Long term tenant worries

superd1978

Folks,

I purchased a buy to let property from a friend back in 2013. For various reasons i decided to retain the tenant, which so far has caused no issues. Hes a good tenant, looks after the place, and payment is from HAP.

The tenant was there for 8 years before i bought the property, so a total of 12-13 years now.

Due to the 7 year CBT rule, I want to sell the property in two years time, and im slightly worried i might have issues given how the long the tenant has lived here. He has 6 kids, all schooled etc in the immediate area.

Should i be worried? Could they make things difficult for me i.e. have longer term tenants any extra rights?

Thanks,

D

Samuel T. Cogley

They can't make it any more difficult just because they've been there a long time, whether they're make it difficult is possibly more likely given they've been there a long time will be down to the person. Just give them bags of notice and if they find something quicker let them out of the remainder of the notice.

At the end of the day it's the risks renters take sans a long term rental framework.

Graces7

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

amcalester

Graces7 wrote: »

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

6 kids and reliant on handouts?

Yeah, deserves a lot of sympathy.

ANXIOUS

Graces7 wrote: »

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

Really, why?

garhjw

Graces7 wrote: »

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

A place which the tenant doesn’t own.

OP as another poster said you will need to provide the tenant with as much notice as possible to find somewhere else to live.

Graces7

amcalester wrote: »

6 kids and reliant on handouts?

Yeah, deserves a lot of sympathy.

"Handouts"? You mean legitimate welfare payments?

DubJJ

Graces7 wrote: »

"Handouts"? You mean legitimate welfare payments?

AKA handouts!!!

amcalester

Graces7 wrote: »

"Handouts"? You mean legitimate welfare payments?

Yes, just because it’s a legitimate welfare payment doesn’t mean it’s not a handout.

That’s the risk when one depends on handouts, a lack of certainty and control over ones own life.

Yawns

House is under a HAP payment but how do we know they are on social and not working?

You can be in a HAP house and still be working paying taxes yourself. The rent amount would be decided on family income then.

Bubbaclaus

It's great that people reliant on handouts can just go and have 6 kids no bother. Sure the rest of us can just pick up the cost. Nice job.

TheIronyMaiden

Graces7 wrote: »

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

Is it not the most realistic eventuality for every renter though? Like another poster said, at the end of the day the tenant does not own the property. This is one of the risks. I say that having gone through this exact situation myself - long term renter, house was sold. I had no hard feelings towards the landlord - it was his property ultimately.

OP, like others have said I would give as much notice as you possibly can to the tenant. Do everything as by the book as you can in relation to the eviction notice etc

mrslancaster

TheIronyMaiden wrote: »

Is it not the most realistic eventuality for every renter though? Like another poster said, at the end of the day the tenant does not own the property. This is one of the risks. I say that having gone through this exact situation myself - long term renter, house was sold. I had no hard feelings towards the landlord - it was his property ultimately.

OP, like others have said I would give as much notice as you possibly can to the tenant. Do everything as by the book as you can in relation to the eviction notice etc

This may be a bit off topic but is the tenant being evicted or getting a notice to vacate the house?

I thought eviction was when the courts got involved. Can anyone provide some information on this please?

Hitman3000

Lot of unfounded assumptions being made here gotta love Boards. OP as already said give your tenant as much notice as you can.

Eric Cartman

the required notice period for a tenant there that long is 16 weeks (112 days) , OP id give 180 days notice and engage a solicitor to make sure that it is all done above board and in writing (there are so many agencies determined to find flaws to allow tenants to remain in a landlords property against their will)

4ensic15

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the required notice period for a tenant there that long is 16 weeks (112 days) , OP id give 180 days notice and engage a solicitor to make sure that it is all done above board and in writing (there are so many agencies determined to find flaws to allow tenants to remain in a landlords property against their will)

The notice period is 32 weeks. Give 180 days notice and the tenant will challenge you and win and you will have to start again. You should instruct an experienced lawyer to act for you. You are likely to be led astray by some of the online advice.

TheIronyMaiden

mrslancaster wrote: »

This may be a bit off topic but is the tenant being evicted or getting a notice to vacate the house?

I thought eviction was when the courts got involved. Can anyone provide some information on this please?

Apologies, I could be getting the terminology incorrect there

Baby01032012

OP you do know that you don’t have to wait 7 years? That rule was done away with in the last budget. Previously you had to wait 7 years to avail of the CGT exemption.

Unless there’s a benefit in keeping it another 2 years, significant increase in value I’d look to give notice now and sell when you can and then you will know whether tenant intends putting up a fight or not. If he does dig in it could take 2 years to get him out anyway.

4ensic15

Baby01032012 wrote: »

OP you do know that you don’t have to wait 7 years? That rule was done away with in the last budget. Previously you had to wait 7 years to avail of the CGT exemption.

