Quote:
Originally Posted by Eafield
Your case study does noting more than helpfully provide backbone to my argument and I am amazed that this is not grasped by you.
Your case study saw a landlord ultimately evict what was a bad tenant, yes he maybe took too long to do it and yes the council had to get involved, however the end result was that she was evicted.
Where did she go?, because the council didn’t house her!
We can be pretty certain she isn’t living in a cardboard box, so "there it is" my friend she’s moved in next door to some other poor sole within a district that is obviously not licensed six months later.
You better hope you live in a licensed area. If not now’s the time to be nice to your neighbours, because the next time one falls into debt and sells to an investor you could be living next to your case study.
Oh and under current law it will take even the best landlord at least five months to evict her for you.
Good luck!
|
Your grammar and spelling has improved no end in the past 24 hours, for which you must be applauded.
However, much of your argument has revolved around what this government has done (or not done), a seemingly direct attack on Graham Jones regarding his status as a landlord and the fact that there are 2000 empty homes in Hyndburn. Forgive some of us for thinking that you come on like a Conservative councillor trying to hide his identity.
We do need more social housing, which is what Labour is pushing for in Hyndburn. In the meantime, schemes like this are designed to protect the decent tenants who are not only the customers but the people who line the pockets of landlords, good or bad. It also whittles out the chaff and ensures that the industry is looked upon more favourably as a whole, a positive benefit for the landlords themselves.
Some landlords may view property as an alternative pension scheme which is fair enough, but the disreputable ones are simply making money at the expense of the quality of life of families who have no other option.
Spare a thought for the tenants.