By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Eviction ban extension still not enough to satisfy campaigning critics

Campaigning organisations that demanded an extension to the evictions ban imposed because of the Coronavirus crisis have been quick to return to claims that tenants face continued hardship - even though the ban has now in fact been extended.

As we reported last Friday evening, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has given the ban a two month extension.

However, Shelter chief executive Polly Neate says the move is merely a stop-gap. 


“The ban hasn’t stopped people who’ve lost their jobs during this pandemic from racking up rent arrears. Even if they have a plan to pay them back, these debts will throw struggling renters straight back into the firing line of an automatic eviction as soon as the ban does lift” explains Neate.   

“It’s critical that Robert Jenrick uses this extension wisely to change the law and properly protect renters. Judges must be given the power to stop people losing their homes because of coronavirus, otherwise the country will face a tidal wave of homelessness after the summer” she continues. 

“Sooner or later, the government has to stop kicking the can down the road."  

And Generation Rent tweeted: “The eviction ban has been extended and you can safely stay in your home until August … This crisis isn’t ending anytime soon and millions of renters are still struggling with debt. 

“We need long-term rent relief and a permanent end to unfair evictions, but this step will keep renters in their homes, for now.” 

Meanwhile Dame Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, has issued a statement saying: “Extending the pause on repossession action is important recognition from the government that many renters are facing real hardship during the coronavirus outbreak, and will give thousands of people a welcome breathing space. 

“But simply extending the pause of repossession is a sticking plaster not a cure. People who have fallen behind on rent arrears and those who have been furloughed or lost their jobs will need the security of proper reform to the rules governing evictions.  

“We look forward to working with the government in the coming weeks on changes to make sure they keep their promise, that no renter should lose their home because of Coronavirus.” 

Over the weekend the National Residential Landlords Association produced survey results showing that there never had been any eviction threat of the kind claimed by campaign groups prior to the ban’s extension.

In an independent survey conducted with over 2,000 tenants across England and Wales, 90 per cent said that they had paid their rent as usual since the coronavirus crisis began. 

Most, 84 per cent, had not needed to ask their landlord for any support. Of those that did ask, three quarters received a positive response.

  •  G romit

    Shelter will not be satisfied until all evictions are banned for ever!

    Each lever they get removed from Landlords, and each lever they add to tenants results in fewer properties to rent and higher rents for those remaining properties, and higher homelessness.
    How is this helping tenants??


    These two women, Bleat and Guy, are a bigger cause of homelessness than Section 21. Neither woman has housed a single person yet landlords’ taxes support both organisations. The Government, by asking how high when they say jump, have proved that they have lost the plot.


    Time to start a campaign to defund Shelter, they are enormously influential and shouldn't be using public money to campaign, especially as they are far from truthful or even handed.

  • icon

    Use shelters funding to buy property to house all the evicted tenants where possession claims were in before the virus
    Then give the job of managing these tenants to shelter.
    It will then give them a small window to see what landlords are facing

  • icon
    • 09 June 2020 06:33 AM

    I suggest that for the LL able to do so that they should convert if at all possible all their properties to residential.
    Invariably this will mean selling off and reducing mortgages to zero.
    A LL may have as many residential homes as they like.
    If they need a mortgage then it will need to be a residential one.
    LL are then able to take in lodgers.
    No more than 4 per property to avoid Mandatory HMO LIcensing.
    Lodgers are CURRENTLY not protected by the Prevention of Eviction Act.

    Lodgers are far more effective as far as eviction is concerned.
    Any rent defaulting ones may be removed very quickly.
    Usually after 1 months notice.
    A LL may utilise the RFRA for one home which DOESN'T have to be his PPR and for his other homes where there are lodgers there are no tax free allowances.
    Lodgers are the way to go.
    There is an exponential demand by single occupiers.

    It makes far more business sense having lodgers rather than tenants.
    Of course BTL mortgages are normally utilised as few LL can afford several residential mortgages.
    It is the case that most BTL LL could only afford about 2 residential properties from 10 BTL ones.
    But having lodgers REMOVES the risk of rent defaulting tenants as they may be removed if the LL wishes.

    In the current climate it makes no economic sense in remaining an AST LL.
    There is a massive demand for rooms.
    Lodger LL can very effectively meet that demand while sustaining a viable business irrespective of any tenant conditions or eviction bans Govt imposes on the tenanted sector.

