Guys upstairs got evicted :o(

[Easy_Rider]

Seems pretty short sighted - assuming the tenants are paying the rent, whoever now owns the title could have kept the tenant.

Odds are now that the place will sit empty as they try to punt it on, I guess!

Having looked into the process behind evicting a non-paying tenant, the tenant has a lot of rights whether they pay or not! I'd be surprised if the eviction was entirely above board.

What's happened here is that the landlord has missed mortgage payments and the bank has repossessed the flat. Tennant gets evicted at the last minute. It has been a common problem since the property crash. In a lot of cases it's not simply a matter of the rent should cover the mortgage, there are many other factors... maybe the landlords income has reduced from elseswhere, or they may have lost their job. A lot of people fell into buy to let mortgages encouraged by these property programs and banks throwing money at you and the lure of making a quick buck. Sure at the end of the day it's up to the individual to make sure they have enough reserves / fall backs, but we are in love with credit in the UK and US and this is what caused the Credit Crunch!

Still, bad form on the side of this landlady not informing them, even with a weeks notice would have been nice. As I said before though, i thought they introduced new rules last year that stopped the banks turfing out tennants with virtually no notice, that's what surprised me the most.

 

[legrandefromage]

Buy-to-let mortgages are more expensive than standard so people try and cut corners.

As Chris667 pointed out - If you have a buy-to-let mortgage, your teneants are covered if you balls up.

However, if you have a standard mortgage and sub let the property, the tenants have no rights whatsover as officially they shouldnt be there. They can sue the owner but if they cant pay the mortgage, theres not much anyone can do.

So, if you do rent a place, make sure the owner is legit.

 

[Kestonian]

What's happened here is that the landlord has missed mortgage payments and the bank has repossessed the flat. Tennant gets evicted at the last minute. It has been a common problem since the property crash. In a lot of cases it's not simply a matter of the rent should cover the mortgage, there are many other factors... maybe the landlords income has reduced from elseswhere, or they may have lost their job. A lot of people fell into buy to let mortgages encouraged by these property programs and banks throwing money at you and the lure of making a quick buck. Sure at the end of the day it's up to the individual to make sure they have enough reserves / fall backs, but we are in love with credit in the UK and US and this is what caused the Credit Crunch!

Still, bad form on the side of this landlady not informing them, even with a weeks notice would have been nice. As I said before though, i thought they introduced new rules last year that stopped the banks turfing out tennants with virtually no notice, that's what surprised me the most.

Agreed, but why would the bank not keep the tenant? I can see it's probably too much hassle, but surely there is someone willing to sweep up properties and a decent price with a sitting tenant, especially if the tenant has a decent track record.

I can only see this happening more as people continue to come off discounted / introductory periods on their mortgages then try to get another one. The combination of reduced appetite to lend from the banks, increased capital requirements and lower property valuations is going to be a big kick in the teeth for a lot of people.

 

[legrandefromage]

What's happened here is that the landlord has missed mortgage payments and the bank has repossessed the flat. Tennant gets evicted at the last minute. It has been a common problem since the property crash. In a lot of cases it's not simply a matter of the rent should cover the mortgage, there are many other factors... maybe the landlords income has reduced from elseswhere, or they may have lost their job. A lot of people fell into buy to let mortgages encouraged by these property programs and banks throwing money at you and the lure of making a quick buck. Sure at the end of the day it's up to the individual to make sure they have enough reserves / fall backs, but we are in love with credit in the UK and US and this is what caused the Credit Crunch!

Still, bad form on the side of this landlady not informing them, even with a weeks notice would have been nice. As I said before though, i thought they introduced new rules last year that stopped the banks turfing out tennants with virtually no notice, that's what surprised me the most.

Agreed, but why would the bank not keep the tenant?

Because legally, they dont exist as tenants, you are not supposed to use a standard mortgage to sub let a house. If it was a buy-to-let mortgage, the tenants would be covered and their rental payments would be most welcome.

 

[Easy_Rider]

What's happened here is that the landlord has missed mortgage payments and the bank has repossessed the flat. Tennant gets evicted at the last minute. It has been a common problem since the property crash. In a lot of cases it's not simply a matter of the rent should cover the mortgage, there are many other factors... maybe the landlords income has reduced from elseswhere, or they may have lost their job. A lot of people fell into buy to let mortgages encouraged by these property programs and banks throwing money at you and the lure of making a quick buck. Sure at the end of the day it's up to the individual to make sure they have enough reserves / fall backs, but we are in love with credit in the UK and US and this is what caused the Credit Crunch!

Still, bad form on the side of this landlady not informing them, even with a weeks notice would have been nice. As I said before though, i thought they introduced new rules last year that stopped the banks turfing out tennants with virtually no notice, that's what surprised me the most.

Agreed, but why would the bank not keep the tenant?

Because legally, they dont exist as tenants, you are not supposed to use a standard mortgage to sub let a house. If it was a buy-to-let mortgage, the tenants would be covered and their rental payments would be most welcome.

The same goes for renting a room out in our own house, if you read the fine print of the mortgage, it's not allowed.

 

[tintin40]

The same goes for renting a room out in our own house, if you read the fine print of the mortgage, it's not allowed.

:shock: :shock: That could make a lot of people homeless. reading this shows it's better to own

 

[legrandefromage]

The same goes for renting a room out in our own house, if you read the fine print of the mortgage, it's not allowed.

:shock: :shock: That could make a lot of people homeless. reading this shows it's better to own

if the owner is on a genuine buytolet mortgage and the bank knows you exist, you're fine and covered