3 ms·

You already don't have the money they are behind so that is essentially a sunk cost. If they are paying now, I'd try to work out that they pay something extra

You already don't have the money they are behind so that is essentially a sunk cost. If they are paying now, I'd try to work out that they pay something extra towards the delinquency. If they can't, they can't. If you evict, that's probably another few months of process time minimum and they'll probably stop paying again once you serve notice. Owning rental property is an investment, not a guaranteed income. There is investment risk. This is one of the times that the risk became reality. Bottom line (I say this as a small-time landlord) if they are back to making payments I'd let them finish their lease. At renewal time both parties can decide if they want to continue. Write off any losses; it was a bad year and nobody is really at fault.

duxup 5y ago
Yeah I suspect many, specifically small, landlords as long as they think the person can pay now... just not worth pushing people out.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Just remember this if in the future it's revealed people are letting their homes sit empty instead of renting them out. (when waiting for the right time to sell or any other reason) Renting is often risky even in good years, one bad tenant can't lose years of profit simply by not paying rent and leaving. If they don't trash the place, it'll need emptied before the next tenant moves in (cost). Then it's possible they do trash the place. And then it's possible they get mad and truly destroy the place (run the pipes). Generally people in these situations don't have money, so good luck getting it back in court. And there's countless stories before covid of people who knew how to play the game in certain areas and delay evictions for months. Now on top of all those normal risks, you have to worry about the government handing out a year of free rent and not allowing you to evict someone. Unless I find a renter who is literally a family friend, I don't believe I'd ever rent out a property I own.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  Letting the property remain empty is a guarantee of no income. Why would that be preferable to a risk? If the property is truly investment, it would still make sense to rent it or sell it. Both are good for the market. On the other hand, I own my house and I’m very hesitant to rent out any space in it due to forfeiting control. I haven’t done much reading, but I think there may be some exceptions that make it easier to evict if someone is sharing your space vs renting an entire unit. That’s a different story but I don’t imagine this type of case having a significant impact on the market
  - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
    If you think the housing market will go up 5% a year, even sitting empty, you'll still make 5% a year (minus property tax). So the expected return is not necessarily 0 in this case for an empty property. Hope this helps.
    - ViViDboarder 5y ago
      If the market goes up, you’d still have that increase in value rented or not, but you wouldn’t have the recurring income if you don’t rent. You’re still forfeiting that by keeping it vacant.

duxup 5y ago

Yeah I suspect many, specifically small, landlords as long as they think the person can pay now... just not worth pushing people out.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

Just remember this if in the future it's revealed people are letting their homes sit empty instead of renting them out. (when waiting for the right time to sell or any other reason) Renting is often risky even in good years, one bad tenant can't lose years of profit simply by not paying rent and leaving. If they don't trash the place, it'll need emptied before the next tenant moves in (cost). Then it's possible they do trash the place. And then it's possible they get mad and truly destroy the place (run the pipes). Generally people in these situations don't have money, so good luck getting it back in court. And there's countless stories before covid of people who knew how to play the game in certain areas and delay evictions for months. Now on top of all those normal risks, you have to worry about the government handing out a year of free rent and not allowing you to evict someone. Unless I find a renter who is literally a family friend, I don't believe I'd ever rent out a property I own.

ViViDboarder 5y ago
Letting the property remain empty is a guarantee of no income. Why would that be preferable to a risk? If the property is truly investment, it would still make sense to rent it or sell it. Both are good for the market. On the other hand, I own my house and I’m very hesitant to rent out any space in it due to forfeiting control. I haven’t done much reading, but I think there may be some exceptions that make it easier to evict if someone is sharing your space vs renting an entire unit. That’s a different story but I don’t imagine this type of case having a significant impact on the market
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  If you think the housing market will go up 5% a year, even sitting empty, you'll still make 5% a year (minus property tax). So the expected return is not necessarily 0 in this case for an empty property. Hope this helps.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    If the market goes up, you’d still have that increase in value rented or not, but you wouldn’t have the recurring income if you don’t rent. You’re still forfeiting that by keeping it vacant.