  • jeremy clarke

    The loony lefties are everywhere, it seems that lack of respect for others, their property and history are high on their agendas. They are all part of the 'want it now and if I can't have it why should you have it' mob!

  • icon
    • 09 June 2020 08:28 AM

    So now these nutters want, and expect, to have their hosing for free. Forever?

    jeremy clarke

    a free hosing is exactly what they all need!

  • icon
    • 09 June 2020 09:29 AM

    The ultimate logic of the idiot lefties is presumably for there to be NO private LL.
    Where will all the tenants live?
    The loony lefties can't believe that lenders will grant them mortgages.
    As has been seen by feckless rent defaulting tenants millions of tenants and existing OO aren't paying their housing costs.
    Lenders are hardly likely to offer such mortgages.

    Property prices are still too high.
    It would take at least a 50% drop for your average renter to even stand a chance of a mortgage.
    Of course there would still be the small matter of a required deposit.

    Whatever way you look at it there is no way that lefty economics work.
    Only by expropriation of capital assets will tenants etc be able to afford such properties.
    Which of course is exactly what that idiot Corbyn was proposing and would have introduced had Labour won the GE

    For lefty economics to work to make properties affordable there needs to be a house price collapse and then it would require those with property to sell at a massively reduced price which probably wouldn't even cover the mortgage!

    The left have simply no idea how to address housing issues beyond stealing the assets of the few for the many.
    Communism they call that and as everyone knows it always fails.

  • icon

    Makes you proud to be British !!! And as for Polly she must be the worlds biggest hypocrite . When you bang on about drivel and take a big fat six figure salary! Go lecture somebody else 😡

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Did you Read our recent post on our facebook ' Two schools of thought ' ?

  • sue diffey

    We have 2 sets of tenants who is just loving this, not paying the rent not gonna pay the rent what are you going to do about it was their reply.

    We have served section on one of the tenants but we have to prove we have done everything to resolve the situation, even though she has someone living there who has an order against him but no chance at this time of getting her out the other one is due to leave at the end of his contract as per the break clause, thats if he goes, its a joke,

    • 09 June 2020 11:58 AM

    As has been suggested serve a CCJ on them.
    They are easy to trace!!!
    They may eventually leave you without paying the owed rent but at least they will have a CCJ which you can keep going for as long as you wish if you want to.
    CCJs can be renewed
    Of course most creditors don't bother renewing them.
    Perhaps mention that unless they pay their due rent you will be serving a CCJ on them.
    They have 1 month to satisfy it before it is recorded on Registry Trust records and ALL CRA.

    With a CCJ for rent defaulting would a new LL wish to take them on.
    Would a lender wish to grant a mortgage!?
    I don't think so.
    They would even have to advise insurance companies of a CCJ.
    It is a material fact!

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Get in touch with us Sue

  • icon

    And the worry and distress that brings to hard working people. How in anybody’s language can this be the law working to protect honest citizens.

  • Bryan Shields

    Yo paraphrase a famous loony up here.
    "Its oor rights & we want it. Ok How will that be funded. F knows but its still oor rights and we want it.

  • icon

    Tenants who have lost everything due to coronavirus and cannot pay the rent Have been vilified by landlords in a rather venomous way but this is not the tenants fault this is also not the landlords fault this is actually the governments fault for insisting we have this lockdown that destroyed our economy Based on fear mongering and misinformation

    By landlords and tenants fighting amongst themselves they are not directing the attention at the people who caused this problem in the first place and those are the people in our government that are responsible for this catastrophe

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    No Alan, your wrong. The vast majority of landlords with GENUINE Covid-related rent difficulties have supported tenants.
    I repeatedly get landlords coming to me with Tenants who were in Default BEFORE Covid, who once the 3 month ban on evictions came in, - the tenants pulled down the draw-bridge and refused to communicate or pay.
    As always, Vast majority of landlords and tenants get along just fine. Its always the small minority of freeloaders who cause the problem, - and they'll be stoking up a problem for time to come for other tenants post-covid unfortunately.

    • 09 June 2020 23:01 PM

    Tenants who refused to have savings to cover themselves in the event of sudden income loss totally DESERVE all the vilification they receive from LL.

    Most tenants refused to adjust their lifestyle so that when needed they had no savings to fall back on.

