Dodgy tenants

[Chris Head]

I've read the whole lot and quite honestly, if it were me they'd get one warning and a few minutes to pack up and leave and if not they'd be out a few minutes afterwards and sod the consequences.

[Tresco]

[quote user="Josephine79"]
Well, just look at that. Are we being moderated by Americans?

[/quote]

Josephine, the software does it and jusding by some of the things that get cut, it's American language based.

I think some of the things that get asterixed are pathetic, especially as this isn't a 'swearing' site - not that A ss is a swearword anyway.

Sorry for the off topic diversion.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Chris Head"]I've read the whole lot and quite honestly, if

it were me they'd get one warning and a few minutes to pack up and

leave and if not they'd be out a few minutes afterwards and sod the

consequences.[/quote]

Well, I'm generally a very law abiding and well behaved chap (father of

three, chef d'entreprise, tax payer, pillar of the village, deeply

fluffy, kind to small animals, etc) but I take your point. I'm all for

the rights of tennents and even (under certain circumstances) of

squatters, but smug, grinning little scrotebags who take the p**s like

this...well, I may have difficulty in containing my ire. That's all I'd

say.

[Lori]

I have to agree with both Chris and Jon on this.

[Ariège Author]

An interesting post but I'm sure that I read in the French version of 'Which' magazine that gite tenants must have a permanent address and that the Winter eviction law therefore does not apply as the law can only be invoked if the tenants have nowhere else to go.

This makes me think that a gite contract (amended for any prolonged stays up to a max of 3 months) plus proof of a permanent residence is protection enough. With French tenants, the proof of residence is printed on their deposit cheque. With British tenants, you could always ask for their address details - they have then confirmed that they have another address and so you are then protected.

Maybe this will help to abate some of the fear that the scare-stories seem to have provoked.

 

[Fumanzoku]

I got an enquiry today from someone wanting to rent for the six, now five 'winter' months, will take every precaution in light of what's been said.

[Lori]

Ariege - that makes a lot of sense.  I would imagine if it were that easy to take up residence, without paying, it would be done all the time.  Maybe it is, but I haven't heard anyone round here talking about it and those types of things tend to make the rounds. 

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

We had some friends around last night for dinner (first hangover for

six months....). I brought up the original two weeks gite letting

becoming a winter squat as one of them works in the lettings business.

Appearantly, squats obtained by deception are not treated the same as

those obtained by unforced entry. What is meant by this is that if

someone signs an agreement to take a let for, say, two weeks then

refuses to leave at the end and claim squatters rights, they have

obtained entry by deception. Although this does not necessarily mean

that you can get them out in winter any more easily, it does take the

matter from being civil to being criminal. This can make life for the

squatters much more interesting.

Just a thought.

[nimportequoi]

[quote user="Jon"] This can make life for the

squatters much more interesting.

[/quote]

Can you expand on the interesting? Do the owners then have a right to cutting of the electricity in the gite/ changing the locks/ if all this fails sending a few hunter friends around with their guns?

PS The family who arrived  chez moi on Saturday are very nice and don't fall into this category (so far)

[Josephine79]

Dear Ariege,

we have tenants who have been with us for twelve months and the address on their cheques is still that of the place they came to before us, so this should NEVER be taken as being a proof of address. Most commonly in France proof of residence is a utilities bill less than 3 months old.

You need to check and check again against things they can't fake; the name matching a number in the phone book, (for example, for English or French tenants) -  if in doubt ring the number. If they say they only have mobiles ring the mairie of the place they come from - or their next door neighbours (can be found in pages blanches by putting street name without number  and leaving "name" blank).

The whole point is that these people will not tell the truth. In the case I personally experienced they came for "a fortnight" in September and were still there without paying rent come March.

The whole point of the "scare story" is to make property owners more wary: I've had another e-mail tonight telling me a similar story - the people in question have debts and the bailiffs are fed up of chasing them.

I think it's natural to take people at face value, unfortunately you cannot afford to do this when it comes to letting property.

Jo

[Josephine79]

Sorry but if you do any of this you will fall foul of the law which could well end up costing you more.

