Sad story ......

[gasbanni]

I'm in the process of selling a house for a charity, it's been empty and a while back I visited the next door neighbour to give him my details if there was a problem and asked him to keep an eye on it for me.

On Friday whilst I was measuring up he said hello and told me he was leaving that minute and asked about the house to see if he could rent it .........his landlord was selling the house he was in and had offered him another one he told me his son really didn't want to leave.

The house he's going to is in a very rough area a council estate, I can imagine he's going to have trouble he's Asian. He said in life you usually improve your circumstances but he's going down.

As he was about to leave I've told him someone I know may put a bid in to buy the house to rent it out.
I've told the potential buyer he may have an immediate tenant, hopefully they both might be winners.

He told me where's he's going, I know it a rough place with idiots I feel real sympathy for him hopefully it will work out fir both of them.

 

[JP_]

Wouldn't happen in some countries. Tenants have far more rights in other countries than here, you can't just decide to sell somebody's home - if you make the decision to let a home as a business, you have to stick with it.

One party had reform in their manifesto last election. Shame they didn't win.

 

[gasbanni]

An update, I have been to the house I'm looking after and there seems to be someone else that's moved in next door ......I hope the landlords have the intention of selling it and not just moved someone in paying a higher rent and shipped the poor chap to a house that's hard to rent out in a rough area.

It doesn't look like tradesmen in there doing it up. Time will tell. I really did feel sorry for this nice chap it's a bad area he's moved to and I wouldn't want to live there.

 

[Ryler]

you can't just decide to sell somebody's home -

It might be their home but its not their property. They just rent it.
The owners could be having financial difficulties and need to sell.

Are you saying the owner/s should just take a financial hit because the guy who rents the property can't afford to buy it?

 

[cwhaley]

It might be their home but its not their property. They just rent it.
The owners could be having financial difficulties and need to sell.

Are you saying the owner/s should just take a financial hit because the guy who rents the property can't afford to buy it?

Understand the sentiment and if there are genuine financial problems affecting the livelihood of the landlord, then they should seriously be taken into account.

But... people rent houses so that they can have a roof over their heads. If this gentleman is being moved out simply so that the home owner can attract a bigger rent then in my opinion that's morally wrong. So many (especially of my generation) cannot afford to buy meaning they have no choice but to rent, and doing so shouldn't be a game of chance.

This country - when under a Tory government - has a poor record of supporting the working classes. Sorry but it's true. The fact that this gentleman has a paltry 4 weeks' legal notice before he's booted out is a prime example of why.

Ultimately it comes down to protecting the landlord who wants to make as much money as he can or protecting the tenant and their need of a house to live in.

 

[JP_]

It might be their home but its not their property. They just rent it.
The owners could be having financial difficulties and need to sell.

Are you saying the owner/s should just take a financial hit because the guy who rents the property can't afford to buy it?

First bit - that is OK, they can sell, but the buyer takes on the tenants, nothing changes for the tenants.

Second - The property will not but a financial burden, they will still be making money, but probably only bought it to make money on the capital gains rather than the rental income,

It's very simple - many countries have laws in place to stop landlords screwing over people who rent. The end result is much fairer housing prices for everybody, and fewer homeless people. It's about time the UK did the same, but the government has too many fingers in property pies.

A bit from the web:

In Germany, which is often touted as a renting paradise, tenants can stay indefinitely and will face eviction only if they break the law: for example incurring rent arrears or using anti-social behaviour.

Even a landlord selling up does not necessarily result in tenants having to move on, and in some cases children can even inherit tenancies from parents.

Housing charity Shelter identified eight other countries in Europe where tenants receive similar kinds of permanent protection from eviction.

Three - Italy, Belgium and Ireland - give tenants between three and 10 years' protection, it said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43075176
​

The result is more people rent, which is actually good for landlords, and why in some countries up to 60% of homes are rented.

 

[Mottie]

Maybe they do rent more in other countries but wherever there is a property to rent, there a landlord who has bought it to make a profit. Just seems that we are property obsessed in this country. DIY is not popular abroad either - you wont find a B&Q or similar store on every corner. My mate has a villa in Sardinia and just getting a can of paint is a nightmare - there's nowhere for miles. Sometimes he finds it easier to order and send stuff out from the UK. I think he uses Screwfix or somewhere similar and they actually deliver to Sardinia.

 

[JP_]

DIY is less common in other countries because traders don't charge such high rates elsewhere. People still fix things instead of replacing them, still build things from scratch rather than shipping in from China. Sometimes you do have to question whether our lifestyle is good. We have homelessness, shops closing, pollution, huge amounts of waste - maybe we are doing something wrong?

 

[algas]

Stop hitting landlords, ok they are out to make a profit but are not charities, if all the LA's had not sold off their housing stock off at a huge discount there would be plenty of LA rental properties, but they sold them off on the cheap and didn't re invest in new housing, private landlords are providing a valuable service and if they want or need to sell a property it should be up to them also situations change and as they own the property they can do as they please, and its two months notice to quit but the tenant only has to give one.

 

[JP_]

It's not hitting landlords, it's supporting tenants.

 

[algas]

Tenants already have it too much their own way

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, even non-payment of rent requires waiting a month or two to see if it will be paid, then going to court and then two months notice.

So, maybe six months rent loss which is never recouped.

The tenants are never forced to pay the arrears.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What about building societies who will repossess a property, from a so-called house owner, for missing a couple of payments even though it actually costs them nothing?

 

[JP_]

In all examples mentioned, not paying rent is grounds for eviction. That is pretty universal.

What should not be grounds for eviction is an owner deciding to sell the house to buy a race horse.

Same with mortgages - not paying will get your repossessed. As for

it actually costs them nothing?

Didn't you hear about the sub-prime crises and subsequent global credit crunch in 2008? Defaulting loan payments is certainly very costly, just ask staff if Lehmans, Riggs, and all the banks that needed state support - Merrill Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bradford & Bingley, Fortis, Hypo and Alliance & Leicester.

Nobody is suggesting that tenants should be allowed to live for free.

 

[algas]

No but some of them think they should be able to! And L/As can sell their housing stock at knock down rates to pay their inflated salaries/ pensions etc.