    If tenants choose to be feckless that is their problem

    Responsible tenants would ensure they have savings to cover their domestic costs for a mininum of 6 months.

    If by saving that means tenants live a boring lifestyle then that is what should occur.
    Believe me if LL could very quickly remove rent defaulting tenants magically tenants would start saving
    Funny that!!!

  • icon

    PossesionfriendUk. Missing the point and perpetuating the in fighting between LL and tenant. Lockdown related arrears are the governments fault. Not LLS or tenants. Getting distracted off this point keeps the focus off the people that caused this disaster


    I have hundreds of properties. I have virtually no Covid-related arrears/arrears accrued during lockdown to speak of, but I do have long-standing problem defaulter from waaaay before all this now sitting pretty. No infighting, just wrong of the tenant and wrong of the system to put me in this position.

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    The " in-fighting " is between Rogue piss-taking tenants who could pay all or some rent and choose to use Covid as an excuse, with Landlords having Both hands 'tied behind their back' by this government and pressured too do so by so-called tenant support groups. ( But this will cause problems for everyone later )
    As I said, Vast majority of tenants have no problem and don't need 'support'

    Let me try and make this simple for you to understand Alan, - customers ( and tenants ) are a shops best asset but they don't want shoplifters as the business and all other customers end up having to pay for the thieves. Read Rogue tenants for shoplifters and you might get the picture.

    • 09 June 2020 23:11 PM

    No you are wrong.
    Whether or not there was a CV19 crisis tenants should always have savings to cover for sudden income loss.
    None of them ever do because they are feckless.
    CV19 has nothing to do with it!

    Tenants always have an excuse as to why they can't pay rent.

    The concept that they should be responsible for themselves and garner resources so that they would be available if ever needed seems to be lost on them.
    They have a feckless attitude of spending everything they have so that when the monthly wage fails to arrive they find themselves potless.
    They then have to rely on the tenant biased eviction process to remain in free accommodation at the great cost of the LL.
    Got sod all to do with Govt lockdown policy!

    • 09 June 2020 23:57 PM

    Nobody is missing the point.
    Your contentions are simply wrong.

    Tenants refuse to have savings.
    They know that the eviction process protects them.
    They know few LL bother with Civil Recovery attempts.
    The CV19 issue is just another reason tenants are using to explain their rent defaulting.

    So what if they have lost their job?
    What if there was no CV19 issue do you think a feckless tenant would offer to surrender their tenancy!?

    Of course they wouldn't.
    They know it could take at least 10 months to evict them during which they know they can live rent free.
    The crisis in the PRS is caused by the dysfunctional eviction process which facilitates rent defaulting no matter the alleged reason.
    Until LL start to base their business on the dysfunctional eviction process many leveraged LL will be bankrupted.

    LL must have sufficient reserves per property per tenancy in case a tenant rent defaults.

    In practice this renders the BTL business model unviable.
    It is the dysfunctional eviction process that will see many LL bankrupted.
    Do those LL believe that Govt will care a jot!?
    As many such LL will be finding no they do not.
    LL need to start preparing for bankruptcy but ideally to sell off properties in an attempt to come of the the BTL drug.
    Leverage will be the death of many LL as it only works when tenants pay rent.
    Not all tenants do to the tune of about £9 billion a year.

    Leveraged LL need to seriously consider the risks to their personal financial security before risking all on rent paying tenants.

    As has been evidenced by recent events tenants have a propensity not to pay rent.
    That leaves LL seriously exposed to business failure.

    The risk of BTL is never understood.
    Few leveraged LL realise that their survival depends on their tenants paying rent.

    Tenants have no concern with the survival of their LL.
    They know the eviction process gives them free accommodation.
    To them it is just tough if the LL is bankrupted.
    Leveraged LL would do well to consider whether they wish to base their financial future on feckless tenants who could easily bankrupt them.
    I speak from very personal experience which is why I intend to not be an AST leveraged LL as soon as I can.
    When I became a LL I was extremely naive and had no concept as to how dysfunctional the eviction process was.
    Had I been aware I would have invested totally differently.
    Probably with one unencumbered house.
    But hey hindsight is a wonderful thing ain't it!!!??

