Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
You can’t evict me for not paying rent - it’s against my human rights!
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Victoria Bischoff (Citywire)
Posted: 25 February 2011 09:19:20(UTC)
#1

Joined: 08/03/2010(UTC)
Posts: 96

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 2 post(s)
In November we reported* that private landlords may soon struggle to evict tenants after a Supreme Court ruling suggested that to do so may be against their human rights.

The court said that on the basis of European case law and the Human Rights Act the courts should be able to test a decision to evict on the tenant’s circumstances – such as their physical and mental health for example.

And it seems that we were spot on to be concerned.

In the papers this week is the story of how a woman, who owes more than £3,500 in rent to her local council, has been spared eviction after the Supreme Court ruled that evicting the 23 year-old mother of four would be a breach of her human rights.

But what about the council’s rights to reclaim their money – and the taxpayers who will be left to pick up the tab?

What happens if we all decide we don’t want to pay rent and use this – dare I say – ridiculous law to avoid eviction?

And while this court case is between a council and tenant, how long before we see a private landlord fighting a case like this? Is it really fair to force a buy-to-let investor to house a non-paying tenant?

What do you think?

* http://citywire.co.uk/mo...victing-tenants/a452384
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked Victoria Bischoff (Citywire) for this post.
rich banker on 08/02/2012(UTC), White Stick follower on 08/02/2012(UTC), martin hargan on 09/02/2012(UTC)
Anonymous Post
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:17:41(UTC)
#2
Anonymous 1 needed this 'Off the Record'

It is the classic case of those working and paying rent will soon be required to pay more to make up for the loss of income from rental properties with tenants that won't pay.
As we have seen with the banks it is ever smaller pool of working tax payers who ends up paying the bill.

The only hope of making single mothers and their offspring contributing members of society would be to bring back work houses to house them.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked Anonymous for this post.
Guest on 07/02/2012(UTC), jcz on 08/02/2012(UTC), Guest on 09/02/2012(UTC)
Wrigleys
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:28:02(UTC)
#3

Joined: 10/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1
I agree with this, they should all get free cars, food, and have babysitters provided so mum/dad/amoeba can let there hair down saturaday night. Landlords are all greedy billionaires.
Back to top Quote
John Lacy
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:32:05(UTC)
#4

Joined: 14/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 35

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Well let's get real about this!!!

It would appear that if a landlord is going to get accused of abusing their human rights that he or she might as well do it properly---I would suggest drive by shootings and reclaim the arrears from the estate.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked John Lacy for this post.
Harri on 09/02/2012(UTC)
Dennis .
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:34:08(UTC)
#5

Joined: 26/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 182

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about "Human Responsibilities"
Back to top Quote
6 users thanked Dennis . for this post.
Guest on 07/02/2012(UTC), jcz on 08/02/2012(UTC), Jim Scott on 09/02/2012(UTC), Guest on 09/02/2012(UTC), Harri on 09/02/2012(UTC), Guest on 10/02/2012(UTC)
PensionMan
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:55:48(UTC)
#6

Joined: 05/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 32
What about the "human rights" of the landlords not to get crapped on from a great height by selfish tenants?
Back to top Quote
Graham 1710
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:55:55(UTC)
#7

Joined: 03/12/2010(UTC)
Posts: 2

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Ludicrous!
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Graham 1710 for this post.
jcz on 08/02/2012(UTC)
Andrew.
Posted: 25 February 2011 12:56:30(UTC)
#8

Joined: 05/04/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I fully agree with Dennis, people bang on about their rights but you can't have rights without responsibilities
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Andrew. for this post.
Guest on 10/02/2012(UTC)
Murray B
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:10:15(UTC)
#9

Joined: 26/11/2010(UTC)
Posts: 5

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Just another case of rewarding failure. As Dennis states, no-one ever talks about Responsibilities in this country, and we let ourselves be further straddled by poor, EU legislation.

The innocent taxpayer and the hardworking are always the ones to get hit, while the untraceable, illegal, benefit-scrounging, welfare-expectant & non-contributing take all the cash and rights.

