Tenant problem

zaino22 wrote: ↑ The one who said rents going up or less people willing to rent their place is because of this tilt towards tenants you are correct my wife said the same thing. My next tenants will have lots of screenings, if we decide to get tenants again.

Someone said try gay people they are better tenants.

As for drain, there is no dishwasher and they claim they are not draining grease. If they were not and this was new pit when they moved in then obviously they did put grease. If someone throws stuff that does not belong in drain (like toy, grease, Sanitary
Pads, diapers) isn’t it constitute negligence ? City warns residents not to drain grease and collect it outside. Since city cannot determine perhaps who did it they cannot come after them? This is my argument but I am not rigid if someone has better suggestion and think I am overboard on this claim and LTB May throw it out due to Grey area, I will reconsider.

After non payment of rent, tenants have many chances to pay even before sheriff shows up and N4 gets null and void. System need to differentiate abusers/violators. Once N4 is issued it should be registered whether tenant pays later. And after certain number of N4 issued for the same tenant there should be quick eviction, no lengthy process.

If I go to LTB and get judgment against tenant for non payment of rent and damages then if money not paid I should be able to put this on their credit, like any other non payment. If even small claims court cannot recover money and help me then where should Landlord turn to. That’s why Uncle Tony is so busy.
I would not call uncle Tony nor I would be unfair to my next tenants but after this experience we are not the same.
Premier said without thinking don’t pay rent. Landlord do not have endless money pit. I estimate my tenants would owe me 12-15K when they leave. I could have spent this money on anything but now I am forced to fork out.

zaino22 wrote: ↑ The one who said rents going up or less people willing to rent their place is because of this tilt towards tenants you are correct my wife said the same thing. My next tenants will have lots of screenings, if we decide to get tenants again.

Someone said try gay people they are better tenants.

As for drain, there is no dishwasher and they claim they are not draining grease. If they were not and this was new pit when they moved in then obviously they did put grease. If someone throws stuff that does not belong in drain (like toy, grease, Sanitary
Pads, diapers) isn’t it constitute negligence ? City warns residents not to drain grease and collect it outside. Since city cannot determine perhaps who did it they cannot come after them? This is my argument but I am not rigid if someone has better suggestion and think I am overboard on this claim and LTB May throw it out due to Grey area, I will reconsider.

After non payment of rent, tenants have many chances to pay even before sheriff shows up and N4 gets null and void. System need to differentiate abusers/violators. Once N4 is issued it should be registered whether tenant pays later. And after certain number of N4 issued for the same tenant there should be quick eviction, no lengthy process.

If I go to LTB and get judgment against tenant for non payment of rent and damages then if money not paid I should be able to put this on their credit, like any other non payment. If even small claims court cannot recover money and help me then where should Landlord turn to. That’s why Uncle Tony is so busy.
I would not call uncle Tony nor I would be unfair to my next tenants but after this experience we are not the same.
Premier said without thinking don’t pay rent. Landlord do not have endless money pit. I estimate my tenants would owe me 12-15K when they leave. I could have spent this money on anything but now I am forced to fork out.

zaino22 wrote: ↑ I was out of town and used a friend to find them. Account breakdown mean should I ask potential tenant bank statements or just “if you you claim to make $5K per month how do you spend it in a month” sort of? As far as lawyer is concerned, there is no lawyer but paralegals who do this and some told they used paralegal and wasn’t worth it but I think I know what you mean. They have been thru process and can put case in a way that has more chances of success. In the future I plan to look at credit score as well as professionals and probably max 2 years because from 2+years they start to act if they partially own the property.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ Don't get me wrong I am all for changing the system - there is a lot wrong with the current rules. But I disagree that as a taxpayer I should be subsidizing someone's investment. Are you ok with subsidizing corporations who pay me dividends?

fuelmizer[u wrote:cowboy post_id=34544435 time=1622499204 user_id=513884]
The idea is personal responsibility, and far too many tenants lack it. No one is asking for a subsidy: But when a property owner says "get out", it shouldn't take months (or years).

zaino22 wrote: ↑ @Jay you are right sexual orientation cannot determine good tenants much like color of skin or cultural background. I think as human being we look for quick solutions and if one person had good experience they insist it’s the “only” way.

You are right next tenant would have to do a lot more to win my trust. I have heard recently tenants were asked to pay 6 month or even 1 year rent in advance because there was much interest in properties. I won’t be unfair to next tenants but not easy target like I am for current tenants.

I am not surprised at how tenants taking advantage since laws are so much in their favour and they made landlord look people with endless money pit.
Also tells me why some people quit being Landlords because after bad experience they simply are done dealing with scum bags, which translates into less properties for potential tenants.

Saniokca wrote: ↑
In my opinion, if someone invested in real estate and is not getting a return on their investment, taxpayers should not be the ones subsidizing it.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ But don't you think that by closing courts and banning evictions, taxpayers are essentially seizing property?

What if they said: grocery stores aren't allowed to close, must continue to sell all food as usual, but there will be zero enforcement of shoplifting?

Saniokca wrote: ↑ I think I asked you before - are you willing to subsidize my dividends from Riocan? Royalties from restaurant stocks? Etc.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ I think I asked you before - are you willing to subsidize my dividends from Riocan? Royalties from restaurant stocks? Etc.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ I think I asked you before - are you willing to subsidize my dividends from Riocan? Royalties from restaurant stocks? Etc.

lechan wrote: ↑
Let say the stock market tanked 20%, you are allow to quit and sell right away. However as a landlord, when your have a tenant is not paying rent, don't even have the option to sell and cut your loss because at this moment no one is going to buy your property if it is tenanted. A more fair approach is when you decided to sell your property, it should be automatic eviction if the next owner doesn't want to assume the previous tenant.

CNeufeld wrote: ↑
It’s not really the same, though. The government as good as told tenants that they could stop paying their rent and there would be no ramifications to them.

If you want to use your examples, it would be the closer to the government telling the companies that there would be no consequences to them if they stopped paying their contractually obligated royalties.

C

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ And I said no, it's a different issue.

I don't think owners deserve a ball out if tenants can't pay due to recession. They should plan financially for recessions, even depressions.

But asking them to plan for government seizing their assets is entirely different.

I wouldn't be in favour of any support if courts remainded open (which they did in Quebec except for 3 months so this is mostly an academic argument in this province).

Ontario's government just outright expropriated people. If they can do it to some, they can do it to you tomorrow.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ You do have the option to sell though and, at the right price, someone would buy. If your property is worth 700k, I would imagine if you gave 20%-30 discount (i.e. 140k-210k) you would find a buyer who is willing to deal with the problematic tenant. It's the same as with stocks: at the right price there will always be a buyer (sometimes even after insolvency). But again, every asset class has its own risks, and as someone correctly pointed out one of the risks is governmental. By the way, look at the prices of income trusts right after Flaherty's 2006 announcement to tax them...



He did walk it back and say to pay rent, if one can. Did he handle it well? No. My point about companies was that the restaurants were ordered to close so by the same logic that's also seizing property and investors who rely on the dividends should be compensated. As I said before, I think neither should be compensated.



Why are you against "seizing" property of landlords but ok with "seizing" properties of investors into restaurants?

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ But…. Restaurants and other businesses got subsidies to keep their businesses going. Tenants got CERB. What did the small landlords get?

I’m not a tenant or landlord, and I’m not even in Ontario. But I do think the Ontario landlords in particular got the shaft. But even before all this went down, I wouldn’t want to be a landlord in Ontario.

C