Homeless homeowner

that is the crux of it ... private landlords are expected to act like a business but are taxed as an individual.

The only landlords who can sustain the current level of meddling are institutional and those who have significant portfolios. Yet these are the types of landlords who are being targeted with ire by everyone.

So creating a market that only suits large and institutional investors while also bemoaning about how private landlords are fleeing the market is just irony.

There should probably be some sort of requirement to register a change of usage when renting out a property to avoid the sort of confusion she has ended up with. It ceases to be your home at that point, it is your rental business. And, for right or wrong, we have seen over the last number of years, the industry is highly regulated, changes frequently and the rules are stacked against the landlord. The reason for this, I assume, is that the state sees it as preferable to people being evicted on the day their lease ends and living on the street.

In this kip of a country most on welfare are either in derelict council estates or are homeless.

She didn't issue a fair notice. She notes herself that the notice she issued was invalid. Then the eviction ban came in so she couldn't even issue a valid notice.

However it's disingenuous to compare accommodation to "a service". It's beyond that, and taking away that service can result in families with children being put out on the street. It's why there are such stringent rules about evictions, which tries to take into account the rights of the tenants and the rights of the landlords. It's a delicate balance and one that has to try suit all or as many circumstances as possible. The landlord in this case didn't issue a valid eviction notice. The tenants therefore had the right to challenge it. The eviction notice now means the landlord has temporarily lost the chance to serve a valid eviction notice.

Also, landlords won't just leave the properties empty if they leave the market, as chances are they'll have a mortgage on the property so will have to pay that themselves, they'll have to keep up security and upkeep on the property which a tenant would have to do etc. Then you have risk of squatters, vandalism, damage, even the cost of security shutters if they wanted to try protect the property. Most landlords would likely sell the properties. Selling the properties would lead to increase of supply, which could lead to lower house prices. It'll also mean people currently renting may be able to buy due to increased supply/lower prices, which would take them out of the rental market and could ease the rental market too.

Landlords leaving the market will not result in thousands of empty homes. Any gains to be made from the house increasing in value would be eaten up by paying the mortgage off themselves. They'd be more likely to sell.

No it wouldnt

The properties would be sold. Have a go landlords can’t afford to sit on empty properties.

Yes. Where is the issue with that?

They will leave them empty. Hence all the talk of vacant taxes. Not everyone has a mortgage.

The property will leave the rental market. They will be sold to owner occupiers. They are far lower density of occupancy.

There needs to be a distinction between the private rental and social, low cost housing. They are not one and the same.

Large landlords chase profits and the high end of the market mostly. They won't solve the social or affordable housing issues.

As a Dutch citizen, surely your home country must be more appealing to you at the moment?

Better than literally everybody who can't buy having sky high rent like here

Germany had a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a huge amount of rental stock following some unpleasantness between 1939-45 when the country was funded by the US to reconstruct itself and the provision of long term rental properties was possible. Ireland did some similar developments following independence and for 40 or so years thereafter when long term rental housing was constructed (council

properties) which were subsequently sold off at a discount to existing tenants precluding them from being occupied by further social tenants.

I haven't seen the social contract, can you point me to it as I am interested in seeing the exact wording?

Yet you voted with your feet to live here.

Everyone is to drop all the Netherlands stuff immediately.

Also, a large number of posters here have gone beyond what is acceptable on this forum. Despite this topic, this is not in Current Affairs and hence the laxer moderation of there does not apply.

Cop yourselves on or get infracted.

Do not reply to this post.