Bear in mind that the people we are talking about have no assets and nothing to lose. If you give them cause to sue you they will!

[Josephine79]

Yes, BUT........

they're in the wrong, you have an eviction order signed by the judge, but that doesn't mean they'll go.

They have nothing to lose.

Unfortunately if you evict them by force you have plenty to lose.

[Chancer]

Do people with no assets and nothing to lose get free representation (or legal aid) such as in the UK?

I not then what can they do?

[Chancer]

One can also make life difficult without cutting off services.

A restrictor in the water supply reducing it to a trickle means that they would have to gather and store water in buckets to use on demand, I believe that this is what General Des Eau does.

I once resolved a situation where the continual tripping of the electrical RCD and my refusal to investigate until the rent was paid was quite effective. A little electrical knowledge and a radio controlled switching relay goes a long way!

[Frederick]

As an ex landlord renting through a well known South Coast agency in the UK I discovered just what a Short Term Letting Agreement was worth on one occasion.and just how much of a waste of  time an agency could be .Rent stopped being paid...agents wrote to the tenants.....letters were ignored....arrears built up...and .agents were lax in not visiting the property to chase it up. I visited my property to discover the people who had taken out the agreement had  "rented " out the house to three lads and moved on .having got their deposit back from them .... and I was left with what were in fact squatters..... . luckily when I told them to get out and go sleep under the pier they left....  

[Ariège Author]

Josephine

Your tenants probably still have their old address on their cheques because they are in temporary accommodation - I'm presuming they are not on holiday for 12 months?? 

I still think that the proof of address is adequate for GITE owners which was the point of your original post. If the owner decides to extend the let beyond the 3 months maximum for tourist accommodation then the tenant has far more rights and is incredibly protected and as you say more checks need to be carried out.

 

[Josephine79]

Ariege:

what do you mean "temporary accomodation"?

They have signed a three year lease.

But 12 months in to it they still have their previous address on their cheques.

They have doubtless updated their details with the bank and will be receiving bank statements in their present home, but if they have an old cheque book they are entitled to carry on using it. And bearing in mind how few cheques anyone writes these days a chequebook can last for eons.

My point is that an address on a cheque is no form of guarantee that the signatory of the cheque (and your supposedly short term let) actually lives at the place indicated.

Although the gite owner in the case which was the subject of my original post refused to extend the contract for the gite beyond the original fortnight the family just stayed there without paying rent and despite the eviction order obtained against them. The bailiff could do nothing.

A further word of warning. In this case the tenants offered rent for the next month after the end of their "fortnight". The gite owner turned it down because if she had accepted it it would have given them a de facto contract. So they were "occupants sans titre" with a court judgement against them, but when it came down to it they were in the gite and nothing further could be done.

[Josephine79]

Some nice ideas there J.R. . Unfortunately they are already complaining that they will sue because the electricity is unsafe (it isn't) and threatening to call the police if anyone goes round to try and fix it or anything else ..........

[Chief]

[quote user="Josephine79"]Some nice ideas there J.R. . Unfortunately they are already complaining that they will sue because the electricity is unsafe (it isn't) and threatening to call the police if anyone goes round to try and fix it or anything else ..........
[/quote]

 

Pay some heavies, have them moved, and make it clear what the consequences are if they pursue you.  It is only my view, but on principle (ie: having worked myself stupid for what i have), i would have them moved.  Strip the roof, flood them out, white noise them to death, dig a massive wide trench around the property, ensure they never get to sleep day or night, block all access and egress to the property, and if necessary....well we won't even go there in respect of what i would do if i was angry...do whatever you have to to move them on.......by the time i had finished i would have them begging me to let them leave!!

[Fumanzoku]

"Pay some heavies, have them moved, and make it clear what the

consequences are if they pursue you.  It is only my view, but on

principle (ie: having worked myself stupid for what i have), i would

have them moved.  Strip the roof, flood them out, white noise them to

death, dig a massive wide trench around the property, ensure they never

get to sleep day or night, block all access and egress to the property,

and if necessary....well we won't even go there in respect of what i

would do if i was angry...do whatever you have to to move them

on.......by the time i had finished i would have them begging me to let

them leave!!"

