3 ms·
Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants. The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of co
by bluecalm 2y ago
Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants.
The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of contract/work, very high deposits etc.) to just rent an apartment or a house.
If the government thinks everyone deserves a roof then the government should build cheap, simple housing of last resort instead of forcing the property owners to take the risk.
- sir0010010 2y agoTenants rights are not only about how long you get to stay without paying rent. Not being able to compel your landlord to remove pests, mold or fix noisy steam radiators is not something that would benefit the vast majority of tenants.
- bluecalm 2y agoYeah, sure those are needed but they are not the reason you have to jump through hooves and pay ridiculous deposits just to rent an apartment. I know quite a few landlords. None of them would complain about stricter rules and obligations when it comes to maintenance. What they think about every day is non paying or otherwise problematic tenants. This affects the process they use to decide who to rent to and the demographic they are willing to rent to as well. The effect is that honest people find it difficult to rent an apartment because abusers run rampant and the system protects them. In some European countries you need to prove you have stable job and get recommendation from the previous landlord to even be in the consideration and then you basically have to go for an interview. It's a ridiculous and humiliating process which wouldn't exist if landlords could throw out abusers without much hassle.
- singpolyma3 2y agoBan deposits and proof of work requests like we have here