Unless there’s a benefit in keeping it another 2 years, significant increase in value I’d look to give notice now and sell when you can and then you will know whether tenant intends putting up a fight or not. If he does dig in it could take 2 years to get him out anyway.

It is not just the tenant putting up a fight. As a HAP tenant he won't be rehoused until he has actually been evicted. the council will tell him to stay put until the sherrif comes. No way is the tenant going quietly anywhere.

househero

superd1978 wrote: »

Hes a good tenant, looks after the place, living there total of 12-13 years now.

Due to the 7 year CBT rule

Should i be worried?

Someone has been paying you and your friends mortgage for over a decade without issue.

You should give him the respect he deserves and talk to him.

Some psychos on here think you need to instruct a solicitor, if you start by threatening him over what has been his home for longer than you have been the landlord, you will get a hostile response.

The guidelines are minimums, not targets.

Eric Cartman

househero wrote: »

Someone has been paying you and your friends mortgage for over a decade without issue.

You should give him the respect he deserves and talk to him.

Some psychos on here think you need to instruct a solicitor, if you start by threatening him over what has been his homethe pile of bricks and wood that he has signed an agreement to exchange all our tax money for for longer than you have been the landlord, you will get a hostile response.

The guidelines are minimums, not targets.

fyp

4ensic15

househero wrote: »

Some psychos on here think you need to instruct a solicitor, if you start by threatening him over what has been his home for longer than you have been the landlord, you will get a hostile response.

The guidelines are minimums, not targets.

Pscyho or not, my advice to the o/p is to instruct a solicitor to draw up the paper work. If he wants the tenant out he will have to have his paperwork perfectly in order. This is a HAP tenant. The tenant can't just up and move on learning the o/p is selling. There is no question of talking to the tenant. Hostility doesn't come into it. It is just business.

the_syco

househero wrote: »

Some psychos on here think you need to instruct a solicitor, if you start by threatening him over what has been his home for longer than you have been the landlord, you will get a hostile response.

Depending on location, the tenant may find that they can't rent a large enough home as close to their current schools, and as such Threshold will advise them to overhold.

Bob24

househero wrote: »

You should give him the respect he deserves and talk to him.

Some psychos on here think you need to instruct a solicitor, if you start by threatening him over what has been his home for longer than you have been the landlord, you will get a hostile response.

The guidelines are minimums, not targets.

Respecting a good tenant and making sure you do things by the books and cover yourself are not two mutually exclusive things.

It is a good idea for the OP both to talk to their tenant timely and respectfully and also to take legal advice and make sure they give notice according to the law in a way which can't be legally challanged.

Cash_Q

I think you should go to the RTB And ask what the entitlements are from the tenants perspective and then live up to all your obligations. Have a solicitor check your notice, and if you are selling, you must issue a Statutory Declaration to that effect. If you have any errors in your notice or fail to issue the statutory declaration the tenant can challenge the notice and their notice period will start again. As far as I know it is 4 weeks for every year they've lived there although there could be a maximum limit on this.

You don't need to have the solicitor do your dealing with the tenant but do have them check the notice etc to make sure all is above board.

It's unfortunate for the tenant and I sympathise with any tenant in this situation but that is the nature of renting, and this person has every right to sell the property if they wish.

Creol1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

At the end of the day it's the risks renters take sans a long term rental framework.

Because renting is clearly just a lifestyle choice; I mean, it's not like people are so desperate to buy a house they're queuing for days outside.

Samuel T. Cogley

Creol1 wrote: »

Because renting is clearly just a lifestyle choice; I mean, it's not like people are so desperate to buy a house they're queuing for days outside.

Renters get the same voting rights, sans immigration demographics, that owners do. Votes influence legislation. It's not the fault of LL's that there is no long term rental framework in place.

Also those people queuing for a house don't even want long term rentals. You're hardly going to commit to a twenty year lease if you're buying a house are you? What's good for the goose and all that.

jimmycrackcorm

househero wrote:

Someone has been paying you and your friends mortgage for over a decade without issue.

Are you suggesting that the op has no rights to get his property back?

And you are incorrect about them paying the mortgage. Tax will have been taken from the subsidized rate that is HAP, the same time that goes towards paying that same HAP.

endacl

Graces7 wrote: »

My entire sympathy is with the tenant. That place holds so much of his life.

Yeah OP. You should just give him the house, because sentimental.

endacl

househero wrote: »

Someone has been paying you and your friends mortgage for over a decade without issue.

Yep. I have. And you have. And everybody else who pays tax has.

Creol1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the op has no rights to get his property back?

And you are incorrect about them paying the mortgage. Tax will have been taken from the subsidized rate that is HAP, the same time that goes towards paying that same HAP.

HAP actually isn't paid out of exchequer funding; it's paid by local councils, whose main income is commercial rates.

4ensic15

Cash_Q wrote: »

I think you should go to the RTB And ask what the entitlements are from the tenants perspective and then live up to all your obligations. .

