Best way to deal with a non paying tenant in rented farmhouse

[nelly55]

That could come back to bite you in the backside,1 giving a good ref to a bad tenant is not helpful to other landlords and could be classed as misleading.I simply refuse to give a reference that way I hope I protect a future landlord from them.

 

[Cowcalf]

I JUST GO IN AND REMOVE THE EXTERNAL DOORS DO NOT STAY LONG AFTER THAT

 

[SteveHants]

I think the crux of it has been mentioned prior:
They are homes, not "properties" and I think if more people referred to them as such, the world would be a better place.
I've often had landlords expect me to do all kinds of maintenance and repair on their asset (including one who seemed to think I would be prepared to faff with a kerosene boiler), often on an asset unmortgaged, ie owned outright and rent paid at a higher rate than a mortgage on the property would be.
No landlords seem to allow pets anymore (my dogs lived outside, but agents would often look baffled as to why I was telling them this - ie, they don't come in and mess up a house).
When I moved up to take up my current job, I looked for a rental because it had a 6 month probation period, but couldn't find a thing suitable - nowhere accepted pets and the cheapest place I could find with a room for me and one for my daughter, I was looking at £850 pcm (at least).
I took the risk and bought in the end, a much bigger house (3 beds plus oft conversion) and my mortgage is £650 pcm (until I remortgage next year, then it will come down). I do feel mildly guilty about occupying a house bigger than I need as it is not an efficient use of space, but don't really see what else I could have done.

I think if landlords are going to expect someone to buy their asset for them, they should provide a much better service.

 

[Brisel]

Money might be cheap, but it isn't that easy to obtain now. If we were having this conversation in the 1980s or 90s when interest rates were far higher, the rent would not be covering the mortgage.

I fail to see how the ownership of the house has anything to do with the rent being charged. Rents are set in a competitive market place by supply and demand. If you would rather buy than rent, so be it. I would rather be building equity in a property than just shelling out rent every month, but I live in a rented house that comes with the job and own (via the bank) a house elsewhere.

 

[SteveHants]

Money might be cheap, but it isn't that easy to obtain now. If we were having this conversation in the 1980s or 90s when interest rates were far higher, the rent would not be covering the mortgage.

I fail to see how the ownership of the house has anything to do with the rent being charged. Rents are set in a competitive market place by supply and demand. If you would rather buy than rent, so be it. I would rather be building equity in a property than just shelling out rent every month, but I live in a rented house that comes with the job and own (via the bank) a house elsewhere.

Supply and demand is highly distorted in the rental market because having a home to live in isn't really negotiable for most people, so letting agents are prepared to keep raising rents, driving more and more people into poverty/homelessness.
Even if your tenant is paying less than mortgage value, you as the landlord will still ultimately have got someone else to buy the majority if your asset for you, usually with little choice in he matter.
More often than not with rural properties, this is irrelevant anyway as the property is owned outright and it is pure profit less operating/maintenance costs.

 

[puppet]

Don't understand what you mean by 'gift'.

Inheriting a property for instance

 

[glasshouse]

I think the crux of it has been mentioned prior:
They are homes, not "properties" and I think if more people referred to them as such, the world would be a better place.
I've often had landlords expect me to do all kinds of maintenance and repair on their asset (including one who seemed to think I would be prepared to faff with a kerosene boiler), often on an asset unmortgaged, ie owned outright and rent paid at a higher rate than a mortgage on the property would be.
No landlords seem to allow pets anymore (my dogs lived outside, but agents would often look baffled as to why I was telling them this - ie, they don't come in and mess up a house).
When I moved up to take up my current job, I looked for a rental because it had a 6 month probation period, but couldn't find a thing suitable - nowhere accepted pets and the cheapest place I could find with a room for me and one for my daughter, I was looking at £850 pcm (at least).
I took the risk and bought in the end, a much bigger house (3 beds plus oft conversion) and my mortgage is £650 pcm (until I remortgage next year, then it will come down). I do feel mildly guilty about occupying a house bigger than I need as it is not an efficient use of space, but don't really see what else I could have done.

I think if landlords are going to expect someone to buy their asset for them, they should provide a much better service.

Some even expect sex from young female tenants

 

[Sid]

Some even expect sex from young female tenants

Tenants here are from Lesbania,

 

[Netherfield]

Inheriting a property for instance

I see, no we bought it for her, she lived in social housing because of father in laws health problems, turns out there was a professional lady living nearby and she was getting all sorts knocking on the door late at night, so we thought we should move her out of it. It was and has been better than money in anything else.

 

[toquark]

Some even expect sex from young female tenants

And here's me only wanting them to cut the grass.

