3 ms·

You've obviously never been in the position of being elderly, living in a country where pension funds got dilapidated by politicians (no matter how much you pai

You've obviously never been in the position of being elderly, living in a country where pension funds got dilapidated by politicians (no matter how much you paid into it), needing money and your only source of income being a flat you're renting. My dad had one squatter, who was a respectable 60 years old lady: she just stopped paying and the legal and justice system is so shit that it took more than a year to get her out of my dad's flat - meanwhile she trashed the flat, changed the gates to lock us out and started burning stuff. You don't get to decide who lives in my property, I do and you can be damn sure I'll think very hard what's my chance the tenant will pay or not based on any data I have available. If they're students or asylum seekers they're more likely to trash the place and go unpunished. It would be less relevant if I could reclaim my flat immediately (fine, I'll eat a loss of a month of rent) after breach of contract, but that's not the world we live in.

Gracana 4y ago
Why not sell the flat if it doesn't make you any money and extracting rent is so difficult?
- Bedon292 4y ago
  The flat was the source of income until someone started squatting. So it was making money. And I would expect selling it would be close to impossible with someone squatting in it already.
rowanG077 4y ago
So the legal system needs to be fixed. Putting the power of sheltering people into the hands of landlords is ridiculous. The government wouldn't decide who lives in your property. You can always choose to not rent it of course, or rent it to a friend. But if you want rent it and you have someone willing to take it you can't say no.
- b112 4y ago
  This would only be fair, if by law rent is paid before the month owed, and a person can be evicted with one day's arrears. Oh, and a deposit for damage paid too, which has no bearing on the above rent and late eviction. That might start to be fair with your logic. I might add, this is the same logic with pre or post pay things. Prepaid phone vs postpay on credit...
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Rent, in my country at least, is already paid in advance. Daily eviction powers are inhumane and unnecessary with rent that is paid in advance. Damages should be factored into the rent. THe way I would envision is that landlord is not allowed to manage any of that. Let's say you have a property, you can go to the government and say: "Hey, I have this property that I want to rent.". With the option of also giving a specific tenant if you want. The government then takes over completely. They get a free for managing the property and you get the rest. Government handles everything from eviction to damages to new tenant search.
    - b112 4y ago
      This is not inhumane, if you can't block people based upon their inability to pay, or upon their past treatment of rental units. It has to be fair for both parties. And rent paid in advance is only so, if not in arrears. But understand, my comment was responding to a post claiming that there should be no way to have a choice in whom you rent to. I've seen units with a years rent in damages. Ripped carpet, holes in walls, smashed appliances and lights, etc. But people want there to be no way to chose renters, based upon credit and past history?! edit: your edited post clarifies things a bit. My primary concern is about forcing costs on the landlords, if there are no reliably checks. So I am open to ideas that take this into account. edit2: more clarity here, that 'year's worth of rent in damages' was gross, not profit. It happens too frequently too. EG if rent is $100, a year of rent is $1200, but it isn't as if the landlord pockets that. Not even remotely close. Some landlords only make 30% on their units, when property tax, upkeep, water and other included things are involved. So massive damage can take years to recoup!

Gracana 4y ago

Why not sell the flat if it doesn't make you any money and extracting rent is so difficult?

Bedon292 4y ago
The flat was the source of income until someone started squatting. So it was making money. And I would expect selling it would be close to impossible with someone squatting in it already.

rowanG077 4y ago

So the legal system needs to be fixed. Putting the power of sheltering people into the hands of landlords is ridiculous. The government wouldn't decide who lives in your property. You can always choose to not rent it of course, or rent it to a friend. But if you want rent it and you have someone willing to take it you can't say no.

b112 4y ago
This would only be fair, if by law rent is paid before the month owed, and a person can be evicted with one day's arrears. Oh, and a deposit for damage paid too, which has no bearing on the above rent and late eviction. That might start to be fair with your logic. I might add, this is the same logic with pre or post pay things. Prepaid phone vs postpay on credit...
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Rent, in my country at least, is already paid in advance. Daily eviction powers are inhumane and unnecessary with rent that is paid in advance. Damages should be factored into the rent. THe way I would envision is that landlord is not allowed to manage any of that. Let's say you have a property, you can go to the government and say: "Hey, I have this property that I want to rent.". With the option of also giving a specific tenant if you want. The government then takes over completely. They get a free for managing the property and you get the rest. Government handles everything from eviction to damages to new tenant search.
  - b112 4y ago
    This is not inhumane, if you can't block people based upon their inability to pay, or upon their past treatment of rental units. It has to be fair for both parties. And rent paid in advance is only so, if not in arrears. But understand, my comment was responding to a post claiming that there should be no way to have a choice in whom you rent to. I've seen units with a years rent in damages. Ripped carpet, holes in walls, smashed appliances and lights, etc. But people want there to be no way to chose renters, based upon credit and past history?! edit: your edited post clarifies things a bit. My primary concern is about forcing costs on the landlords, if there are no reliably checks. So I am open to ideas that take this into account. edit2: more clarity here, that 'year's worth of rent in damages' was gross, not profit. It happens too frequently too. EG if rent is $100, a year of rent is $1200, but it isn't as if the landlord pockets that. Not even remotely close. Some landlords only make 30% on their units, when property tax, upkeep, water and other included things are involved. So massive damage can take years to recoup!