3 ms·
Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone
by LorenPechtel 5y ago
Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone else at a higher rate.
I've wondered about taking a different approach: The landlord is free to evict on the day of delinquency, but must move the possessions to a storage facility (paying a month's rent at that time) and they must post a substantial bond. If the tenant shows the eviction was improper they get the bond + costs. (And I would apply the same thing to foreclosures.)
Instead of a long process of showing that they are acting properly they are putting up a substantial financial promise that they are acting properly. Make improper actions a costly mistake and there will be few of them.
- oh_sigh 5y agoHow would that process help in the "lost check" scenario you mention?
- jfk13 5y agoSomewhat of an aside, but as a non-American, I find it quite weird that it seems to be common to pay rent with a monthly check. Every place I've rented, I've paid automatically by standing order. (Oh, except in a couple of third-world countries, where cash was the norm.)
- MaysonL 5y agoThe building I live in has an online payment option, but the only payment option that the organization doing the collection takes is PayPal. Fuck PayPal, I can go to the bank and get a check (I haven't personally written a check for decades).
- LorenPechtel 5y agoIt wouldn't, but it would help with other bad evictions.