 

[Johnnyboxer]

Tenants here are from Lesbania,

Nowt wrong wi that

 

[Brisel]

Supply and demand is highly distorted in the rental market because having a home to live in isn't really negotiable for most people, so letting agents are prepared to keep raising rents, driving more and more people into poverty/homelessness.
Even if your tenant is paying less than mortgage value, you as the landlord will still ultimately have got someone else to buy the majority if your asset for you, usually with little choice in he matter.
More often than not with rural properties, this is irrelevant anyway as the property is owned outright and it is pure profit less operating/maintenance costs.

Most people? No. Most have access to cars, so have a degree of flexibility in location. If you don't have access to a car, you can live in a town or city where you have public transport.

The supply of housing is different. New builds are in short supply because developers do not want to erode their profit margins by flooding the market. Are you suggesting that there is a collective explicit decision by landlords to limit the supply of lets? Big landlords deliberately leaving houses empty to restrict the supply and drive rents up?

 

[glasshouse]

I don't normally agree with you and some of your comments on this thread are pure bollax, you cannot blame genuine business-like landlords for taking advantage of an economic climate, that is business. Nevertheless the fact remains that the price of property must be influenced to a degree by buy to let and make it more difficult for some to get on the ownership ladder.

It has kicked the bottom rung away

 

[snarling bee]

Tenants here are from Lesbania,

We have a Mrs and Mrs in one of our houses.

 

[Johnnyboxer]

We have a Mrs and Mrs in one of our houses.

It’s more popular than you think

2 of my old female school friends have shacked up with other ladies

 

[beefandsleep]

It’s more popular than you think

2 of my old female school friends have shacked up with other ladies

Perhaps a lack of quality male prospects in your year group?

 

[SteveHants]

Most people? No. Most have access to cars, so have a degree of flexibility in location. If you don't have access to a car, you can live in a town or city where you have public transport.

The supply of housing is different. New builds are in short supply because developers do not want to erode their profit margins by flooding the market. Are you suggesting that there is a collective explicit decision by landlords to limit the supply of lets? Big landlords deliberately leaving houses empty to restrict the supply and drive rents up?

I meant most people would, generally speaking like somewhere to live, it was not a location-specific phenomenon.
Agents, therefore know that they can keep rents high because people would rather be in poverty with a roof over their heads than homeless. There is no need for competition to drive prices down, as long as landlords and their agents want maximum rent, they will simply keep putting rents up in line with the competition. In most places I've lived, rents would be much higher than a mortgage on the property - I used to rent a two up, two down semi on a farm which didn't have insulation or double glazing for the princely sum of £750/month, When I moved, the landlord did some slight renovations and the rent became £950/month.
This situation means that lots and lots of people can barely even afford rent, let alone to save for a deposit for a house of their own - just look at how much food bank use has increased across the country lately.
There is no longer a viable "safety net" because the stock of council houses is very small, meaning that they can only be allocated to the most "desperate cases", which further perpetuates stereotypes about people who live in them.
Of those council houses sold in the "right to buy" scheme, over 4 in 10 are now owned by private landlords, thus well on the way to returning the housing situation back to the state it was in pre-war when these changes came about.
Homelessness is increasing,(my dad works for a local homeless shelter, it's noticeable) food poverty is increasing and constantly increasing rents, whilst wages are stagnant or decreasing in real terms is adding to this problem.

 

[Barleymow]

A local chap is stopping renting property now but going down the air bnb route

 

[DarleneBJohnson]

The landlord has a responsibility to maintain the premises and provide services to the tenant. The landlord also has a duty to make sure that the tenant is not violating any of the terms of their lease agreement. If the tenant is not paying rent, then they are violating one of these terms and it’s time for them to leave.

There are two ways for landlords to legally evict a non-paying tenant from their rented farm house. They can go through a formal process which includes: serving notice, filing an eviction lawsuit, going through court proceedings, and finally getting an order from the court. The other way is by using self-help remedies which include: changing locks on doors, shutting off utilities, removing personal belongings from premises, and finally removing tenants by force if necessary.

 

[Sid]

The landlord has a responsibility to maintain the premises and provide services to the tenant. The landlord also has a duty to make sure that the tenant is not violating any of the terms of their lease agreement. If the tenant is not paying rent, then they are violating one of these terms and it’s time for them to leave.

There are two ways for landlords to legally evict a non-paying tenant from their rented farm house. They can go through a formal process which includes: serving notice, filing an eviction lawsuit, going through court proceedings, and finally getting an order from the court. The other way is by using self-help remedies which include: changing locks on doors, shutting off utilities, removing personal belongings from premises, and finally removing tenants by force if necessary.

Which takes how many years?

Being a landlord now has become very much less attractive!