Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Keep The Scum Out


Recommended Posts

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3944

classic BTL landlord this, “we’ve just paid to have our flat done up, I want to keep the scum out so it doesn’t get dirty !”

how dare scumbag tenants consider having children, keeping pets, being disabled, what do they think this is, a free country ?? What we need is a cull of undesirable tenants to create a superrace of healthy, clean BTL tenants who have no intention of ever living their own life if it falls outside of the landlords rules on undesriable living

I wonder how many of these owners would live by the same rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3944

classic BTL landlord this, “we’ve just paid to have our flat done up, I want to keep the scum out so it doesn’t get dirty !”

how dare scumbag tenants consider having children, keeping pets, being disabled, what do they think this is, a free country ?? What we need is a cull of undesirable tenants to create a superrace of healthy, clean BTL tenants who have no intention of ever living their own life if it falls outside of the landlords rules on undesriable living

I wonder how many of these owners would live by the same rules?

Well, I rent out quite a lot of houses, and I don't want scum in them either. I mean people who trash the place, live in dirt, don't pay the rent etc.

And I think a cull of the antisocial would do this country a power of good. We could replace the culled defectives with nice hard-working, low paid East Europeans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another typical emotive overreaction from a tenant. Why shouldn't a landlord be able to pick who he rents to? And if that picking means that he wants to keep the property in a good state, then why on earth not? And, before you reply to me, please read my previous posts that show I am in no way biased towards landlords.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another typical emotive overreaction from a tenant. Why shouldn't a landlord be able to pick who he rents to? And if that picking means that he wants to keep the property in a good state, then why on earth not? And, before you reply to me, please read my previous posts that show I am in no way biased towards landlords.

Because not all DSS/Pet Owners will trash the place or cause anything other than normal wear and tear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but generally, pets and DSS tenants will in fact cause on AVERAGE, more damage to a property than otherwise. Pets, well it kind of goes with the territory. And DSS tenants, it has been shown to statistically be the case, you can decide for yourself why this may be. It is not all of them, but unfortunately DSS tenants have all been "tarred with the same brush", so to speak, and you cannot blame landlords for thinking this and wanting to protect their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but generally, pets and DSS tenants will in fact cause on AVERAGE, more damage to a property than otherwise. Pets, well it kind of goes with the territory. And DSS tenants, it has been shown to statistically be the case, you can decide for yourself why this may be. It is not all of them, but unfortunately DSS tenants have all been "tarred with the same brush", so to speak, and you cannot blame landlords for thinking this and wanting to protect their property.

I'll have to take your word for it, I've never seen such statistics

These people seem to want to have their cake and eat it. No-ones forcing them into the Buy-to-let game, one which (at the studio/small flat end) is of course going to be populated with low earners, DSS tenants, bankrupts, and shock horror, the odd single person with a cat, most of whom don't carry out dirty protests in their own "homes", run brothels/drug dens, and can always make the rent

There's generally a reason they are renting, they're not all HPC bears. These kinds of tenants are seen as a social underclass, not worthy of occupying the middle classes retirement fund investment properties

They're all people, like you and me, who need somewhere to live. Landlords have, in some cases, a 6 month redecoration budget to draw from at the end of the tenancy, and quarterly agency checkups to ensure there are no problems

But that doesn't appear to be enough of an incentive to house these people

Edited by Nick..
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all people looking for somewhere to live, I agree. But a private landlord does not have some kind of social responsibility to house the most vulnerable, or the people least likely to find a home elsewhere. This is what social housing is provided for. These people are investing, and frankly if you get a bad tenant, the investment is no longer viable. They can limit the chance of getting a bad tenant by preventing access to the investment to the groups that tend to produce the most bad tenants. NO private landlord is in it not to make money, therefore they have to maximise this ability. If landlords were not there to make money, the housing market(including letting) would collapse.

What tenants need to realise is the following - and I am a tenant myself, so again not biased. If you are not financially able to own your own property, as many are not, then people need to realise that if they do not own their own property they cannot ENTIRELY treat a rented place as their own property - and more to the point, realise that landlords are not only entitled, but have a MORAL right to ensure that to the extent allowed by law, the property is NOT treated as if it were the tenants own property.

