Just lost my job thanks to COVID-19, who else ?

[james_s]

At a glance tenant rights seem like a good thing, but that is a perfect example of the problems that are created by not having balance. If tenants have too many rights then there is little incentive for someone to rent out property they own and that means fewer rentals available.

[nctnico]

At a glance tenant rights seem like a good thing, but that is a perfect example of the problems that are created by not having balance. If tenants have too many rights then there is little incentive for someone to rent out property they own and that means fewer rentals available.

That doesn't make sense. In the end it is about cost versus benefit (ROI). In the end being a good landlord pays itself back. Regulations just weed out the people who have no eye for the long game.

[SiliconWizard]

At a glance tenant rights seem like a good thing, but that is a perfect example of the problems that are created by not having balance. If tenants have too many rights then there is little incentive for someone to rent out property they own and that means fewer rentals available.

Whereas this is true in theory, from a business POV, this IMO only impacts rentals marginally in practice. The reason is pretty obvious. For anyone owning properties that they don't use and don't make money off, it's just dead beef that is actually a net loss (owning a property always implies some expenses.) So most owners prefer renting, and taking some risk, than not renting at all.

Tenant rights may influence the kind of rental the owners choose (short term vs. long term for instance, or just vacation rentals), but even that depends a lot on the property itself and its location, so owners don't have that much choice in the end.

[Wilksey]

Not thus far,

However, the UK government have said they will pay 80% of peoples wages on what is called Furlough, and it is also said that the government is encouraging people who have recently laid off employees to take them back under this scheme.  There is a whole host of questions surround this and if you are lucky to be self employed and meet the right criteria you are also eligible for this, but there are a lot of self employed people who do not meet the criteria and are essentially up the creek without a paddle to put it politely.

I suspect for some employers it's an ideal time unfortunately to cull those they don't want to keep but couldn't legally get rid of previously.

Some smaller business cannot sustain the kinds of loss they are going to see and will fold regardless of this government scheme, but for the larger companies and other small companies able to sustain this unknown period of non trading, when the floodgates open and we are able to go back to whatever normality we can, they are going to need staff to get underway again and as they say it's the staff that make the company not the management.

I applauded Adafruit who in the early onset of what happened in NYC vowed to keep their staff and pay them in full to stay home, I don't believe they have or had any kind of government assistance when they said about it, things might have changed since I don't keep up to date with Trump and his stupid hats.

So, if you have been laid off recently and you have a government assisted employer scheme in place like we have then you can always contact them and ask them to take you back on Furlough, even if you leave after for the company treating you like absolute shite, it's better to get paid a bit than none at all.

Here in the UK they are paying up to £2,500 a month, then taking national insurance and tax from this, which is better than nothing but I suspect some folk might see a change in wages as (not including myself) some people get paid a lot more than that, especially living in large cities like London, so if some of them are put on Furlough they'll be complaining about it I suspect.

Say what you like about Boris Johnson, but he has certainly done what he said he was going to, a rare thing, particularly for a UK Prime Minister!

[james_s]

At a glance tenant rights seem like a good thing, but that is a perfect example of the problems that are created by not having balance. If tenants have too many rights then there is little incentive for someone to rent out property they own and that means fewer rentals available.

That doesn't make sense. In the end it is about cost versus benefit (ROI). In the end being a good landlord pays itself back. Regulations just weed out the people who have no eye for the long game.

Well this was a reply to someone who said they were not renting out a property they own due to too many tenant rights. It creates a risk because once you get someone in its very difficult to boot them out due to this. A friend of mine had a rental condo for a while but he put it on the market and sold it to someone who lives in it after a bad experience with tenants.

I'm not saying tenants shouldn't have rights, only that there needs to be a balance. Landlords need to be able to remove tenants who are problematic so they can get someone in there that is not chronically late paying the rent, damaging the property, being a neighborhood nuisance, etc. Then there are unforeseen events like this pandemic that screw everybody. On one hand it's pretty shit to boot somebody who lost their job, but on the other hand a landlord who is just an ordinary person with bills to pay needs to make a living too. During the 2008 collapse a lot of rental properties went into foreclosure as landlords went bankrupt. It's a bad situation any way you look at it.

