Tenant Refusing To Pay Rent * MOD WARNING IN POST #1 *

Government buildings wrote: »

Who could be sued?

Well I think he means the tenant, but Im sure he is joking, all the have to have is nothing of value to take and what are you going to get? assuming you can pin them down and they turn up to court, end up costing more.

Aph2016 wrote: »

Well this thread is eye opening. I'm not sure I'd consider being a landlord after reading this, or maybe the screening process for tenants is hugely important, get tenants with secure government jobs where their income isn't likely to be affected by external factors.

I wouldnt recommend it.

The screening process means zero, even someone who is loaded could try not pay and make off into the sunset.
Im sure there is a thread somewhere you could get some advice as what returns similar or better returns, worse returns would be better than letting property. because there is so much hassle, time, things you cant claim for even though associated with renting.
You cant rely specifically on just getting a Govt employee.

Government buildings wrote: »

In one way, this would be of benefit to landlords.

At the moment you can't sell a house with a sitting tenant because no bank will lend an investor money to buy it.

However, if all properties must or could be sold with sitting tenants, banks will be forced to offer mortgages to prospective investors.

No headache trying to get rid of tenant. So it would be a way out for those landlords who want to sell.

I dont see this as benefiting landlords,
That would force someone to sell to a more limited market, would that be legal even?
They might be limited in what they could ask for compared to similar house not rented on the same street.

No one will want to let a house that isnt already occupied in a rental again imo, if they are limited to that kind of restriction, might it be unconstitutional even? its private property, how or why should the State be able to say what a person can do with their private property?


Why should they be forced to have this as a way out? why cant they sell to the rest of the general population, some of which might offer more, ie the market rate.

its restrictive rules and ideas (along with existing inaction on non payment of contracted rent and other drawn out pedantic rules ) that have caused landlords to want to exit the market despite as has been said as highest market rentals again.
Landlords cant even without difficulty offer tenants lower rates without screwing themselves

Government buildings wrote: »

But could such tenant not demand to be reinstated in the property, as the money you gave him would have no legal standing?

The money would be a gift, end of. The tenant would be under no obligation to leave, despite being paid. The only option is to follow the rules and issue a notice for eviction. How is that so difficult to understand?

Arealred wrote: »

OP,

Have you considered getting the electricity cut to the property. Is that in your name.

Likewise you could consider cutting water to property.

See how long tenant lasts without them.

Another thing that builders do if not getting paid is turn up outside the persons workplace with placard re money owed.

This is illegal and will result in the op paying a pile of money to the tenant when he takes them to court/rtb

dubrov wrote: »

You serve them an eviction notice, they ignore it.
You get an rtb judgement, they ignore it. You get a court order, they ignore it.
At this point you are nearly a year without rent. You apply for a bailiff to evict only for the story to appear in the media. Eventually when the bailiff does evict, you find they've completely trashed the place.

5k at the start of the process suddenly seems like an attractive option.

Sure you can sue them in the courts afterwards for all of the above but you can't get blood out of a stone

In instances like this, where someone refuses to engage and is apparently willfully ignoring the process should be a criminal offence and should get a prison sentence, even if its suspended (as I think jails should be for dangerous people), there just seems to be nothing to discourage someone from taking the course where they just wont pay, not even sure how it would come back to them.

i am simply quoting from legislation here...

allow, at reasonable intervals, the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, access to the dwelling (on a date and time agreed in advance with the tenant) for the purposes of inspecting the dwelling

allow the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, reasonable access to the dwelling for the purposes of allowing any works (the responsibility for the carrying out of which is that of the landlord) to be carried out

not act or allow other occupiers of, or visitors to, the dwelling to act in a way which would result in the invalidation of a policy of insurance in force in relation to the dwelling,

notify in writing the landlord of the identity of each person (other than a multiple tenant) who, for the time being, resides ordinarily in the dwelling.


god, there is money to be made from someone who can understand the legislation. its a garbled web of ****. you can do that if you do a), but not if you do that from b) in the section before paragraph 1 of the same section that preceded that initial section a).

i suppose its written that way for a reason.

as an aside, which I have ignored...should the agent not have the jeopardy here? are they still taking a monthly fee from you?

tommyombomb wrote: »

Could you contact their employer to look for payment directly.

Good god, is this the general level of landlord intelligence?

Graham wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me on any of those points.

As a country we're running into a situation where private landlords will just cease to exist. While the REITs may pick up some of the slack in the major cities, the remainder of the country will be wondering where all the rental properties went.

Apologies OP, no intention of thread hijacking here. It's just frustrating watch what you (and other landlords) go through.

there is 1 simple remedy....allow evictions for non paying tenants.


imagine if revenue adopted the same attitude?!

dont pay...ah, its fine. or any other business in the entire world. keep selling but the buyers dont have to pay.

its grand though cos banks and mortgages and repayments and interest don't exist.

NomadicGray wrote: »

Good god, is this the general level of landlord intelligence?

No just a random comment on a chat board.

emeldc wrote:

The risk is far less for investment property’s. Banks can and do repossess investment property’s very regularly. They don’t insist on mortgage protection either.

It's actually the opposite. Most people will pay their home mortgage ahead of an investment property mortgage. Rates are higher to reflect the risk.

dubrov wrote: »

It's actually the opposite. Most people will pay their home mortgage ahead of an investment property mortgage. Rates are higher to reflect the risk.

I would not agree on that at all, if you dont pay your homes mortgage or only paid some off rather than all at the end of any month because you had to pay more into a mortgage for an investment property, due to a non paying tenant caused a shortfall in finances, then you arent likely to get your home taken off you, ie where you/your family live.
Better to make sure an investment property mortgage is paid as they would go after that more readily and have more luck getting it off you, and just selling it up on you and you'd still owe them the balance.
The rates are also higher on an investment mortgage, so any payment not made would be hit with even higher interest, penalties could also apply.


Both would take time, I took the option I mentioned for this reason, because of a non paying tenant.