  • icon

    Only speaking on lockdown related Arrears matters not previously standing arrears issues. There needs to be very clear distinction. There are plenty of tenants who have lost everything due to this lockdown and it is not their fault nor the LL fault this is a big problem

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Yes Alan, I agree we are talking ( compassionately ) about the kind of tenants Jane describes. Those are the kind that in my experience Landlords are working with and have no wish for repossession proceedings.
    My point is that by the Govt's action of TOTALLY suspending ALL possession cases, the dis-genuine hangers-on have taken advantage.
    Lets not forget the women subject of Domestic Violence and the communities blighted by Anti-social behaviour.
    The proper course would have been to have continued to hear Possession cases with the court being allowed discretion for taking into account Covid-related arrears.
    The Govt didn't want to take the option Spain adopted of paying Tenants a several year loan of their rent, but passed off the financial responsibility of funding Tenants rent onto Private landlords, many of whom are blue-collar key-workers who own only one property and rely on the rent for their own financial commitments.

    • 10 June 2020 00:24 AM

    NawareNope wrong again.
    If tenants have lost everything then they should have some savings to utilise for at least 6 months of domestic costs.
    If they use those then they should offer to surrender their tenancy.
    But because they are feckless they won't offer to surrender theit tenancy.

    Instead they will ponce off the eviction process which favilitates them FREE accommodation with no realistic possibility of a LL being able to recover rent arrears from them.

    Tenants are very far from being honourable people.
    They will take the p### out of their LL because they know the law facilitates it!!

    Time the eviction laws were changed to enable rent defaulting tenants to be removed very quickly if the LL wishes to.

    Will NEVER happen of course..
    Which is why being a leveraged LL remains a very risky business.

  • icon

    I completely agree with Alan. I have several properties and good tenants that are struggling now losing jobs entirely already spent all their savings last few months trying to pay as much as possible. But now at end of their savings. I’ve worked with them as much as possible but there is no meaningful government support for these arrears they have now.
    I am going to lose some of my properties now and possibly everything I have too because of it and it’s not the tenants fault They worked and always paid their bills before . We were sold a lie to lock down and it’s incumbent upon those selling the lie to rectify it.


    So why drink the kool-aid? Just as you will have to take financial responsibility for your downfall though no fault of your own, so too should tenants through the form of loans for rent arrears, with consequences for not repaying.


    Or does it only financial responsibility only count for those that agree to the rules/have the ability (if not the means) to be responsible. Although far from being alone, you’re acting as though tenants are a different type of citizen…ones that require special protection and care by those of us who are ‘capable’. Only children and severely vulnerable get such treatment: everyone else is a grown adult!

  • icon

    Government, look very carefully, otherwise there won't be a private rented sector. Local authorities had better start building houses on-mass, now.

    • 10 June 2020 11:05 AM

    Govt wants a PRS but it doesn't want any leveraged LL which are 50% of the PRS.
    Once it has forced leveraged LL out of business next it will go for unleveraged LL.

    An effective way to achieve that is imposition of rent controls.
    Govt wishes the PRS to be soley provided by large corporations.

    It will never happen but Govt will try their best to see it does.
    Attempting to achieve this Govt will destroy many LL businesses.

    LL should be aware that the Govt doesn't want you.
    It matters not to the Govt that millions of tenants would be homeless.
    Govt seems to imagine that LL forced to sell up will mean those rental properties will remain as such.
    Not a chance.
    They will be bought by up and downsizers.
    No tenant or FTB will be able to afford them.
    Which is why most of them are currently tenants!!!

    Govts of all persuasions have an ideological hatred of small LL.
    Society shares that hatred.
    Govt DOESN'T like the idea of the lower orders being able to participate in what was a market that only the higher social orders could engage in.

    Effectively any old oik can now become a LL.
    Society is just envious of LL succeeding but the PTB hate the ability of the little man to acquire and exploit a property asset.
    They consider that should be only the province of their betters!!!

    Effectively the PTB want the little man put back in his box to know his place.

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Paul, ( Hill ) - if you look at the First report by MHCLG in response to their Call for evidence on Homelessness and Renting during Covid, a representative of London Councils said ' my colleagues, particularly in London are filled with dread at the thought of facing a cliff-edge when the eviction extension expires." something the NRLA have said they don't believe will happen !
    We have posted about this on our facebook page.