Edited by MrShed
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all people looking for somewhere to live, I agree. But a private landlord does not have some kind of social responsibility to house the most vulnerable, or the people least likely to find a home elsewhere. This is what social housing is provided for. These people are investing, and frankly if you get a bad tenant, the investment is no longer viable. They can limit the chance of getting a bad tenant by preventing access to the investment to the groups that tend to produce the most bad tenants. NO private landlord is in it not to make money, therefore they have to maximise this ability. If landlords were not there to make money, the housing market(including letting) would collapse.

I'm afraid that with almost an entire generation priced out of ownership and a drastic shortage of social housing, private landlords are and will be expected to bridge the housing gap, especially given that they're one of the causes of the mess the market is now in. Claiming a vital resource which you do not need and which is in short supply and then being able to pick and choose and evict whenever you decide to cash in your "investment" may well become a thing of the past with a government prepared to legislate at the drop of a hat - or a Daily Mail headline. Imagine the "D"-word uproar ensuing if food sellers, council or government services decided to pick and choose who they would deal with based on membership of groups that are supposed to produce the most bad people. Housing is no less essential, and the way things are going private tenancies will have to become subject to far greater control as they are on the continent.

Or look at it this way: suppose housing problems get a lot worse and the government is forced to act. Which do you think is the more likely:

1. correcting the huge funding shortfall of social housing, or

2. turning the screws a bit on private landlords?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If housing problems get a lot worse, then if the government chose option 2 they would be idiots. All it would result in would be less private landlords, the housing market WOULD then crash, and would probably lead to recession.

My main point is, let me put it as an analogy. If you can't afford to buy a car, then you use public transport. On public transport, you cannot demand that the driver take you exactly where you want to go, or directly there etc etc. You lose that flexibility. Same with housing. If you can't afford to own a house, then you lose some of the flexibility that you have when owning a house. If everyone had total control over their rented property and had total security, then no one would buy property!

Good debate this by the way :)

Edited by MrShed
Link to post
Share on other sites

If housing problems get a lot worse, then if the government chose option 2 they would be idiots. All it would result in would be less private landlords, the housing market WOULD then crash, and would probably lead to recession.

My main point is, let me put it as an analogy. If you can't afford to buy a car, then you use public transport. On public transport, you cannot demand that the driver take you exactly where you want to go, or directly there etc etc. You lose that flexibility. Same with housing. If you can't afford to own a house, then you lose some of the flexibility that you have when owning a house. If everyone had total control over their rented property and had total security, then no one would buy property!

Good debate this by the way :)

I agree they won't take option 2, its too late. However, I do think this is the morally right option, and is how it should be. I don't think its possible to use analogies to compare with renting/owning a home, its a requirement, not a choice, and legislation should be in place to stop private landlords being able to pick and choose

But then BTL is an industry born out of the current rules and regulations, so they will never be changed, as the housing system would indeed collapse

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also strongly suggest that DSS and "scum" are not necessarily linked, and im sure there are plenty of wealthy tennants who would not look after the place properly either.

I think the point is that landlords dont want a tennant who will trash the property - isnt that just common sense? As a tennant I treated the property with respect and looked after it as if it was my own. I think it is actually normal to look after ones property. However some people, from all backgrounds, have lower standards. Personally I wouldnt let anyone into my home, owned or otherwise, if they were going to trapse mud through my house, or let their dog chew through my furniture. Would you? Really?

Edited by Orbital
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think there are different types of landlord around. Theres very good money to be made in being a slum landlord. These landlords dont give a toss about what kind of scum they have to house - the cheques roll in from the DSS no matter what the scum does. They are unlikely to give a toss about the condition of the housing they provide either.

On the other hand don't blame the landlords if they want to exclude scum. They're the ones who want to improve the area (boo - yuppification some people will be saying).

I'm not sure which group of landlords is occupying the moral high ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muttley

The landlord from the original post does not sound emotionally prepared for his job, to me. The best way to ensure you get good tenants is to interview them yourself. After that you might like to take some interest in their needs. Is it such a surprise that good landlords get good tenants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.