[Kasper]

At a glance tenant rights seem like a good thing, but that is a perfect example of the problems that are created by not having balance. If tenants have too many rights then there is little incentive for someone to rent out property they own and that means fewer rentals available.

That doesn't make sense. In the end it is about cost versus benefit (ROI). In the end being a good landlord pays itself back. Regulations just weed out the people who have no eye for the long game.

I apologize for derailing the thread.  I was trying to summarize the problem to not distract from the focus of this thread but 'tenant rights' is a touchy subject.  I will add a bit of clarification and hope we can leave it at that. 

It takes months to remove horrible tenants despite severe damage, criminal behavior and threats of violence.  They can do damage equivalent to years worth of rent and it is impossible to get money from them.  The probability is low but the severity is horrific.  Regulations we have here protect horrible tenants and weed out good people who are too good to risk going to jail to remove bad tenants.

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/vernon-landlord-says-shes-out-of-rental-business-after-nightmare-tenant/it55176

https://globalnews.ca/news/4153633/nightmare-tenant-landlord-rights/

“So the whole process looks like seven or eight months to get him out of a suite that he hasn’t paid for.”

[Electro Detective]

Landlord wannabees that buy property cheap and or when the loan interest rates are low,
expecting to fix and spend nothing maintaining said properties, whilst 'tenants pay it off for them' 
deserve to be out of pocket, and lucky if the greedy lazy jerks don't lose their own house put up as security collateral, when hard times come   

That said, there are realistic landlords out there who screen their tenants properly,
and both groups co-operate to get by during genuine economic hard times,
or new age style economic upheavals, marketed as a global health risk, apparently working great so far 

But you don't have to be a sucker and wait months/years to get back an abused un-rentable/un-sellable property
from criminal gutter trash that should never have been born.

I've seen bad tenants get the arse legally and a few times not so legally..

Legally, if done properly, they can be gone in two to four weeks max

It's up to the landlord to research how to do it right, with local police in attendance for the landlords RIGHT to a  property inspection,
take pictures and fill in a Property Report form, in case they trash the place any further, 
and ask the police to serve and witness the VACATE notice.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a landlord deal un-witnessed with a bad tenant once things begin to go south, and vice versa

If they are not gone by the vacate date, the police rock up and get the assh0les out

If that's not possible, pay an armed licensed security mob who specialize in violence to get it done,   
and hire a truck to load up and turf their furniture and belongings where they prefer,
or if they don't care or uncooperative, take it to a charity outlet or local tip 

This way you'll pay once, cry once, scum gone, have the property back, and decide what's best for you > repair/rent, repair/sell,
or sell 'as is' cheaper to a buyer who will repair/renovate it, so you can walk away..     

OTOH if the landlord has been a cheapskate bean counting ass, talking down to tenants and refusing fair requests to maintain the property,
they deserve serial bad tenants FOREVER

@ Landlords: which type of landlord are you, fair or foul? 

[maginnovision]

I know my grandfather when he bought his first apartment complex was too relaxed as to tenants. Lots of damage, evictions, legal issues. He eventually sold it and bought a larger unit. He now has management who have very selective screening. Other family members have also had tenant troubles. One condo sustained 40K in damage and the tenant was there for 8 months and only paid for 4 of those. Usually these things don't happen but the more property you have the more trouble you have. The best idea is to find a good management company to take care of your properties and not try to do it yourself.

[nctnico]

I know my grandfather when he bought his first apartment complex was too relaxed as to tenants. Lots of damage, evictions, legal issues. He eventually sold it and bought a larger unit. He now has management who have very selective screening. Other family members have also had tenant troubles. One condo sustained 40K in damage and the tenant was there for 8 months and only paid for 4 of those. Usually these things don't happen but the more property you have the more trouble you have. The best idea is to find a good management company to take care of your properties and not try to do it yourself.

As usual with investments you need to diversify. And when dealing with long term customers (that is what tenants are) you need to do good screening. Getting advice from an attorney should help create a standard rental contract which avoids pitfalls. There are strong regulations to protect tenants in many places but it doesn't give tenants carte blanche.

[james_s]

There are bad landlords out there of course, and most tenants are fine people BUT it takes only one nightmare tenant to leave quite a long lasting impression. Screening is good but doesn't catch everything and like the HR people at companies it can easily screen out some really good ones who simply don't have enough of the right kind of history.

Tenant should have rights but so should landlords. There should be circumstances under which it is easy to kick somebody out rapidly. If they are damaging the property, generating a large number of police responses to the property, engaging in illegal activity, that sort of thing. If they stop paying the rent that's another thing where there should be some wiggle room but it shouldn't take 8 months to evict them. If we're going to offer such heavy protections and force a landlord to allow someone who has stopped paying to continue living there then maybe we (society, government, etc) should be compensating the landlord. Without landlords willing to rent properties, there are not properties for people to rent. We saw that here during the last housing bubble when renting out property was no longer cost effective vs selling it so scores of apartment complexes got converted to condos which were no longer affordable to most of the people who were living in them. The town I live in went from having about 10 apartment complexes to having *one*, the rest all became condos.

[fourfathom]

But you don't have to be a sucker and wait months/years to get back an abused un-rentable/un-sellable property from criminal gutter trash that should never have been born.

This kind of depends on where you are, doesn't it?  You should see some of the "tenant's rights" rules in San Francisco (and better/worse yet, some of the recently-proposed ones).  Probably not years in a for-cause eviction, but easily many months.

[alpher]

  Fck this, just today my next door neighbor  was taken to hospital, when came back told me that he doesn't now for sure yet, but has the symptoms. Doesn't look like 2020 gonna be a good year for mua.
And as far as tenants rights are concerned, my take is "fuck them" they have way too many.

[Electro Detective]

But you don't have to be a sucker and wait months/years to get back an abused un-rentable/un-sellable property from criminal gutter trash that should never have been born.

This kind of depends on where you are, doesn't it? 
You should see some of the "tenant's rights" rules in San Francisco (and better/worse yet, some of the recently-proposed ones). 
Probably not years in a for-cause eviction, but easily many months.

It's sort of like that here, but after reading up on all the docs available regarding tenants rights, landlords rights, and what the police can do in these situations,

bottom line is this: if rent is two weeks in arrears, the landlord can serve a police witnessed and recorded vacate notice, 

i.e. if there's no money going to the landlord then there's NO LEASE or agreement,

so they either vacate within two weeks, or stay on and be reported and charged for TRESPASSING, 

and vandalism if there's property damage

Basically when the money stops their 'rights' stop too.

Only if they bait the landlord and or partner to say or do something dumbass and get angry, will the game change in the bad tenants favor

Watch out for that one, because it's their one and only trick at kick out time, to screw the landlord for a few more months

The landlord should ensure the tenants receive the vacate notice via police etc and have NO RAPPORT or contact with the tenant, unless a police officer is present. 

As hard as that is, that's what you gotta do to get the assh0les out,
because they'll make up some BS you entered the property without notice and threatened them, stole their dope, kicked their cat/dog etc 

Been and seen a lot of these disputes to know only the calm person that goes by the written Rules wins   

or you can opt to get grumpy, personal and righteous about it, 
and see how quick bad tenants will take you to court, whilst staying on..and not paying rent   

[blacksheeplogic]

If we're going to offer such heavy protections and force a landlord to allow someone who has stopped paying to continue living there then maybe we (society, government, etc) should be compensating the landlord.

At the moment banks are working with people who can't pay their mortgages (and that includes landlords). So, it does not seem unreasonable in the given circumstances to also be giving renters the protection of not being out on the street because the government is hell bent on Fcking the country by placing everyone (but themselves) under house arrest.

[ddavidebor]

I was changing job when the pandemic started. All interview cancelled, all position suspended.
Moved country, can't go back, can't work here.

[tom66]

I am so glad I did not take the contract position I was offered 4 months ago, because I would probably be without work for the future.  It paid well, but not well enough for the risk of finding another position.

[nctnico]

I was changing job when the pandemic started. All interview cancelled, all position suspended.
Moved country, can't go back, can't work here.

In hindsight: don't move before having a signature on a contract!

[Electro Detective]

I was changing job when the pandemic started. All interview cancelled, all position suspended.
Moved country, can't go back, can't work here.