But if you vote for the idiods that want this type of society, this is what you get...
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Murray B for this post.
Guest on 09/02/2012(UTC), Guest on 10/02/2012(UTC)
fatcat
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:10:55(UTC)
#10

Joined: 17/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
Warning! I was persuaded to let a 4 bed 2 bath house worth over 400K to a Family by the local council (Croydon). It turned out to be a 4x4 with no dad in sight. In 2009 the council in their wisdom decided to pay the tenant direct and left me to chase her for the rent. Result= no rent but lots of parties and new bikes for the kids and one trashed house. This scumbag has never worked and I am now in the process of evicting her and tribe through the courts. She is on full legal aid and is counter suing me for stress and demanding I rehouse her as the one she is in is trashed. I have spent several thousand pounds to date yet she is not even responding to her lawyer and so it goes on. NEVER NEVER again will I let these workshy feckless state aided scumbags within 100 miles of me.
Back to top Quote
derek farman
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:31:12(UTC)
#11

Joined: 01/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 43

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
There are too many cases of bad tenants (as fatcat describes) and bad landlords also . Nobody has ever been able to sort this problem out . In bad cases either of the two sides need protection , but the question is how one legislates this minefield .
Personally I would think that there should be a nationwide register of bad tenants , because landlords need warning about them and protection from them . Similarly bad landlords should be liable for large fines for badly maintained properties or punitive rents or improper evictions .
What the supreme court has decided is ill judged and will lead to many landlords selling up and withdrawing from the market . I certainly would if I had a property to let .
Back to top Quote
Ian Ross
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:33:25(UTC)
#12

Joined: 10/12/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1
More proof that Judges in the UK are way out of touch with the real world. This will just close the private rental market to tenants on benefits.
Back to top Quote
Dennis .
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:54:36(UTC)
#13

Joined: 26/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 182

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Evidently the Human Rights legislation is nothing to do with the EU, it's a convention that Winston Churchill signed us up for 60 years ago. Perhaps parliament needs to think about pulling out of it or pressure to get it to work properly since it's obviously being misused now.
Back to top Quote
Philip Thomas
Posted: 25 February 2011 13:56:09(UTC)
#14

Joined: 16/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7
State intervention is a dreadful thing, particularly when it politically or ideologically motivated. When the 'trial' started in (I think 2004) for Local Authorities to 'empower the tennant' by paying the rent directly to them and they would then pay the landlord, I sold all the rental properties that I owned in the N E England, and got out unscathed.

The situation will get worse before it gets better
Back to top Quote
Martin Drew
Posted: 25 February 2011 14:00:14(UTC)
#15

Joined: 04/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 13

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I don't wish to be pedantic, and I am not opposed to some of what you say, but the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Martin Drew for this post.
Guest on 07/02/2012(UTC), Guest on 10/02/2012(UTC)
fatcat
Posted: 25 February 2011 14:13:32(UTC)
#16

Joined: 17/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
the lawyer I am using has also told me there are 10,000 cases relating to this council alone. What a payday for bailiffs and lawyers who push legal aid on to these scroungers with claim they can screw the landlord for all kinds of nonsense- knowing in the end the landlord will settle out of court as it is cheaper Justice?? Unlucky for this ponce I am going all the way whatever - not good for the poor old taxpayer though!
Back to top Quote
derek farman
Posted: 25 February 2011 14:49:25(UTC)
#17

Joined: 01/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 43

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
10,000 cases fatcat . This will mean a huge, time consuming backlog in the courts . The tax payer will get clobbered , and the landlords will just have to grin and bear it . What a system !
I'm pleased for Philip Thomas that he got out early .
Back to top Quote
C. B. Brighton
Posted: 25 February 2011 15:05:13(UTC)
#18

Joined: 24/05/2010(UTC)
Posts: 2
If the courts decide that irrespective of the fact that tenants have signed a shorthold contract they can deliberately refuse to pay the agreed rent and then sit tight relying on the human rights legislation to obstruct eviction then large elements the buy to let market will fail . Why .. Small scale owners will be driven out of the market as in many cases non payment of rent leads directly to mortgage defaults . Banks will then look at the security risk and either withdraw from the buy to let market or restrict advances to say 50% or less .
With very limited social housing available this seems a no win situation .


Back to top Quote
PensionMan
Posted: 25 February 2011 15:18:16(UTC)
#19

Joined: 05/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 32
Who decided that paying housing benefit to the tenant rather than the landlord was a good idea?

I would suggest a re-think of this as the current situation is not acceptable.

Back to top Quote
Martin Drew
Posted: 25 February 2011 15:21:20(UTC)
#20

Joined: 04/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 13

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I appreciate that any case is a case too many, but the judges didn't seem to be giving a blanket dispensation here - they specifically cited that a tenants physical and mental health would be a consideration. I would expect the judges to evict tenants who just decided to spend their rent money on a holiday rather than paying their landlord. On the other hand a tenant who is in some sort of treatment facility (hospital, rehab, whatever) might get a more sympathetic hearing.

The change to giving rent to the tenant was utterly daft. I had a tenant who drank his housing benefit, but luckily had a wife who helped me persuade the council to revert to paying me direct before too much damage was done.
Back to top Quote
6 Pages123Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets