E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tom Shaw / Getty Images, file
An aerial view of houses in Leyton, east London, in the borough of Waltham Forest, one of the five so-called Olympic Boroughs.
LONDON -- Landlords in Britain's capital are evicting tenants so they can cash in on this summer's Olympic Games by charging tourists many times the usual rent.
Homes in the east London boroughs where many events are to be held are fetching between five and 15 times their typical rates as properties are rebranded as short-term "Olympic lets." Some landlords are also enforcing expensive "penalty" clauses for tenants who want to remain during the gathering of the world's top athletes.
Rent controls are almost non-existent in Britain and some Londoners told msnbc.com that the looming increase in housing costs will leave them with no choice but to leave the city for the summer.
While the Olympic Village will house some 22,000 athletes along with 6,000 coaches and officials, countless tourists, athletes' families, journalists and sponsors will be left to jostle with 7.8 million residents for places to sleep. The accommodation crunch is expected to be so severe that some residents are planning to rent out their backyards to campers during the Games – which begin July 27.
"We're [seeing] landlords beginning to evict their tenants," Antonia Bance, head of campaigns for housing charity Shelter, told msnbc.com. "Lots of letting agents are writing clauses into contracts being signed saying you can live here with the exception of this period [during the Olympics]."
Oda / Getty Images
From Wimbledon to Wembley Stadium to The Dome, a look at the venues for the 2012 London Olympic Games.
Those who are evicted or displaced by huge rent increases – as well as other tenants looking to move in July and August – will struggle to find affordable alternatives due to the temporary influx of tourists paying higher rates, experts say.
"It's all to do with supply and demand, and there's a shortage of stock," Matthew Martin, Greater London area lettings director for real estate agency Your-Move, told msnbc.com.
As the summer approaches, he said, "there are going to be opportunists ... people are going to pay an extortionate amount."
'I don't think it's right'
Shelter's Bance described the case of a couple in the Newham area who will be renting out the three-bedroom house they own in a former public housing project for 15,000 pounds ($23,600) for three weeks. The average rental price of a three-bedroom property in the borough is 1,189 pounds ($1,870) per month.
In the Dalston neighborhood, one-bedroom apartments that normally fetch around 300 pounds ($475) per week are now being advertised at 1,625 pounds ($2,575) per week.
And in Kentish Town, which is a 25-minute train journey from the new Olympic Stadium, a five-bedroom home is being advertised at 10,000 pounds ($15,845) per week during the Games.
It is difficult to know how many Londoners will be priced out of the city as landlords woo Olympic visitors, but interviews with property experts, real estate agents, tenants, prospective landlords and tourism-industry specialists suggest it will not be an isolated problem.
Joanna Doniger, owner of private rental company Tennis London, which finds short-term lets for players at the Wimbledon tournament, opened a new division of the company called Accommodate London last year after being bombarded with hundreds of calls from homeowners hoping to rent out their properties during the Olympics.
Doniger said she has been disappointed to discover that many prospective clients are actually investor-landlords who are kicking out their long-term tenants.
"I've had to take them into the corridor and say, 'What's this about?'" she said. "I just don't think it's right."
One of those who agrees with Doniger is David Brown. The 25-year-old moved into the top three floors of an old rowhouse above a shop in Whitechapel, east London, with four other people last October.
It took him two months to find something he could afford – he and two university friends had to search for two other housemates online before anything was in their price range.
Scotland Yard and the Royal marines teamed up in a show of strength against terrorists who might target the Olympics, practiced high speed drills using helicopters and boats on the River Thames.
As he drew up his contract, though, the real estate agent was adamant about one thing: if they weren’t out by July 15 – just 12 days before the opening ceremonies -- their rent would jump from 660 pounds ($1,020) per week to a "penalty" rate of 3,000 pounds ($4,635) per week.
Brown told msnbc.com he can't possibly afford that with a fledgling tutoring business and the temp work he's doing on the side. They'll be moving out.
"I'm actually considering taking up a job in Japan" teaching English, he said. "I'm not fleeing the Olympics, I really want to be here … The thing is, landlords can get away with charging that much more."
Because of the economic downturn, rental prices have risen dramatically in the past 18 months with fewer new properties being built. Some pockets of the city have seen spikes of 15 to 18 percent – which has only exacerbated the looming Olympic housing squeeze.
For instance, the average rental price for a two-bedroom property in the five Olympic boroughs – Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest – is 1,113 pounds ($1,751) per month, according to Shelter's 2011 Private Rent Watch report.
Darren Rebeiro, business development manager for real estate agency Keatons, which is affiliated with tourism body Visit London, said that five times the normal market rate is the agency's common short-term asking price during the Games in the Stratford area – where the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium is located. He said clients were "happy" to pay those rates.
Elsewhere in London, tourists can expect to pay four times the usual price this summer. However, Rebeiro said some agencies are seeking up to nine times the market rate.
Part of the problem is that the east London boroughs around the Olympic sites are some of the poorest parts of the city and already have the highest rate of evictions. Most people pay anywhere from 55 to 70 percent of their monthly wage on rent, according to Shelter's 2011 report. A "sensible" amount to pay is closer to a third, Bance said.
Sign it or leave
The U.K.'s Housing Act of 1988 allows landlords to raise rents at the end of a lease – usually 6 months to a year in London – as long as they give two months' notice to their tenants. If the tenant disagrees with the increase there is very little they can do; the landlord can serve them with an eviction notice at the end of a contract without giving a reason why. And if the tenant refuses to leave, a court will support the landlord and will send a bailiff to remove the tenant from the property.
Furthermore, many people's contracts are "roll on" agreements that continue on from month to month without a fixed end date. In those cases landlords can raise the rent at any time with one month's notice. Additionally, there are no limits or regulations on how much a landlord can increase rent.
"If a landlord comes with a new tenancy agreement and says, 'Sign it and stay or go,' there's nothing [tenants] can do," Chris Hellings, advice line supervisor for Britain's National Landlords Association, told msnbc.com. "They either have to take it or go."
Vincenzo Rampulla, spokesman for the National Landlords Association, told msnbc.com that evicting tenants wasn't necessarily going to be a smart financial decision for landlords.
"Do they really want to kick out the tenant who's been paying on time all year … or are they going to want to squeeze out as much as they can for the Olympics, which is only a few weeks?" he asked.
However, Rampulla acknowledged that some landlords would be seeking to take advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by cashing in.
"I know people get crazy during these kinds of things," he said.
People who own their homes, of course, are on the opposite side of the accommodation crunch, with those who can arrange to be away for several weeks in position to rake in considerable extra cash.
Kia Ramsay, 29, told msnbc.com that local real estate agents have been slipping leaflets under the door of her Tower Hamlets apartment for months – lately, one or two a day – about opportunities during the Olympics. The three-bedroom apartment, which she owns with her 39-year-old fiancé, is already desirable for being so close to London’s financial hub in Canary Wharf. Its appeal is even greater this summer because the marina below her building is being used for boats ferrying people to the Olympic sites.
Simon Brown, a British soldier shot in the head while serving in Iraq, has been chosen as one of the 2012 Olympic torch bearers. He tells NBC's Miriam Firestone about his experiences.
"We thought to ourselves, well, let’s see what we can get out of this?" she said. Preliminary research on property rental websites gave Ramsay, a physiotherapist, tantalizing estimates for the reasonably high-end property: roughly 30,000 pounds ($47,199) for two months, she said.
"We were thinking about popping off somewhere because it's going to a nightmare anyway getting around London," she said. Recently, she placed an ad on spareroom.co.uk and is meeting with Doniger, of Accommodate London, for an official appraisal and professional photographs in a few weeks. She said if she can get between 3,000 and 4,000 pounds ($4,719 and $6,293) per week, it would be worth doing.
In addition to the short-term rentals, spare rooms and even couches are being advertised to Olympic visitors. A website called campinmygarden.com has also been launched as a cheap way for people to set up tents temporarily in backyards. One listing offers space in a "tranquil and lovely garden with shade … on one of the nearest Victorian streets to the west of the Olympic Stadium" for prices starting at 27 pounds ($43) per person per night.
Its homepage features a large picture of British Olympians with the date of the opening ceremony prominently displayed.
Follow Marian Smith on Twitter at @msmith_msnbc
Leave a Comment:
These guys make NY landlords look good. Talk about Sleazy and just plain exploitive. If I were a tenant I would never return to that area.
Possibility of making 20k-40k for 1-2 months of rent.... Just insane huh
This happens in every city that has hosted the Olympics in the past few decades. It's a quadrennial story. And, as noted by others below, it happens for other major annual events. There are never enough "hotel rooms" for any such big events.
Does Haliburten have any real-estate holdings in the area?
That's one way of solving entreched illegal aliens issues, I wonder why we havent thought of that....
Good for London, it's a free world, they earned the right to own property, they have the right to charge whatever if not breaking any laws....
We are in a global recession, anything to create capital anywhere in the world positively affects our dollar...
You've just got to love the Olympics. From crooked judging to illegal drugs to China's building a huge center for the games but not paying the workers, and here we have price gouging for housing. Can't we just do away with this travesty of sports? It's as bad as politics: there's a dozen scandals every time it comes around. I know that a bunch of lazy wannabes love to sit around pretending that they are somehow associated with the athletes by osmosis. They would do better getting up and jogging their fat butts around the block a few times. Then, at least, they could feel a real sense of athletic accomplishment.
I would never return to the area if a landlord pulled that. The other side you could do is to trash it on the way out so both end up losers...then they can spend time looking to find out where you went as well.
This is wrong on all levels. So screw the landlords...
It sounds like the London of Charles Dickens! The same sort of social abuses he was protesting against in his novels are still rampant there apparently.
Can't say I blame the landlords since the money is too good to resist. I blame the idiots who are willing to pay such astronomical rates just to see a sporting event. It's the same thing with the Superbowl and all the rest. Professional sports are incredibly overvalued.
Yes, now I understand why some people think Americans are better off renting than owning.
I haven't read one post about this problem is created by the Socialist in England.
It's just smart business. Supply and demand... Can't blame the landlords at all.
Dunkin H,
That is the same logic that is used to justify many unethical actions, the money was just too good. To blame those that are willing to pay that amount is flawed logic, those that are willing to pay the high prices are also the ones that would be willing to pay much less for the same property if they had the option.
The gouging was created by a lack of housing, not by a glut of idiotic consumers.
DunkinH has it right. We, as the viewing public, have made this idea of "sports viewing" such a rich person's "business."
Sports is no longer a recreational enterprise. It is strictly a commercial enterprise. Until we, as the "buying public" stop supporting such crass commercialism, it is not going to get better.
Since when is an athlete worth more than a brain or heart surgeon? This is assinine.