In hindsight: don't move before having a -signature- on a contract!

   YES, in stable economic times with no global outbreak of flying pigs spreading the sniffles and PS

But that  -signature-  won't be worth the ink used if the business is in a next level shtf lock down and doors closed
or jobs need to be culled, and locals and long timer employees favored first

There's most likely fine print in work contracts that bails out the employer if they are gov coaxed and or hoaxed from business operations 
and if you're a foreigner in another nation expecting some form of international shafted tourist contractual 'rights',
good luck chasing up someone at the embassy when they are self imprisoned at their home or shoe box apartment,
zealously guarding their hoarded toilet paper stocks in the event of a surprise zombie offensive 

i.e. FYI to anyone thinking about it: this is not the time for a major sea change or career upheaval or to 'follow your dreams' 

[ddavidebor]

I was changing job when the pandemic started. All interview cancelled, all position suspended.
Moved country, can't go back, can't work here.

In hindsight: don't move before having a -signature- on a contract!

   YES, in stable economic times with no global outbreak of flying pigs spreading the sniffles and PS

But that  -signature-  won't be worth the ink used if the business is in a next level shtf lock down and doors closed
or jobs need to be culled, and locals and long timer employees favored first

There's most likely fine print in work contracts that bails out the employer if they are gov coaxed and or hoaxed from business operations 
and if you're a foreigner in another nation expecting some form of international shafted tourist contractual 'rights',
good luck chasing up someone at the embassy when they are self imprisoned at their home or shoe box apartment,
zealously guarding their hoarded toilet paper stocks in the event of a surprise zombie offensive 

i.e. FYI to anyone thinking about it: this is not the time for a major sea change or career upheaval or to 'follow your dreams' 

I honestly do not care - got rather fed up of working and living in Italy.

[thinkfat]

Sorry to hear.   Sucks that companies are so greedy. So many people getting laid off over something temporary.  The job market has always been crap it probably is even worse now though grocery stores and fast food places might possibly be hiring I guess...      Even airlines have been laying off like crazy from what I hear.  Lot of pilots are going to be manning drive thrus I think "Welcome to McDonalds this is your capt... err, uhhhh, may I take your order?".

As much as I don't like still having to go into the office, I'm lucky I work in something that is essential so there is a rather low risk of me being laid off.   The company stock is taking a dive though - all stocks are, I just hope this does not actually trigger layoffs even though it will go back up.

I don't think it's greed, a lot of companies have pretty thin margins so if revenue dries up and expenses don't shrink to follow then things can get ugly pretty fast.

Yep, I'm afraid most people don't realize that most companies are not sitting on loads on money waiting to be spent. Money rushes through a company like diarrhea, if you don't keep up the supply, they're quick to dry out and die.

[Black Phoenix]

Currently working part time here in Shenzhen for a company back in Portugal. At least the IT/Networking is still needing people, since someone have to support the systems that most use to work remotely.

But yes, I worry a little about my wife, a client support in a company that sells offset printing machinery. She is currently at home because of our newborn, until July, but after that if this still continues we don't know what could happen, since 2019 was a year that the revenue saw a decrease compared with other years.

Of course I always have Portugal but as a country that had put all their eggs in the tourism basket after the 2008 crisis and the Troika (European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)) bailout/economic hoes that affected Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (the so called PIIGS as we got to be known outside, originally only the 4 Mediterranean states) Portugal reformed everything to tourism, were most of the buildings in Lisbon were bought and reproposed to be Hostels and Hotels, Restaurants, Tourism/Souvenir/Traditional Arts Shops, etc.

Now with this most of tourism is non existent, specially in Lisbon, the south of the country know by their beaches and resorts will be mostly empty, leading to unemployment and lack of seasonal working, as we approach the high season (May to September). As an IT guy probably I would get something, even if it was fixing computers, something I've done since I was 16 to get money for my own things, but regarding her and the kid I don't know. Although I try not to think too much into the future and just adapt to the present.

[nctnico]

Yep, I'm afraid most people don't realize that most companies are not sitting on loads on money waiting to be spent. Money rushes through a company like diarrhea, if you don't keep up the supply, they're quick to dry out and die.

That is not entirely true. A lot of companies get their working capital through a credit line from a bank. In the end letting money sit without using it is more expensive (no interest) compared to paying interest over money that is actually used to make a profit. Trouble starts if the expenses continue and sales dry up. A viable company should be able to extend the line of credit somehow. Several countries have instated government backed loans to companies for example.

[thinkfat]

Yep, I'm afraid most people don't realize that most companies are not sitting on loads on money waiting to be spent. Money rushes through a company like diarrhea, if you don't keep up the supply, they're quick to dry out and die.

That is not entirely true. A lot of companies get their working capital through a credit line from a bank. In the end letting money sit without using it is more expensive (no interest) compared to paying interest over money that is actually used to make a profit. Trouble starts if the expenses continue and sales dry up. A viable company should be able to extend the line of credit somehow. Several countries have instated government backed loans to companies for example.

I said nothing else. Companies don't have money in the bank waiting to be spent. They cannot afford it, it's not reasonably to have money and not using it for generating profit. It's just worse if your working capital is a bank loan.

Try extending your credit line (which just means you're going deeper into debt as a company) when the bank doesn't see a perspective in your business. You have no customers now, what makes you think this will change, is the question you'll get asked. You better come up with a convincing projection. For example, you sell shoes. But the bank doesn't expect shoe stores reopening for several months. You'll not get money for sitting around. You'll get money for investing into selling "differently" so that they can be sure to get the money back eventually. While every other shoe store is doing the same.

[blacksheeplogic]

Yep, I'm afraid most people don't realize that most companies are not sitting on loads on money waiting to be spent. Money rushes through a company like diarrhea, if you don't keep up the supply, they're quick to dry out and die.

There are a lot of companies that are just trying to survive and they don't have the resources to weather this though without aid. I'm all for the government helping these businesses out given the current situation where the government has forced most business to close down. Work from home is not viable when your business cannot ship it's products.

However, there are some truly horrible business out there taking advantage of the situation and it taints public perspective of businesses as a whole. Some businesses here for example have applied for the wage subsidy which requires employees consent and then fired their employees once the paper work is done to keep the government subsidy (illegal), others are getting the subsidy but not paying it there employees or claiming the employee has to use holiday/sick leave (illegal). I'm sure some companies are using this as an excuse to fire workers without consequence. The government here is going to publish the names of all companies that get the wage subsidy so the ones abusing it can be reported on.

One a side note, I also read in the US companies are claiming the stimulus package money given to people will be deducted from peoples pay checks. The greed is really bottomless.

Unfortunately, when people hear of these cases they don't think about the majority of business that are doing everything they can for there employees. It's like any group, a small minority of aholes taint the group as a whole.

[Zero999]

Yep, I'm afraid most people don't realize that most companies are not sitting on loads on money waiting to be spent. Money rushes through a company like diarrhea, if you don't keep up the supply, they're quick to dry out and die.

There are a lot of companies that are just trying to survive and they don't have the resources to weather this though without aid. I'm all for the government helping these businesses out given the current situation where the government has forced most business to close down. Work from home is not viable when your business cannot ship it's products.

However, there are some truly horrible business out there taking advantage of the situation and it taints public perspective of businesses as a whole. Some businesses here for example have applied for the wage subsidy which requires employees consent and then fired their employees once the paper work is done to keep the government subsidy (illegal), others are getting the subsidy but not paying it there employees or claiming the employee has to use holiday/sick leave (illegal). I'm sure some companies are using this as an excuse to fire workers without consequence. The government here is going to publish the names of all companies that get the wage subsidy so the ones abusing it can be reported on.

One a side note, I also read in the US companies are claiming the stimulus package money given to people will be deducted from peoples pay checks. The greed is really bottomless.

Unfortunately, when people hear of these cases they don't think about the majority of business that are doing everything they can for there employees. It's like any group, a small minority of aholes taint the group as a whole.

Perhaps your government isn't applying the subsidy properly?

In the UK, the company will have to continue to pay their employees 80% of their wage up to £2000 per month, then claim it back from the government.

Fortunately I've been given full pay, even though the company can't claim all of it back from the government. The only thing I'll lose is a four days annual leave, but I don't care about that.