  • icon
    • 10 June 2020 15:20 PM

    But of course the Councils are lying about a supposed cliff edge.
    There will be one but in about a year's time.
    Lying Councils know full well that evictions won't be completed for at least a year and that is being generous!
    Most will take far longer.
    All this caused by a huge backlog of cases and a much reduced County Court facility.

    It is complete scaremongering by Councils and the usual suspects for them to state evictions will occur on Aug 23rd.
    They should tell the truth but of course they won't as it doesn't chime with their narrative.
    But what it means is that LL could be without rent for 2 years andd that is if they survive.

    I doubt there will be any Govt mention of the financial distress that their policies are causing and will cause LL.
    They know that most people don't give a s### about the woes of the LL.
    No Govt would be seen dead supporting a private LL in ANY capacity.
    LL are on their own even being denied the capability of operating a functioning business.
    LL will surely consider that they will need to seriously consider whether attempting to remain a LL is worthwhile or not.

    The Govt anti-LL rhetoric and policies against LL are scheduled to become far worse.
    Which is why I want to be out of the game as soon as I can!

    I'm stuck being a successful LL for at least another 4 years when I wish I could go now as I know what is coming down the track to potentially obliterate me!!

    Trouble is it isn't easy to liquidate a position as a a LL.
    Ideally just need a newbie mug LL to buy my profitable properties.
    That DOESN'T look like occurring for some while yet.
    There will be many LL desperate to get out of the game even though there is no current financial imperative compelling them to do so.

    Of course there will be in the coming months many distressed LL who will be repossessed.
    So there will perhaps be a cliff edge of evictions by lenders not LL as repossessions occur!
    There will be hundreds of thousands of leveraged LL who are simply not resilient enough to weather what could be years of rent defaulting tenants.
    But of course this Govt will never mention such plight of the LL.
    LL should know they are going to be royally screwed even more!!

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    They will take longer and a period of time to catch up with Paul, - but a large number there will be, and that's of no doubt ( Not just in U.K - but other countries also, almost everyone apart from NRLA believe this )

  • icon
    • 10 June 2020 16:05 PM

    The issue with time is that a lender repossessing can boot out a tenant very quickly without having to go through the same eviction process as LL.

    It takes about a month for a lender to take over a property.

    I should know I've had 2 repossessed due to rent defaulting tenants!!


    How does that work, Paul? Surely they have to go through the courts in the same way as landlords?

  • icon

    That nasty attitude that tenants are low life’s that should have at least 6 months of savings is disgraceful. There is a serious lack of humanity and compassion coming from Paul. We should be coming together as a team between tenants and LLs to correct the issues with the system of the governments. Not directing nasty attitudes at less fortunate HUMAN BEINGS. It’s just too venomous to even pay attention to

    • 10 June 2020 16:49 PM

    Absolute twaddle you talk.
    If there was a fast track eviction process as in Austrslia do you think that would change tenant behaviour!?
    You seem to expect that LL should provide FREE accommodation for unfortunate tenants!!
    Are you out of your very tiny mind!!!??

    Since when should any business be forced by law to provide FREE stuff!?
    Well in the UK only LL are forced to do this courtesy of the dysfunctional eviction process.

    You attitude is simply disgusting.
    To expect LL to facilitate free accommodation is just too ridiculous for words.
    It is the idiotic attitudes of people like you that are dragging the PRS to the point that there won't be any LL!!

    Your support for feckless tenants is simply pathetic.

    Tenants have opportunity to save.
    They choose NOT to as they know how dysfunctional the eviction process is.
    The ways things are it could actually be 2 years before an eviction occurs.
    Such feckless tenants could potentially live rent free for that long though well before then any leveraged LL will have been repossessed long before by the lender.
    Feckless tenants should take responsibility for their domestic circumstances.
    They could experience sudden income loss at any time for a wide variety of reasons.
    Because most tenants are feckless none of them make plans for such eventualities.
    It is not the LL fault tenants are feckless so why should LL be expected to subsidise their rent costs when they don't have any income for whatever reason!?

    Savings make a tenant financially resilient to the point that they would generally have been able to source another income in about 6 months.
    Having resilience savings means the LL and tenant suffer no financial distress beyond that of a tenant using up savings.
    But at least no concern about being able to maintain a tenancy.
    I stress again it is ONLY the dysfunctional eviction process which currently allows tenants to get away with being feckless.
    It is just plain wrong that the law allows this.
    You supporting such a situation just proves your complete ignorance about what being a LL is all about.

