is to say "all you tenants who think they've outsmarted the market: buy a house, it's safer". As has been said, you have rights. But sueing the landord is a waste of time - since if they're in default, they don't have any money anyway. There are soooooo many houses on the market that finding another to rent is not the greatest problem. I've just moved. Saved £300 a month and the old landlord wanted to match the new low rent to avoid me leaving. Best of all, the new house is bigger and better. So anyone out there getting worried about the BBC scare story: relax, it's the BBC ramping again.
10. str 2007 said...
Wise words Paul
Sorry I posted this 2 articles below but applies here aswell.
Even if repossessing I think they needto give you the normal notice.
Basically I'm quite sure you can speak to the repossessors and agree to pay them the rent for a month or 2 while you find elsewhere.
Now where the real problem comes is if your own circumstances change.
IE you've been made redundant. Your existing landlord would be unlikely to chuck you out as he now knows you to be of good character and he'll still get paid by DSS.
Try finding a new house though in the same location (schools etc.) if your landlord gets repo'd and you've recently lost your job.
I think there are alot more deserving people on the Government help list than over indebted homeowners who've had an instant handout of several hundred a month whether they are in difficulty or not.
For renters out there and this isn't fool proof, but, when checking out a new rental property look it up on Nett House Prices or similar and see when it was last purchased and for how much.
Anything purchased after 2004 then tread with caution, there will be a large mortgage out on the property.
Obviously a landlord could still have raided the equity of a house purchased pre 2001 so still beware.
11. mark wadsworth said...
@ Growler 9, good point, good anecdote.
Our local property rag is now full of houses and flats to let with only ten per cent of adverts relating to sales, whereas two years ago it was full of properties for sale with only ten percent lettings.
If, which is unlikely, we are looking for somewhere new in the summer, it shouldn't be a problem finding something. Although we'd rather stay put, and provided they don't put up the rent, I'm happy.
12. Sweet_decline said...
str2007 "Even if repossessing I think they need to give you the normal notice.
Basically I'm quite sure you can speak to the repossessors and agree to pay them the rent for a month or 2 while you find elsewhere."
Nope - landlord's bank refused to let us do this... plus we only got 7 days notice of the repossession. All confirmed as perfectly legal by our solicitor. Only option is to sue the landlord - but what's the point of suing someone with no money?
And finding somewhere else that fits our needs isn't easy either!
13. str 2007 said...
Paul
''1. Insist that the letting agent includes a clause in the tenancy agreement that the landlord MUST pay monthly mortgage repayments for the agreement to be binding. This assumes that there is a mortgage outstanding on the property of course.''
By having this inserted are you also loosing your own rights as a tenant if he stops paying the mortgage ?