The economic impact of Covid-19

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Dem has already said he followed the rules, but the tenants can't be evicted due to the new covid rule? To me it sounds like a spot on summary. Am I misunderstanding you Dem? 

If you never could evict someone, there would be a lack of housing in the market pretty quickly. 

Where did the ‘never’ come from?

It’s a discussion on following the correct legal process. I don’t think anyone has suggested tennants should never be evicted?

Even if it was just for the sake of the neighbours or the local community there should always be the option to remove someone. 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Dem has already said he followed the rules, but the tenants can't be evicted due to the new covid rule?

 

12 hours ago, snowychap said:

The issue about the covid-related delay is that this didn't change the process it just put a delay/pause in the middle of it.

 

[Brumstopdogs]

19 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

you even chose the 12 inch version so people could bask in its greatest for even longer 

 

[Brumstopdogs]

Good luck Dem with getting the tenants out of the property and would echo what other posters have said about folowing the legal process to do this.

 

[Demitri_C]

39 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

Good luck Dem with getting the tenants out of the property and would echo what other posters have said about folowing the legal process to do this.

 

Thanks mate. Its going to be a long process i think they dont seem to be in any hurry to leave so we gonna have to go down the legal path.

We dont want to do that as last thing you wa t is  court enforcement officer coming over unannounced and kicks you on the street. But they had ple ty of notice to move.

[welnik]

Are they still paying the rent ?

[HanoiVillan]

 

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, welnik said:

Are they still paying the rent ?

Will let you know next week !

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

The thing is if its not august its going to be September or another date. There is not much more that can be done.

Landlords are always going to evict tenants if they are not getting their money.  In my opinion landlords should come together with their tenants and see what they can pay. So for example if it was £1000 and they could afford £600 i think there should be some kind of law come in were landlords get a percentage decrease before a eviction comes in.

But remember there are tenants that take the piss as well and have the money but dont pay. So no sympathy for those kind of tenants. 

[mjmooney]

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The thing is if its not august its going to be September or another date. There is not much more that can be done. 

I cannot agree with this claim as written. If what you mean is, 'there are things that could be done but the Conservatives won't implement them', that might well be true, but that wouldn't mean the same as 'there is not much more that can be done'.

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Landlords are always going to evict tenants if they are not getting their money.  In my opinion landlords should come together with their tenants and see what they can pay. So for example if it was £1000 and they could afford £600 i think there should be some kind of law come in were landlords get a percentage decrease before a eviction comes in.

I think it's good when landlords show flexibility when their tenants are struggling, both morally and because an underpaying tenant can be the better option financially if the alternative is an empty property. However, it's not a scalable solution. Half of private rented sector tenancies are let by the 17% of landlords with 5 or more properties, some of whom let hundreds or thousands. These bigger landlords are mostly not very good at being understanding or getting to know their tenants, in my experience. There needs to be a government-led solution.

[chrisp65]

If only there was some way individuals looking for a home didn’t have to rely on individuals with two homes but not quite enough money behind them or unscrupulous individuals with lots of properties kept back from potential home buyers so thousands of families are reliant on private money makers for somewhere to live.

If only there was some other way that homes could be provided without all this pain for individuals, this uncertainty.

You’d think government or local government could tailor their local needs for housing by providing housing to a set standard for a fair price to all the people that need it, that are needed in the area to do the jobs.

I shall put my mind to how this could be resolved...

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I shall put my mind to how this could be resolved...

Fair rent tribunals and watch the property market crash like never before. Market would be flooded with properties to buy.

The money to be made from renting a property has pushed up the housing market way beyond what it should be

I doubt there's a government with the balls to do it though. It would crash the economy in an unprecidented way

[Demitri_C]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Fair rent tribunals and watch the property market crash like never before. Market would be flooded with properties to buy.

The money to be made from renting a property has pushed up the housing market way beyond what it should be

I doubt there's a government with the balls to do it though. It would crash the economy in an unprecidented way

100% crash. 

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

I think it's good when landlords show flexibility when their tenants are struggling, both morally and because an underpaying tenant can be the better option financially if the alternative is an empty property. However, it's not a scalable solution. Half of private rented sector tenancies are let by the 17% of landlords with 5 or more properties, some of whom let hundreds or thousands. These bigger landlords are mostly not very good at being understanding or getting to know their tenants, in my experience. There needs to be a government-led solution.

It can scale temporarily. But long term i agree. 

Ive spoken to various landlords they are actually selling properties because now its such a headache and you cant relaly make much from it these days

[OutByEaster?]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

I doubt there's a government with the balls to do it though. It would crash the economy in an unprecidented way

There appears to be an opportunity to do this unnoticed on the horizon.

 

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

 

Ive spoken to various landlords they are actually selling properties because now its such a headache and you cant relaly make much from it these days

A rare piece of good news.

[Xela]

I've never been comfortable with individuals owning multiple properties. Resort towns and scenic villages in Devon/Cornwall and Wales have been ruined by second home owners. Either turning the place into ghost towns over winter or the properties being turned into holiday lets on Air BnB and ruining the quality of the life of the locals by renting out to groups of people all the time. 

 

[Davkaus]

It's the sign of a broken system that a scare resource is able to be hoarded by the wealthy, and loaned back to people, with shit terms, to profit to the very people who they've helped ensure are priced out of the market. It's grotesque to have people working full time jobs but unable to afford a home. It's not so bad in all areas of the country, but it's a fantasy in some areas, and landlords are definitely a factor.

I don't necessarily blame individual landlords, it's a very selfish thing to do, but hey, that's human. It is parasitic, though, and if anyone is going to suffer the costs of an economic correction, I don't really mind it being people with property portfolios.

I'd certainly not ban owning additional properties, but I'd happily see extremely aggressive exponential additional taxation per residential property owned. How it would be enforced is another matter, but I think it'd be good for society for it to not be a profitable enterprise to rent out houses.

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Davkaus

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

It's the sign of a broken system that a scare resource is able to be hoarded by the wealthy, and loaned back to people, with shit terms, to profit to the very people who they've helped ensure are priced out of the market. It's grotesque to have people working full time jobs but unable to afford a home. It's not so bad in all areas of the country, but it's a fantasy in some areas, and landlords are definitely a factor.

I don't necessarily blame individual landlords, it's a very selfish thing to do, but hey, that's human. It is parasitic, though, and if anyone is going to suffer the costs of an economic correction, I don't really mind it being people with property portfolios.

I'd certainly not ban owning additional properties, but I'd happily see extremely aggressive exponential additional taxation per residential property owned. How it would be enforced is another matter, but I think it'd be good for society for it to not be a profitable enterprise to rent out houses.

 

Remember though there are people who actually like renting though. Rather not have  a massive mortgage on their heads