littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 2, 2018 20:28:29 GMT
Won't tenants have tenancy agreements which will govern eviction? Even if a tenant has breached the tenancy agreement and that eviction might be possible we cannot reasonably judge without knowing how long the tenancy has to run apart from anything else.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 2, 2018 21:29:56 GMT
IIRC if they are on an AST and it has gone on to a rolling renewal after the initial term then the landlord can give 2 months notice.
That said Ive voted against on the one Ive had as they have been a perfectly good tenant and I see no reason to kick them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 22:08:32 GMT
There's just no way I can be comfortable with myself sitting behind a computer, voting to evict a tenant in a place I've never even seen, let alone been to, especially given that these seem to be tenants who are not very well off.
There's something very dystopian about 100 faceless investors voting remotely on computers, potentially evicting someone from a flat they're renting.
I don't exactly blame PM but maybe they could have handled this a bit more delicately. Like giving us the voting option of giving the tenant 3 months notice before they need to leave..
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Mar 2, 2018 23:24:56 GMT
I think it all depends on the properties. But at the end of the day on SOME of the properties at least either we evict them now and get a better price, or someone else buys the property tenanted at rock bottom, evicts them and then tart them up a bit to make a huge profit (because I know I have at least one where previous reports have indicated that the property is now in such a poor state due to the tenants that no-one else is likely to lease/buy anyway). Some of these properties quite clearly if we keep the tenant we will make a loss. So it's a tough one. No-one's going to be thrown out at zero notice tho.
I had about a dozen today. Some tentanted that have already previously been voted on with a result of "sell", some not at end of term yet and tenanted (which gave me a bit more pause for thought) and some that for various reasons are currently vacant (so merely a decision on whether to give up on finding a tenant and go for max gain). There was no single answer.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 3, 2018 6:52:07 GMT
I would favour a third option. Do not evict immediately and market the property with a sitting tenant at present which could appeal to a BTL buyer, but make it clear in the marketing that vacant possession is also possible if the prospective buyer wants to live in it. This could apply to those properties where the tenant is taking reasonable care of them. For any properties which cannot be sold at fair value due to tenants' lack of care then eviction does not seem unreasonable.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Mar 3, 2018 7:57:00 GMT
I would favour a third option. Do not evict immediately and market the property with a sitting tenant at present which could appeal to a BTL buyer, but make it clear in the marketing that vacant possession is also possible if the prospective buyer wants to live in it. This could apply to those properties where the tenant is taking reasonable care of them. For any properties which cannot be sold at fair value due to tenants' lack of care then eviction does not seem unreasonable. Unfortunately I doubt it's that simple, whilst lack of care can have quite a dramatic impact, there is also quite a different standard as far as being ready for a tenant or ready for a private sale is concerned. I have a couple that are currently vacant and are "tenant-ready" (at least one had already had funds spent on it to tidy up following the previous tenant) yet the advice that is being put to the vote is to spend a little bit more to ensure kerb appeal and boost the potential values and saleability quite significantly. And the chances of finding a prospective occupying buyer prepared to wait while we evict a tenant will be very slim - if we do they certainly won't pay a good price. Most people want something they can just move into quickly with little needing doing to it.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 3, 2018 9:06:13 GMT
I would favour a third option. Do not evict immediately and market the property with a sitting tenant at present which could appeal to a BTL buyer, but make it clear in the marketing that vacant possession is also possible if the prospective buyer wants to live in it. This could apply to those properties where the tenant is taking reasonable care of them. For any properties which cannot be sold at fair value due to tenants' lack of care then eviction does not seem unreasonable. Unfortunately I doubt it's that simple, whilst lack of care can have quite a dramatic impact, there is also quite a different standard as far as being ready for a tenant or ready for a private sale is concerned. I have a couple that are currently vacant and are "tenant-ready" (at least one had already had funds spent on it to tidy up following the previous tenant) yet the advice that is being put to the vote is to spend a little bit more to ensure kerb appeal and boost the potential values and saleability quite significantly. And the chances of finding a prospective occupying buyer prepared to wait while we evict a tenant will be very slim - if we do they certainly won't pay a good price. Most people want something they can just move into quickly with little needing doing to it. You may be right - which makes it even more difficult to know how to vote on any particular property. Maybe PM should come up with two options after considering all the facts of each property individually rather than presenting us with a brutal choice. As it is I will simply abstain, I realise that this is cowardly because it will default to option 1, but I see no alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisp2p on Mar 4, 2018 17:55:50 GMT
I am not a PM investor although I have reaserched them. I have some b2l and they are much better handled since I started using a management company because they are much harder then me and since I started using them I don’t get messed about anywhere near as much as I used to
i find it strange that the to evict/not to evict is left to investors and not dealt with by the experienced letting agent
You only have to be screwed over by a couple of tenants doing a runner with big debts when you have been understanding before you will hit the evict button every time
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 4, 2018 18:13:37 GMT