  • icon

    With that attitude Paul where is all your savings for the loss of income? This is a large societal issue that means our whole economic system is sick and broken and needs reform from top to bottom for that we need to come together compassionately and humanely to make this change as a species or we can just be unevolved nasty trolling troglodytes hating on our fellow human beings until extinction. I can feel the hate pouring out of you.

    Be part of the solution and not the problem

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Alan, It looks like its my turn to tell you your missing the point.
    Its not Private landlords responsibility to subsidise Tenants in times of hardship, that is a Social security issue for the state, as in deed, Spain has done.

    Also, I don't believe Paul ( or any other landlord ) 'hates' ALL tenants - just the ones who damage and disrespect other peoples property, use Tax-payers money in the form of Housing benefit or U.C to p*ss against the wall instead of passing onto the landlord for the purpose of which all Tax-payers ( I assume that includes you ? ) provide.
    Then after a lengthy charade called justice (sic) - to hop onto another unsuspecting landlord like a parasitic flea.

    Of course, we're only talking about a very small % of tenants here, but like everything else, the minority spoil things for the majority.

    • 10 June 2020 17:12 PM

    Yet again you continue to talk absolute twaddle!!

    Do you seriously imagine that I am interested at all in using my resources to assist anyone!!
    I'm in business FFS.
    What I do I do for PROFIT............. I ain't NO charity.
    When I've made my millions perhaps I could indulge in such charity.
    Until that happy day I have costs to meet abd profit to make to maintain a viable business.
    For that I need the rent to be paid.
    My bank isn't compassionate to me when I can't pay the mortgage because of some feckless tenant.
    The day that occurs with no effects on me is the day I show compassion for a feckless tenant!!

    Your very weird attitudes should really be addressed in the Guardian comments sections.

    The mere idea that LL should provide free or subsidised accommodation is just too bonkers for words!
    You'd be amongst others with similar weird views!

  • icon
    • 10 June 2020 18:52 PM

    @ possession friend

    Indeed totally agree with your response.
    I totally respect rent paying tenants and do my best to be a good LL.
    Can't be that bad if previous tenants have returned to me!
    I have and I must admit I don't mind admitting it despite my vociferous words have on many and even now assisted occupants
    Currently that is in the form of not requiring deposits until Jan 1st next year.
    All are paying rent.
    Yes I know I'm being a bit of an idiot in not taking deposits from Dec 2019
    But so far they have rewarded my trust by paying rent and appreciating giving them a year to save up for the deposit has been very helpful for them.
    They are all Ryanair cabincrew so you can imagine what they have been going through.
    It has still been a struggle for them and rent hasn't always been on time.
    But I have worked with them.

    But what I will never countenance is them not paying rent and thinking they may remain rent free.
    It won't happen due to how I have things set up.
    But you are totally correct that I and I'm sure most other LL are of being totally respectful and helpful to their tenants.
    However that respect DOESN'T extend to providing free or subsidised accommodation for them!!!

    I don't expect free food from my local supermarket.
    Neither should tenants expect free accommodation from their LL.

    Respectful tenants unable to pay rent should offer to surrender the tenancy to the LL.
    Allow the LL to make a business decision.
    Many LL would choose to retain those tenants and work with them etc.
    But that would be a LL choice.
    It wouldn't be forced on him which is a totally different matter.

    All my rent paying tenants think I'm great.
    The 5 I evicted for rent defaulting of many thousands of pounds probably hate my guts.
    The feeling is definitely mutual!!

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    The crazy, yet absolutely relevant analogy with Supermarkets giving away Free groceries etc was made in an article on Cap-X yesterday, entitled
    " The latest rental ‘reprieve’ is another kick in the teeth for landlords "
    By Rosalind Beck

  • icon
    • 11 June 2020 00:38 AM

    It really seems that tenants have hit upon a strategy that effectively gives them FREE money without having to steal it.

    Very effectively the current Govt eviction polices along with the already dysfunctional eviction process have legally sanctioned theft from LL.
    No business could survive such circumstances.
    Using that same old supermarket analogy it is legalising the concept of shoplifting.

    If society facilitates this legalised shoplifting then society truly has broken down.
    LL need to be cognisant of this situation and review whether they wish to be used as a free accommodation service by feckless tenants!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up