Remember when the Olympics was strictly for amateurs? No longer. Now, professional "athletes" competing in a series of international games to further the idea of international power.
Doc
A: What the heck does this story have to do with illegal aliens? This isn't about landlords evicting illegal aliens to make way for legal visitors, its about landlords evicting good, solid tenants to make more money.
B: Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. I suppose if your landlord evicted you so they could put in a visitor for a few weeks and a higher price, you would have no problems with that? Or if the company holding your mortgage said "You know, technically WE own the house, so we'd like you to vacate for a few weeks while we rent to the tourists. Otherwise you will owe us 5 times your usual mortgage payment." You'd be cool with that, right? Anything to create capital.
@Jarhead In WI They have the option of not going and watching in on television. Don't you know anything about supply and demand? And yes, anyone willing to pay that much just because of a sporting event is an idiot.
As far as your "unethical" thing goes, tough. The tenants signed the paperwork agreeing to this. Its easy for you to sit back and say you'd do the "ethical" thing when you're not looking at the prospect of raking in a quick and easy 20-50 grand.
...
I feel that the committee that decides where to have the Olympics should have to makesure that there are enough places to rent during those times that are not going to effect those all ready living in those towns or surrounding towns. I do not believe in price gouging no matter what..just like the laws and rules for gas and other items during hurricanes and other major emergencies. People and their greed are shameful. Just goes to show you how much greed there is in the world. Why should the honest people that have lived in those place be put out for the rich. I feel if any countries are found to be doing this type of low handed things should never be able to sponser the Olympics again.
Welcome to Capitalism!!
And here I didn't think there were Republicans in the UK
Alfred P. Doolittle (a London dustman): "I'm getting evicted in the morning! Ding Dong my doorbell's gonna chime!...Pull out the stopper! Let's have a whopper!..."
One comment i have to make,when they see what they are getting for the money they will be sorely dissapointed. Take this form a former brit .
No different there than here. Have any doubts? Look at what hotels charges guests that stay for a week, monthly rentals. They get tossed out on their @sses the week before the Nascar races, so hotels can charge 500 dollars for 3 day stays.
This would be a great time to boycott the games till they get some bi-laws in place to protect people from being price gouged.
No Republicans in the UK? Hah. Capitalism built the UK like it built Europe. Then the socialists came along and destroyed the European economy.
thing is, you can say you will never return to the area all you want. the landlord doesnt care, and most times you make such a remark do you actually follow thru with it, when it comes to cost just to get to work and back if you have to move further away? its a catch 22, you pay it or you dont, but the landlord gets their $$ for rent either way, with or without you. Add into the fact a cheap rowhouse goes for over $1,200.00 mo rent? i never had to pay yet for any rent over $500 mo cant afford to on a single budget. thats before the hi-jacked rental costs. just sic.
I wouldn't go to London to take a crap there...
Doc - Don't hold your breath waiting for those London pounds from London landowners to find their way to your pocket. What an idiot.
This story sounds like the perfect premise for that long awaited followup blockbuster book by that popular British novelist....what was his name....oh yeah!, Charles Dickens. "Bah, humbug, are there no poor houses, have they closed the prisons".
This recurring lack of planning is one of those, "I can't believe everyone is so stupid" moments that make you wonder WTF can they be thinking about....after all they have lots of time to plan one of these things as the selections take place years in advance.
It's kind of like someone shooting a gun at you that has a slow motion bullet that only goes a couple inches a day, and all you gotta do is step to one side, but you never do....instead you just keep backing up until you hit a wall, and then you scream bloody murder for what seems like forever until the lead finally tears into you and strikes you dead.
Crazy!
What does this story have to do with sexual preference?
;)
Bring in the Cruise Ships.
A dozen cruise ships should be able to handle the overflow nicely.
.
@Frosty : "Remember when the Olympics was strictly for amateurs? No longer. Now, professional "athletes" competing in a series of international games to further the idea of international power."
I remember very well. I stopped watching the Olympic Games years ago, when it became professional. I even stopped watching the openings. It has become a competition to be better than last host. A debauchery of extremes and extravagance. Remember the chinese little girl who sang but was hidden because not pretty enough and instead a pretty one was put on stage and she was faking the singing ?
I remember in 1968 in Mexico, when a French woman ran and won. She was a teacher and practised during her free time. She didn't have any trainers, masseurs, etc... She did it on her own and it was her success and hers alone. She deserved her medal. Nowadays, even if you win, it is a team and government successes, considering how much each government is paying its athletes to compete. Not worth anymore my viewing and I refuse to participate in such a travesty that has become the Olympics.
Pierre de Coubertin must be turning in his grave to see what has become of his dream.
For the people saying that "the tenants shouldn't sign the agreement if they don't want to pay", try to put yourself in the tenant's shoes. I had to look for housing in London when I went there to study abroad for a few months. If you're looking for short term low-priced housing then you have to take what you can get. For instance, I'd browse websites like spareroom and Accommodation for London several times a day. However as soon as a post came up, it'd be gone within the hour. That's how high the demand is. You're super lucky if 1. you can find a place in your desired location and price range and 2. you can actually get there fast enough to get your hands on the contract.
Now imagine you're reading that contract and you notice some disagreeable clause. If you try to negotiate with the landlord at all, they'll tell you to get out because they have about ten people in line behind you who have no problem signing the contract. Then you're back on the street, at square one, desperately trying to find housing. It might be weeks before you get your hands on a contract again.
And if it *is* a short term lease (less than 6 months) then you will certainly be paying on a week to week basis. I mean, it is absolutely insane what these people can do. And good luck trying to sue them. All your money will be gone since you spent it on overpriced rent.
Also, if you're a short term international (like millions in London), you won't be able to pursue a case against the landlord since you have to go home soon. On top of that, it makes looking for housing even harder because you don't know your rights and you have no place to stay while doing so.
Literally, the choice is to sign the contract, warts and all, or end up on the street looking for a place to live. It may be legal for the landlords to do that but it is certainly not a system that protects the consumer and I would say that it is absolutely wrong what they can do. Definitely a result of GREEDY CAPITALISM and not socialism.
Most British housing (rowhouses, flats) is older, worn, crowded, and not up to tourist-rental standards. Units are certainly not worth what even current tenants are paying. And during the Olympics, London will be so overwhelmed with people that it will likely be unpleasant.
Tourists should simply avoid England this summer during the Olympics. Vacation in a nicer place and watch the Olympics (if you wish) on TV.
London = Beijing. Brilliant!
Must be the guys who worked for BP, and bribed a Scottish judge to release a terrorist.
Haha. Yeah, it worked great in New Orleans . . . I think FEMA may still have some toxic trailers they could ship over for a tidy sum as well ;)
We've been to London several times and have rented a flat for a week or two. While small, they were delightful and it certainly gave one a feel for the neighborhood and lifestyle. We never stay in a hotel if we can help it. But the rents have been higher than here in the states. It was always less than a hotel, though.
Rents in any big city are horrible. But the area where they are holding the Olympics is not the best area of London. And while transportation there is better than excellent, it promises to be an over -priced madhouse.
Better to watch it on TV. Why would anyone punish themselves like that. Enjoy London when it's quiet.
Hey here is an idea, they started inGreece, lets keep them there ! No politics, no gouging and all involved will know every 4 that the weather, location and scheduling would always be the same. Makes it a true Olymipics if the conditions are always the same and athelets can truely prove they are better than the previous Oly winners.
I am a very small landlord myself and as a landlord, I find that what the landlord's in the area to be impacted by the Olympics to be disgraceful. I hope that the addresses and units impacting the tenants (who in that part of London are probably very hard working people) are highly publicized and put out in print. Once the greedy landlords have cashed in I hope that their units are boycotted, and sit empty with zero incoming rent. Wanton greed will get a landlord nowhere. I have a very hardworking, honest tenant who I would never dream of evicting in order to hit some idiotic jackpot for a period of a few weeks. My tenant has been there for years. Long term stability with a tenant and good human/neighbor relation polices will always win over greed anyday. Shame on them not only as landlords but as community members.
This sounds so USA style...
Wait! You mean to say one human being would screw over another human being for a short term profit? THIS is definitely news! We should all learn from this new lesson and now consider ourselves wiser in the ways of the world.
I don't really think this is all bad so much as inconvenient. Yeah, it sucks not to have thousands to pay for a slum apartment for 3 weeks or so but maybe it's a needed break. A chance to get out of the slums and take a vacation- maybe on a park bench or something.
No, but seriously, if I were a landlord I would have no reservations in kicking someone to the curb to make a few extra bucks. I mean, that's the point of being a landlord, right? It's not UNICEF lord, it's land lord. Now where's my money?! You got money to buy fake mustaches so where's ma money!?
No, but seriously, maybe the landlords could offer to reduce the rent for a month as a consolation for the inconvenience. I would do that. NOT! I would totally kick my lousy tennants to the curb. I wouldn't even have the respect to spell 'tennants' properly. I wouldn't even pretend I knew how to spell it. Does this box have spellcheck? I don't know but if I made extra money from the Olympics I could afford a better computer that spell checked everything. There's your motive! Kick out the tennants to buy a new computer that will spell check and spell their name properly in order to give respect.
Something like that...
Alright, how about this solution for all those bleeding hearted, creatively deficient people in that landlord position.
Rather than just kick someone out why not offer to put them up in (or partially subsidize) a reasonably priced hotel outside the city for a short time while the prices inside the city are ridiculous? Or if you REALLY feel bad, why not offer to split the profits and have a good laugh at those tourist idiots willing to subsidize your own great dinner together?
Seriously, it doesn't have to be a Dickensonian affair at all and it would be poor business to ignore the opportunity. Isn't the whole point of a city bringing the Olympics in for the money it brings along with it? Shouldn't a landlord take advantage of that, especially in this economy?
That's socialism for you :-)
Of course the article omits the incredible boon the rentals have also provided to your standard homeowner:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8661852/London-2012-Olympics-Go-for-Olympic-gold-by-renting-your-home-Landlords-and-owners-stand-to-profit-from-London-2012.html
And anyone who thought this didn't happen in Atlanta in 1996 is just plain naive (Or Athens, Barcelona, Sydney etc) :
http://tenant.net/alerts/mega-events/Olympics_Media_Release.pdf
DunkinH,
I am well versed in the theory of supply and demand, and the fact that there is a shortage of tourism housing in London for the Olympic spectators is the driving force behind the high prices.
The ability to read a full article allows for the gleaning of facts that states that there is a shortage of accommodations. There was nothing that I was able to find stating that the demand for housing was any higher at these games than any in the past, thereby leading me to believe that the demand has remained constant but the supply has dropped off driving the price up.
As for your opinion of anyone willing to pay that much to view a sporting event being an idiot, well lets just say jealousy is very common in people with your attributes.
Ethics are not something that are based on a sliding scale due on the amount of money on the line, they are something that are in place all the time; regardless of who has signed what. And yes, I can and have walked away from an easy 20-50 grand, and I am able to still live with myself to this day, because I did the right thing. It is not difficult if you know what the right thing to do is.
For some these concepts are not difficult to understand, for others, impossible. That being said I am guessing you will continue to argue against them.
Once again one of the ugliest sides of humanity is exposed - greed. Come to think of it, this is what drives practically our whole economic system - supply and demand: as supply goes down, prices go up, in this case WAY up. Now this situation here is temporary, so it is plain and simple greed. (It happened at the 1984 LA Summer Olympics.) England oughta tax the @!$%# out of this windfall.
This isn't capitalism-- this is just greed. There is a difference.
What is the economic value of anything? What you are willing to pay. If I want to pay $100 for a new pair of shoes and you want to pay $150 I have no real complaint if the seller sells the shoes to you. I can complain all I want about how I need the shoes to protect my feet since I have diabetes but the reality is that it is not my right to set what you sell something for. For the people displaced I can offer nothing, my home is too far away, but I think the temmporary gain will cost the landlords in the long run since they will be unable, my guess, to replace the tenants in a quick enough time to avoid losing more than they gained.
movingout: from your nonsensical wording, I seriously doubt you are a landlord of anysort whatsoever. If you were to become one, I think you would rapidly find your way of (ir)rational thinking is not only illegal (in most regions), but your attitude would find you without any tenants thus sending the mortgage note right back to your door with zero cash flow with that kind of lack of concern or responsibility.
They did this during Los Angeles in 1984, Salt Lake in 2002, and various other places and in early July we are going to see stories about all these vacant places that are not rented and how prices has collapsed and that the landlords and temporary rental agencies have hundreds if not thousands of available spaces. I could go find the google news stories from that time but whats the point . . . . we all know that people get greedy and end up with basically nothing when they do - we will see some places going for LESS than their normal rental when the crunch comes, its 2 weeks out, all the tourists already have their lodgings and air and olympic tickets and there are no more inquiries . . . .
Have fun everyone - don't forget I told you
there areva LOT of people here who fail to remember one little thing- in a free market society, demand sets the price. The owner has the right to rent his/her property for what the market will bear. We Americans have forgotten this. Here we have scumbags in government telling property owners how much rent they can charge, how much they can raise the rent each year, prevent rent increases, sometimes for decades, hell, even who you MUST rent to. In one small instance, the British landlord actually has MORE civil rights than an American one does. It took me 3 months to evict SQUATTERS from a house I bought that was supposedly vacant. Then, I had to spend $10000 dollars to replace the plumbing. It seems the squatters decided that being evicted, they should take it with them.
If I was 1 of those being evicted the only thing that would be keft of the place would be ashes!!
On you're way out, destroy the place, maybe they'll think twice.
MSNBC said,,,, in other news u can’t leave a comment on!
“””Jobless claims drop shows improving labor marketBy Msnbc.com staff and wire New claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected in the latest week, showing that the labor market continues to improve, albeit slowly and in fits and starts.”””
“””Obama may keep his job even if you lose yours”””
My benefits stopped today 2-2-2012, so take me off the report that has nothing to do with the truth! PEOPLE are coming off unemployment and 50 and over will not get a job in America unless you have connections!
Enjoy the Super Bowl and the Olympics, have a drink for me. I’ll be in the soup line!
Neale - No one here is saying that they don't acknowledge the fact that this is a free market society. What most of the comments object to is the immorality of kicking out your regular tenants to gouge Olympic tourists for a few weeks. The most appalling thing is that so many comments on here actually AGREE with the greed on display here.
CRying Shame- what is immoral about it? If the leases are written to allow it, there is NOTHING immoral about changing tenants. Now, is it liable to backfire on them? maybe. If they get enough money to cover a dry spell (and it looks like they will), it will pay off. If you have a chance to make the price you paid for a house in 4 weeks, it is your right. People here are spoiled by government interference in private enterprise. And people advocating burning the house down are just scumbags. Work to change your situation, and stop paying someone else's mortgage, if you don't like an eviction notice. Sorry, I have next to no sympathy for them.
Spot on, Neale. If you have not taken the time and effort to sign a lease that protects your interests, you are to blame for leaving yourself exposed to risk. When your poor preparation bites you, you have no right to whine. You have no right to use the property of someone else unless you contractually secure that right.
Neal Osborn,
"what is immoral about it? If the leases are written to allow it, there is NOTHING immoral about changing tenants."
I think you are confusing morality and legality. They are not the same thing. Laws are made by government institutions and may be moral or immoral. Morality is usually based on some concept of a "higher power" as its source or on some systematic ethical philosophy. For example, racial segregation in the South was legal, but eventually it was abolished because most people began to consider it immoral. Leases are simply legal documents. That, in itself, says nothing about their morality.
Leases are neither moral or immoral. They are merely the written agreement between parties that govern their actions.
Lee,
"Leases are neither moral or immoral."
That's true. A lease itself is neither moral or immoral. It is, as you say, a written agreement between parties. I should have said the motivation of the person draughting the lease may be judged as moral or immoral. It is people; not things, who are moral or immoral.
That is precisely why the law very slightly tilts in favor of the person who did not draft the document, but only in cases where the language ambiguously and unfairly favors the originator. Cases where a lease states clearly that rents will be increased during a period of the lease do not fall into this category.
The other situation of month to month rental only requires that either party give 30 days notice for termination of the agreement. It is apparent that this is the case in London and that proper notice is being given. Look at it from the other end. Tenants are free to leave with thirty days notice, as well. Should the landlords have some right to bind the tenant to make payment beyond that just because he/she doesn't think it is fair that they now have no tenant? Or is it fair if the tenant suddenly decides that they don't want to pay the agreed amount and just pays less?
Lee,
"Tenants are free to leave with thirty days notice, as well."
That's true if they are able to leave. Moving costs a lot of money which they may not have.
Are you positing that the cost of moving somehow obligates the landlord?
Lee,
"Are you positing that the cost of moving somehow obligates the landlord?"
Of course not. The law is the law, but as George Bernard Shaw has a character say in one of his plays, "Then, Sir, the law is an ass!" Unfortunately, there are many asinine laws on the books that are made by asses and should be changed.
I certainly seems that you are advocating for changing the law. Perhaps you would explain to what you wish to change it. If you could write it, what would it say?
Lee,
"I certainly seems that you are advocating for changing the law. Perhaps you would explain to what you wish to change it. If you could write it, what would it say?"
Are you trying to engage me in serious conversation or are you just being antagonistic? If you are serious, to which law specifically are you referring and what does it say?
I am not sure what causes your questioning of my motives, but I am looking for an answer. Inreference to my question about a landlord being required to consider a tenants cost of moving, you responded that the law was an ass. Thus, I , rightly or wrongly, took that to mean you disagreed that the landlord should not have a requirement in that regard. I simply wished to hear you opinion on what you thought the law should require. Whether specific to that question, or to landlord/tenant relationships in general, it seems you have some disagreement with landlords. Thus, I assume you have some idea how an equitable relationship should be structured.
Its no coincidence the world is getting worse as morality continues to be drown out by pathetic money grubbers like Lee and Neale here.
I for one hope a black market organ collector finds both of them and makes a profit off their kidneys useing the same flawed/immoral guidelines that they themselves follow.
Josh, I find it interesting that you have nothing to add to the conversation other than personal attacks against two people that you do not know. Perhaps you can think of something substantive to add to the topic of landlord/tenant relationships. Get back to us when you can.
As for your wish for the death of a black market organ collector, what have they ever done to you?
Well there was that one time when i woke up in a tub of ice and.......... lol
Actually i dont really wish harm to anyone (including you), just highlighting flawed logic. In tough times many cannot simply relocate, and regardless of the terms of contract, many are forced to sign them because they cannot afford anything else. Not anti-business, and i agree land lords do have their rights as well, and if those tenants were causing real problems then by all means kick their @$$'s out. But all human being's have a moral responsibility to be, well....moral.
Lee,
I was not questioning your motives personally, but I am well aware that here on NewsVine there are many people who like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I am not one of them. That's why I asked you if you were being serious. As for landlords, I was a landlord myself for many years so I have nothing against landlords as such. As for law, please do not try to tell me there are not many foolish laws on the books. I was speaking of laws in general; not any specific law in this case. What I was talking about is compassion. A landlord does not have to insist solely on his rights under the law. There is room for compassion as well. For example, when I was leasing my house out, there was a woman with two children who wanted to rent my house but could not afford to pay the $500 per month the lease called for. She asked me if I would lower the rent to the $400 she could afford, and I agreed. The landlord has that option. On another occasion the renters wanted to have an alarm system installed and agreed to pay half the cost if I would forego one month's rent. I agreed, and it was done. What I'm saying is that landlords can negotiate with tenants and deal with them in a compassionate and humane manner. That's all.
WELL SAID MICKEY.
Money shouldn't be anyone's main focus, it's easy to just think about yourself, but everyone encounters different problems and situations that the law cannot possibly cover effectively to provide for the rights of both the land-lord and the tenant. It then comes down to people working it out together, if both sides do the right thing, there wouldnt be these kinds of problems. It cant be just about me, me, me, .......that goes for everyone.
Well said, Josh!
Mickey, I understand your concern with people who are just looking for a fight.
I agree with you that there is latitude for compassion, but it cannot be codified due to its ambiguous nature. Each landlord has to decide for himself. In the example you cited, what you ended up with was an agreement that each accepted. However, most of those commenting here have not considered the position of the landlord at all. Primarily, they have all assumed that the landlord could not possibly have monetary considerations at all or financial distress to offset.
There will always be a huge problem with trying to legislate "fairness". For a society to continue, the laws must be as unambiguous as possible.
Lee,
"I agree with you that there is latitude for compassion, but it cannot be codified due to its ambiguous nature."
I have no argument with that, and you're right, the landlord may have financial difficulties himself. If so, I can sympathize with him. I did not have any financial difficulties, and since it has never been my goal in life to get rich, I saw no reason not to give a break to someone who needed it. The problem with law is that it can be a cold bastard. The law says "thou shalt not..." or "thou shalt...", and when you run afoul of it, you have to pay the price, whatever that may be. There is some room in the law for compassion, but only too often not enough. That's why I'm not big on making laws. I think the fewer we have, the better. No more than what is absolutely necessary for a well regulated society.
We agree on limiting the law. It impedes personal responsibility and personal opportunity.
Contract law differs slightly in that it allows people to interact with fewer constraints and usually with only civil damages for breaches.
Frisky Frauline,
"I can promise you that the majority of those with money, got that money because it was one of their top priorities."