Sounds like an average day in (occupied) Palestine. Why not hire a

helicopter gunship Chief? Hover over the house for a few days, strafe

the driveway, drop marines down the chimney... ;)

[Lori]

I think Chief was kidding around a bit.  I think it just shows the level of amazement those of us who try our best to live by the laws feel when abused by those who don't and THEN get no legal help to correct a clearly wrong situation.

 

[Chief]

Your right Lori, i was kidding to an extent.  But the issue you raise is also correct.  theer appears to be no justification in our modern societies for doing things the right way anymore. The question i guess is "Who would you rather be sh*fted by?", some good for nothing freeloading scrote, or a good for nothing freeloading government and judicial system.  Its a sad day when you can no longer look your teenage son in the eye and say crime doesnt pay, get a job and have a good life, buy a home, be a decent citizen, be a good father, etc etc, because it just ins't true anymore, the balance has shifted, we are looked upon as mugs for playing it straight down the line, we are here simply to be bled dry and the government, judiciary, police, etc etc don't care.....were on our own!!

[Frederick]

Chief ....what you say is correct...and was one of the reasons I was happy  to get out of renting .....I was getting nothing but hassle from tenants and the none paying ones  were being advised by the Council not to vacate the property untill I had obtained a court order to get them out....Never mind the fact they may be dissruptivt to others living next door .and they owed me for weeks of none paid rent . It was policy to advise bad tenants in the private sector to ignor orders to vacate  and force landlords to go through the County Courts for eviction orders  . All the council  got  from their actions in my case was to see one more property in the town no longer available for rent to those who needed a home .

[Will]

I'm getting rather confused as to whether we are talking about France, Britain, or both here. I understood the general principles of the law to be rather different in the two countries, the French Napoleonic Code not making the same distinction between civil and criminal matters that British common law does.

I'm also not sure which country Chief is talking about with his comment: "The question i guess is "Who would you rather be sh*fted by?", some good for nothing freeloading scrote, or a good for nothing freeloading government and judicial system.  Its a sad day when you can no longer look your teenage son in the eye and say crime doesnt pay, get a job and have a good life, buy a home, be a decent citizen, be a good father, etc etc, because it just ins't true anymore, the balance has shifted, we are looked upon as mugs for playing it straight down the line, we are here simply to be bled dry and the government, judiciary, police, etc etc don't care.."

It could well be both France and Britain - in fact in view of the points made in the original posts, the comments are equally applicable to France as to Britain. Which rather calls into question the validity of the argument that people move to France because they don't like the way things are going in Britain. I know the less acceptable aspects of society are still there in France, it's just that it's easier for some to ignore them. There was actually a comment made recently on another forum about (I can't remember the exact wording but this was the gist, put a little more bluntly) how good it was to be able to create a community based on a past England, isolated from the bad aspects of real life, and where they could ignore local papers, TV, radio, etc because they were all in a foreign language. They were talking about Brittany, for Christ's sake - I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, but it attracted a lot of support and if the original comment wasn't serious, the replies were.

Sorry, but I didn't move to France to escape Britain, or to create my own idea of a utopia based on England of 40 years ago.

[Llwyncelyn]

Will as you know I was in the law and still am to some extent.  Here and just to challenge the civil side think a little upon the criminal side in the UK

Gone are the days when one can remain silent for now inferences can be made as to silence.

You can now introduce evidence of previous bad conduct.

The Home Secretary is now saying that in relation to the procedures that Parliament has committed the Police to  if they get it wrong don't worry if you truly believe whomever you have arrested is guilty go for it and I will try to make sure the Courts are restricted in what they can or cannot do.

Again DNA and where in the past it was only in relatively serious matters than you had to give DNA it is now for any arrestable offence.  You have no choice.

Of course you cannot really challenge the prosecution witnesses especially if they are the Police for then your client's shield comes down and then they can go for his throat.

Yes I know this is a major divergence from the thread and for which I apologise but there are problems in both countries but I know where I would prefer to be!