The RTB is not an advisory agency. The people who answer the phones are usually junior civil servants. It is never any of the adjudicators who ultimately make the decisions.

househero

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the op has no rights to get his property back?

No and don't you know it. What I wrote was... as the tenant had not been an issue for 13 years (ops words, not mine). He deserves more than an out on your arse letter from a solicitor.

Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.

househero

endacl wrote: »

Yep. I have. And you have. And everybody else who pays tax has.

6 children had a safe stable home to grow up in. And two landlords benefitted from a significant sum of stable government provided money over 13 years.

Two sides to every story.

Samuel T. Cogley

And 6 kids going into the workforce paying for that other group of lay abouts - pensioners.

househero

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

And 6 kids going into the workforce paying for that other group of lay abouts - pensioners.

Hahahaha. On full salary pensions.

MouseTail

Creol1 wrote: »

HAP actually isn't paid out of exchequer funding; it's paid by local councils, whose main income is commercial rates.

HAP is administered through Local Government, but is funded by Exchequer funds.

endacl

househero wrote: »

Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.

Taking informed advice from a professional in order to ensure clarity and correct procedure isn't 'litigation'.

It's simply making sure that the rules are followed by the landlord. Surely you must approve of a landlord following the rules? Even a mentally ill one?

The_Conductor

househero wrote: »

No and don't you know it. What I wrote was... as the tenant had not been an issue for 13 years (ops words, not mine). He deserves more than an out on your arse letter from a solicitor.

Too many mentally ill landlords on here, telling others to go the litigation route without even having a chat with the man.

What the OP was advised to do- is to get a solicitor to draft a formal letter terminating the tenancy for onward conveyancing to the tenant- rather than doing one up themselves, to ensure they served the notice of termination (which is *not* an eviction) correctly.

Getting a solicitor to write a letter- is most certainly not 'going the litigation route' as you put it.


Calling tenants or landlords- mentally ill- is a post that falls far below the acceptable standard of posting in this forum- and you are under notice not to post again in this thread.

Everyone else- there is an expectation that posters will remain civil towards one another- cognisant of the fact that many opposing viewpoints can and will be aired. Anyone else who fails to meet this 'civility measure'- will be taking a posting holiday from the forum- while they reassess their posting style.

Regards,

The_Conductor

Bubbaclaus

househero wrote: »

6 children had a safe stable home to grow up in. And two landlords benefitted from a significant sum of stable government provided money over 13 years.

Two sides to every story.

What do you mean by government provided money? You do realise that money comes from all of us, the taxpayers, don't you?

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What do you mean by government provided money? You do realise that money comes from all of us, the taxpayers, don't you?

This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

Half the food you buy in the shop is vat exempt, someone on welfare might be paying a very very small amount of vat every week out of money handed to them by those of us who pay vastly more tax. Not just on our groceries but on our salaries, our cars, etc and then have to pay our own mortgage/rent also.

Now as I've said before I've no issue with people who are genuinely out of work they should receive welfare. But it should be short term solution limited in time. Someone living in a house provided to them by tax payers should not be having 6 children simple as that, they should be having no children as all their efforts should be going into getting a job and spending money on trying to house themselves. When they are housing themselves and paying rent/a mortgage then they can think about having children.

endacl

Graces7 wrote: »

This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

Bubbaclaus

endacl wrote: »

It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

Instead they spent the 13 years creating 6 kids. And us mugs working all year round to fund it.

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

This is what welfare state is all about.And everyone pays tax every time we go shopping

No VAT on most essentials so that's incorrect.

Also, who gives them the money they are paying the tax with? It's being handed to them and they are handing it back. How is that them paying it exactly?

Keyzer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It's great that people reliant on handouts can just go and have 6 kids no bother. Sure the rest of us can just pick up the cost. Nice job.

Probably can't afford rain coats for his little major...

rawn

endacl wrote: »

It sure is. But there’s still an onus on the recipient to make good choices and live within their means. Such as not having 6 kids while in receipt of payments.

Also, the adults in that house have been in receipt of payments (support-while-you-sort-your-life-out payments. Not a ‘wage’) for 13 years. That’s plenty of time. They could have, in that time, completed a medical training to the level of specialist. They could have completed apprenticeships and qualified in three trades. They could have got the most basic of jobs and worked their way up to management level in any company in the country. They could have started their own small business. They could have done lots of things that would have been better choices than sit back producing kids who will model their choices on those of their parents.

Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

endacl

rawn wrote: »

Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

No doubt.

martinr5232

rawn wrote:

Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

Maybe if taxation on rental income wasnt so high rents would be lower.

Graces7

martinr5232 wrote: »

Maybe if taxation on rental income wasnt so high rents would be lower.

Is that a flying pig up there?

Graces7

rawn wrote: »

Maybe if rents weren't ludicrously high, less people would need handouts.

And fewer would be living in expensive hotel rooms costing you taxpayers even more.