Hi chrisp2p, I think that the shocker for some is being asked to press the button on some good prompt rent paying tenants. Personally I think it is the word evict that is confusing emotions - as we have seen with all rental agreements, the renter can give notice at any point after the minimum term, generally a month (and some/most don't even do that & they aren't the worst - others just stop paying and stay on, likely trashing the place)! I genuinely would like to hold some of the better paying properties, but the fact that the guaranteed rents are up after the 3 years does make me think twice. I do wonder if BTL is really the place to be! |
|
|
|
Post by chrisp2p on Mar 4, 2018 18:57:54 GMT
Hi chrisp2p , I think that the shocker for some is being asked to press the button on some good prompt rent paying tenants. Personally I think it is the word evict that is confusing emotions - as we have seen with all rental agreements, the renter can give notice at any point after the minimum term, generally a month (and some/most don't even do that & they aren't the worst - others just stop paying and stay on, likely trashing the place)! I genuinely would like to hold some of the better paying properties, but the fact that the guaranteed rents are up after the 3 years does make me think twice. I do wonder if BTL is really the place to be! Hi Jnm, I will be honest and say I don’t know the history of the specific tenants in question it was more a general comment agree, if someone is just having a bad month better to be understanding and keep but often you do not know which is which until some time and debt has passed much much better to be left to the experienced letting agent to enforce agreed terms generally these crowd funded b2l are ok for anyone (I csn’t Imagine buying a real property again as these offer such a great hands off and easily diversified option) but seems really strange to ask investors to press the button and yes if it has the word evict on it then it must be really difficult. I assume it is a bit of a gimmick to empower investors but I would not be comfortable with a vote like this to make really key business decisions - leave it to the professionals
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 4, 2018 19:23:37 GMT
I am not a PM investor although I have reaserched them. I have some b2l and they are much better handled since I started using a management company because they are much harder then me and since I started using them I don’t get messed about anywhere near as much as I used to
i find it strange that the to evict/not to evict is left to investors and not dealt with by the experienced letting agent You only have to be screwed over by a couple of tenants doing a runner with big debts when you have been understanding before you will hit the evict button every time I think the reason is that the properties are owned by individual SPVs with the lenders the shareholders, and PM can't do anything without shareholders' authorisation. But I see no reason why shareholders can't be given the option to delegate the decision to the platform and IMO this is what we should be voting on. Perhaps PM's nose has been put out of joint by votes to sell and they are just rubbing our noses in the consequences.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 4, 2018 22:08:47 GMT
agree, if someone is just having a bad month better to be understanding and keep That is where you are missing the point - some of these are tenants who have never missed a payment - simply a business decision; if we 'give notice' on the tenant, we will potentially make a bigger profit - there is literally no other reason to 'give notice'. I think that this is acceptable morally (everyone enters a rental knowing that either side can give notice). As has been suggested above, the tenants may not be so accepting; some may be petty (I'm getting kicked out anyhow, so why pay any more rent, let's see how long we can stay & while we are here let's trash the place).
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 4, 2018 22:23:50 GMT
Perhaps PM's nose has been put out of joint by votes to sell and they are just rubbing our noses in the consequences. I sincerely doubt that PM are anything other than delighted by any sell votes; > They are struggling to fund any that are put back on the platform. > They want to move to higher rent, lower capital gain areas - those where the tenants will be more affluent & worth pursuing if they run off! > I would guess that they think managing the properties for the 12% fee is not worth the hassle (e.g. death threats were mentioned on the recent answers). Personally I don't think that BTL is the way forward - there is too much risk of a toxic property, no SM to sell out on & no SM to buy at a big discount on. Some on here talk of 4-6% profits, but for me that sort of figure on a high-ish risk investment is not what I want - needs to be 10 - 15% for me. At 7 to 12%, the loan notes/development opportunities are where I will be looking (once my recent SM sales start to liquefy).
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Mar 5, 2018 10:54:54 GMT
Hi all
Just to provide some clarity as to the process if investors vote to remove tenants.
All residential properties are let on a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy agreement, typically for six months but sometimes for longer periods. Following the expiry of tenancy, and assuming a new agreement is not entered into, the tenant moves to a monthly rolling term whereby either party can serve notice on the other to end the arrangement.
By voting to exit a property and remove the tenant, the process is to work with the tenant to help them move out as quickly as possible. If the AST has expired, we would serve notice on the tenant and agree a date for them to move out (working with them where needed in, for example, the case of social tenants). This gives them at least 2 months notice.
If the tenant is in the middle of the term of their AST, the tenant will be contacted and told that we intend to end the tenancy after the term. If the tenant chooses to leave ahead of the term, that will be accepted in view of seeking to gain possession as quickly as possible. If not, the tenant will remain until expiry of the pre-agreed term. As a minimum, the tenant will be given 2 months notice as required.
The use of the word “eviction” has thrown up some queries as to the process and we hope this will clarify the proposed plan of action.
We are also including some further information on the future voting pages and the relevant emails.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragtagarmy on Mar 6, 2018 0:48:17 GMT
Option 3. Wait until long standing good payer of a tenant decides to move on before selling...
|
|
