Hacker News Reader

Comment by raxxorrax | Hacker News Reader

And people say that startups often operate not in line with market trends.

In Europe such debt collectors are notorious for very direct intimidation. But people at least still call them gangs instead of startups.

View on HN

You don’t just knock on people’s door and start putting their things out. There is a legal process and you have to get approval from the court. I’m assuming they are doing it legally.

They do mostly. They also like to remind you of their intend with batons and knifes on their belt. Violence is implied, not enacted. They stay within the confines of the law.

When I was a landlord, rule 101 is that you don’t go near the tenant while the eviction process was winding its way through court. Also, police are monitoring the process on the day of the conviction.

Edit: Does someone care to share how the above statement is factually incorrect?

Makes sense and is perfectly understandable. Many people here actually let the renting be done by third party managing companies. Sure, that also costs you, but you can often save you quite some headaches. Even or especially if your tenants are friends of yours. Don't know the rates, but some even continue to pay you the rent if the tenant stops paying.

It’s hard enough to be cash flow positive with rental real estate for a single property. Especially when you consider the 75% occupancy rate that is considered the industry norm - at least when you go for a bank loan and need to count it as income - then you have the normal repair expenses and prepping for new tenants.

Then you add on the cost of a management company - 10% of rent + up to 50% of the first month’s rent. The only people who I know that can stay cash flow positive are those with no or a low mortgage and/or are very hands on with maintenance and repairs.

I wouldn't assume that. The housing crash indicated how many institutions were playing fast and loose with the law

I didn’t see any reports of banks in the US showing up to people’s doors, coming into their house and removing their stuff. Everything around the loan and foreclosure may have been shady, but the actual eviction is usually above board by the banks.

Right, but we're not talking about banks. We're talking about a startup company enacting enforcement with untrained workers against the will of a person having the law enforced on them.

We've watched other companies in the startup space with lives on the line cut corners---What are the odds that this is going to go well?

There is no evidence that the startup is doing anything differently than landlords have been doing legally for years.

After you go through the eviction process, you schedule someone from the sheriff’s office to monitor the process and you get some day laborers if you don’t know anyone personally.

The other startups are in danger of civil penalties and fines. If you go into your own rental property and evict someone illegally, you personally can be charged with trespassing, assault, criminal threats, etc.

I'm not sure why you'd assume they're operating legally. Violating the law was the USP for Uber, Airbnb and various other valley startups. It's a proven model.

The others just took risks of civil penalties. There are criminal penalties if you evict someone forcible and unlawfully.

It’s really not even worth the civil penalties. The tenants can stay on your property longer and even when you do evict them, lawyers love suing landlords on a contingency basis.

Criminal penalties the gig workers would be liable for. I'm sure this startup has hired the best lawyers to make sure that liability doesn't extend to them.

Liability is a civil matter. If I tell a bunch of thugs to harass store owners for money, the cops can come after me.

But if you tell a bunch of thugs to do a job with ill specified parameters, and they try to solve the problem by harassing store owners, you can blame them for obviously going outside the bounds of intent, right?

You run a legitimate protection business. Of course you wouldn't extort money by breaking store owners' legs. ;)

Setting up a situation where there is risk of breakdown and structuring that situation so if the breakdown happens, all of the responsibility falls on the gig workers who lack the means to defend themselves and none of it falls on the company making all the money is an already understood pathology of the gig economy. Uber has spent so much time, effort, and money trying to convince legislatures and courts that they don't have any employees providing ride services for a reason.

There is really only one guideline to eviction procedures after you have won the court case - at least in my state. You must wait for someone from the sheriff’s office.

The sheriff is responsible for removing the person. You and your crew that you have hired is responsible for removing items and changing the locks. You aren’t responsible for any damage to personal items or what happens when you put them on the side of the road - where you are legally required to put the items at least for a single tenant house.

Not more intimidating than occupying someone else’s property, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com