Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"Making it too easy to get rid of squatters would expose the most vulnerable people in society to even more abuse, and making it trickier for absentee landlords to get rid of real squatters is considered a fair price to prevent this."

Except this is poorly thought out and not really true.

You can provide better protection for both sides by requiring written and recorded contracts for real property use/rental, just as we do for real property sales today.

"It's not a black & white issue where one side is obviously right and the other one is obviously wrong."

That's because the system is broke and allows abuses by both sides.

View on HN

> You can provide better protection for both sides by requiring written and recorded contracts for real property use/rental, just as we do for real property sales today.

In england there is the "Assured shorthold tenancy agreement" which basically provides a set of rights to tenants and landlords. On the one hand its great as it sets out a clear set of expectations for tenants (24 hours notice of landlord visiting, cant be evicted without notice, deposits must be in third party)

However there is still no fault evictions, which means you can be kicked out for no reason with only 1 months notice.

For the landlord it allows them to reclaim the property at the end of the contract.

However its still the most vulnerable that get evicted.

Just to be clear, a tenant cannot be kicked out after a month. A section 21 notice requires a tenant to hand back possesion in 2 months, if a tenant does not the landlord may make an application to court for a possession order (which WILL be granted if all process followed correctly),the order is served and then if a tenant still doesn't relinquish possession a landlord may apply for an eviction warrant, this gives them the right to employ the bailiff to forcibly kick a tenant out. Depending on the courts and bailiff availability this process may take anywhere between 6 weeks and several months on top of the initial 2 months. The costs are often a loss for the landlord. 'Kicked out' was just a turn of phrase but I thought it should be clear in this context.

As for the most vulnerable, ime it is common for social tenants, that is councils and housing associations (who are compelled by law to offer affordable rents) to have assured tenancies, which do not allow no fault evictions. And if not then there is an extra notice period of 6 months plus 2 months for the section 21.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/...

There is of course a crisis of availability of all rental properties so the most vulnerable overlap social and private sectors.

Sorry thank you for providing a much better and accurate overview of the law. It is most appreciated.

So what happens when the law requires a contract yet the landlord doesn't offer a contract and simply collects the rent?

It's an illegal operation. Under that sort of restriction, any building occupied would either need to be occupied by the registered owner or have a registered lease. If those aren't found, the people are evicted. The point is to ensure that everyone knows that you need to have a registered document to stay somewhere so nobody takes those deals. Then on the landlord side, you need to enforce substantial fines for any that have offered unofficial leases and surveillance for property owners that have repeat offenses - both to protect the owner from repeated squating and also to catch any owner bypassing the law.

I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage.

There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing.

Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than landlord. Fighting illegal stuff that do landlord is long (usually longer than kicking out a squatter) and difficult. And you have little incentive to do it as a tenant : being in a fight with your landlord = being sure to have problem down the line

My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry.

"My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry."

These are enforcement problems, not squatter problems. As you've said, the things the landlords are doing are already illegal. In the US we have Attorney General offices that will handle housing cases on behalf of tenants.

Both parties can benefit from better enforcement and written and recorded leases. Penalties for landlords leasing without recorded agreements may be more easily enforced that under the current system.

This asymmetry makes enforcement easier when it profits the landlord, and make enforcement more difficult when it benefits the tenant... Your reflection seems based on the idea that there is a symmetry on the enforcement

The enforcement is inconsistent or a drag on both sides already. I've seen both sides in the US. Enforcement benefiting the tenant is quite common.

I appreciate your response. I feel the same as the other commenter: the asymmetry between "a steep fine" and "losing your home" is enormous. But "what happens if the fine is enormous" (say, the landlord also stands to lose their home) is an interesting thought experiment - how big does the punishment need to be to "fix" the power imbalance?

That's not really a functional asymmetry. All you need is to pass a minimal threshold to disincentivize the behavior. A fine that outweighs potential illegal rent performs that task.

It also depends on what you mean by losing one's home. That's not an issue for people who would sign the written agreements. Afain, we want a disincentive to informal agreements, including from renters and squatters. I'm not sure how you can equate loss of ownership with loss of temporary use.

In England, if no contract exists but rent is being paid a tenant has quite alot of implied rights in law. Though enforcement of these rights would normally fall to larger organisations such as charities or councils rather than individual tenants. I remember a news story where a landlord was accepting casual rent for beds in sheds in the garden of a rented property who was brought to justice because the sheds were not habitable buildings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com