I think there is no doubt that is true, but the question is: "How much money is enough?". It's a well known fact that human desires are insatiable, and you can't take it with you when you die which is something you are most certainly going to do regardless of how much money you make in your life. We're all buried in the same ground, rich and poor alike, although the rich may have fancier headstones. It's still the same old dirt that covers them in the end. As they say, "Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return". I think it was God who said that if I'm not mistaken. Death is the great equalizer.
Frisky, I disagree. I have had wonderful fun completely broke and I have been miserable with much money. Of course, I have been miserable with no money and ecstatic with money, too. Your fun is decision, not a result.
Lee,
"Your fun is decision, not a result."
I agree. Happiness is a state of mind. It doesn't depend so much on what you have as on how you think. As the Buddha says in the Dhammapada, "Our life is the product of our mind".
Paraphrasing the great bard, "Neither a landlord nor a renter be" . . .
That is just plain WRONG!
Free Market at work....
Same thought here; looks like all is well in the land of Charles Dickens. No American-style 'rent-controls' to counteract abuse! So no need for the typical rightwing rants necessarry to malign that alleged widespread 'European Socialism'... things are tough for a pimp all over!
Of course for the haters it is ALL 'European' socialism, despite the fact that Britain has the highest unemployment in 17 years and Germany the LOWEST in 20 years (after the collapse of the communist east inefficient system). Darndest thing isn't it?
I myself would be fine with the fact that the United States never sponsor the Olympics again. It normally cost the people of the area billions of dollars to put in the infrastructure necessary, and I'm sure that things like this happen, if the area gets an event such as this. There is no doubt that we as a people put to much into sports. As pointed out in a previous post, since when is an athlete, who is playing a game, worth more than a surgeon, who if he makes one mistake, could cause the life of another. I agree with some of the earlier sports that we as a people of the world, a great majority who claim to be Christians are failing our fellow man. Amazing that the Bible says that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Way to treat family England!!Plain and simple, there are two things that are destroying the world, greed and a lust for power. I hope all these landlords doing this to others remember, "you reap, what you sew".
Lets do away with the Olypics. they accomplish nothing. They are fixed and they seem to bring out the worst in everyone.
Ahhhhhh,,, our 'parent' country does America proud!
So were you proud when they displaced 30,000 people in Atlanta in 96?
i was living in Salt Lake City when the olympics came there, and it was the same deal there too. those people should be ashamed of themselves
People are just ridiculous!
The Olympics are ridiculous. I've long been an advocate of hosting single events the same city game after game. Athens gets track and field and maybe the opening/closing ceremonies. London gets polo. New York gets wrestling. There's no need to have to constantly have cities spend billions creating single use infrastructure. Montreal has an enormous stadium from the 1976 Olympics. It cost $1.5 billion bucks in the end. They paid it off 5 years ago. Now it is in disrepair and is only used for huge concert venues like the Rolling Stones and playoff games for their football team nobody outside of Canada has ever heard of.
Pragmatic, thats about the most common sense post I have read on newsvine in a while.
Congrats for it!
$23K for three weeks rent? Can't fault the landlord for kicking people out. Londoners should be aware of the lease laws there and should have been prepared for this by signing a lease that covered the time during the olympics or bought their own flat.
I can fault them. They lack ethics.
If you want to have ethics, don't be a landlord. Or a politician, banker, police officer, lawyer, etc. In fact it's probably better if you don't expect to have a job.
I wonder how long it takes to process an eviction in the UK. If I was renting in London I would be tempted to remain in my apartment and force the landlord to evict me. Perhaps by the time the eviction actually took place the Olympics would be over.
I think the article said there are no renter laws in the UK. Unless the government steps in and starts fining landlords, they can do what ever they want. I bet there are going to be a lot of attorneys busy though!
Why in the hell would anyone want to go to the Olympics?
There is a Global Boycott of the British Olympics because of many unfair things the British Teabagger Government is doing such as saying Londoners cannot travel on some roads, Even some stores and Cafes are off limits to Londoners. Can you imagine going down to your favorite Cafe only to discover its now an exclusive Olympics Cafe and that the only ones even allowed with-in 100 meters of your former Cafe are trillionare Tourist or Olympic stars or the (Cough Gag) Main Stream Media!!!
What does that even mean?
British Teabagger gov't???
Ever been to London???
Britain's gov, makes Obama look like an extreme right winger!!! Love it when people know what they are talking about...
Bob,
Yes British Teabag government. From day one, all Cameron has done is Cut Cut cut and Cut some more. He has destroyed retirements of untold thousands he is even now trying to destroy the health care system and turn it over to private ventures.
Until the government makes it illegal to remove tenants established, the landlords can do what they want. It is a shame though. Greed always trumps what is right and wrong!
When you do it, it's doing what is good for your family. It's greed when someone else does it.
It' greed no matter what!!!
I'm still confused, do these people not sign leases when they rent a house? I can understand if it is written into the lease before the tenants sign it, but the article makes it sound like landlord and can kick out people whenever they want for whatever reason.
I'm guessing renters rights is just an American thing then?
Greed is greed just as a rose is a rose is a rose no matter how you smell it.
Mike, you have to understand that its always someone else's fault in the mind of a liberal. Was it the lendee's fault when they signed the paperwork on a risky subprime mortgage? Was it the lendee's fault when they took on an astronomical loan/mortgage even though they could never afford to pay for it and only got it because the government forced the banks to lend? Was it the credit card holder's fault when they ran up more credit than they could ever afford to repay? Of course not, its always the big evil corporations/landowners/etc.
Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.
From what I understand from the article, the landlords are doing either 1 year, 6 months or month to month leases. With the 1 year and 6 month leases there is a provision in their lease that states if they (the tenant) wishes to stay in the apartment during the Olympics then they will pay extra (app. 3000 pounds more a month), with the month to month leases the landlords are jacking the price up so much that people that live there just can't afford it. Misplacing people for a few extra bucks is soooo wrong, even more so when you consider this is a "poor neighborhood" and the landlords know they have these people by the neck hairs.
Pammy if what you say is true, and these people are signing leases with clauses about the Olympics, or foolishly living in a month to month lease situation I really cannot feel sorry for them. Renting property is a business, and it is meant to make money. As long as the landlord are not doing anything illegal I can't fault them here.
Then why bother to raise it as an issue or whine about it? It's obvious these London landlords are incapable of personal or social responsibility. You can't expect morals from one side and not from the other.
Sounds to me like you're the one whose whining. The landlord is not in the business to be "socially responsible", they're in the business to earn a living. Get over it.
@DunkinH: How about the responsibility of the lender to make sure these people are credit-worthy and can afford to make the payments? How about the credit card company that issues the credit card, and then immediately changes the terms that makes the payments unaffordable? It's all well and good to preach about "personal responsibility" and those who do not exercise it should pay for their irresponsible choices, ie, not being able to buy a house or get a credit card until they prove they can be responsible. However, when corporations become irresponsible, we have seen that the results are disastrous. We had banking regulations in place to ensure that the Great Depression would not happen. Well, we allowed those laws to be dismantled and corporations became irresponsible because we removed any consequences to them, and now we are ALL paying for it, unless you are a 1%er.
That's absurd. You can't just say business is divorced from social responsibility. Why do you think businesses can be sued, not just for breaking contracts, but also for personal damages caused by acts of the business or lack of them?
I'm still perplexed at how many people think that evicting tenants to price rape Olympic tourists is okay, but those same people would probably have their panties all in a bunch if a bird got killed by a wind turbine or a moose got hit by a train.
DunkinH had this to say:
Okay--so let's say that banks did not advertise loans as "risky." Let's say that the banks were all perfectly happy (and they were--and they were not "forced" by anyone) to lend money to people whom they knew could not afford it. Let's say that the credit card companies gave higher limits than they should have.
The banks lent out money to people whom they knew could not pay because they knew they could then turn to the government and get a handout. The credit card companies gave cards with high limits to people whom they knew could not pay them back because they knew they could then turn to the government and get a handout. We are talking about companies gaming the system to get money for themselves while simultaneously ruining the lives of people.
The American educational system is horrid--it is particularly horrid in inner city areas, and it is particularly horrid in areas with a high population of non-European Americans. Such people do not understand compound interest, and such people think that they wouldn't have been given the loan or credit line if they weren't capable of paying it back--because such people are often too trusting of others.
It used to be considered immoral to take advantage of widows (who never had to handle their own finances) and the poorly educated--but, these days, people do not hold the companies to blame. There is no responsibility on the part of the banks--they can swindle as much as they like . . . it is the fault of the person who got swindled.
So, the person who gets his car stolen should be to blame for not leaving it in a safer place? The parents of the child who is molested are to blame for not watching him? The person who is murdered is to blame for having walked out of a building without a bodyguard? Responsible people would spring the extra money for continuous security patrols over themselves and their loved ones (like the wealthy people do)? If we were more responsible, then, we would not need that socialist police force?
If it can be shown that the banks were doing predatory lending and the credit card companies were doing predatory credit practices--and they were--then the companies are to blame. Criminal, predatory behavior is the responsibility of the person or entity who engages in it--not the person who is victimized by it (even if it is wise of people to do what they can so as not to be victimized). Thinking that a criminal is absolved of responsibility because the victim should have done more to protect him/herself is typical of a criminal mentality. And, I don't happen to have a criminal mentality. How about you?
But, yes, if the laws in London allow for this sort of behavior on the part of the landlords, then the landlords can do it. It's legal, and people tend to be extremely greedy. I would think, though, that it would be in the landlords' best interest to bargain with the better tenants--to offer to give them back the flat at the old rate if they would leave the flat clean when they left, to try to put them up in other rental properties that they own, outside of London, at the same or lower rate, etc.
Still, it's a fact that if laws aren't in place or enforced that people will engage in greedy, exploitative, and ugly behaviors. That's why we have laws--but, when they are not enforced (as they are not being enforced against banks and credit card companies--well, apart from a few cases where judges have refused to foreclose when documents can't be produced or states have filed suits on unfair lending practices), they are worse then useless.
Supply and demand, baby. It happens every year in New Orleans for Mardi Gras. And it happens every year at the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, for both parking and housing.
Exactly. This very thing happens at big events all over THIS Country, as well as the world. And people are getting their knickers in a twist about it NOW??????? Sheeeeeeeesh.
Why not ? The more attention you can bring something, the more likely you can affect change.
Check out Augusta Georgia during the Master's week. People that rent, move out and make a killing renting their "pad" for the week.
Check out Sturgis, SD during bike week.
It's one thing to temporarily move of ones own free will and being forced out by your landlord so he can make a few extra bucks.
check out oil boom n. d.
Give the tenant the option of moving out while the Olympics are in town, and when the tenant moves back in, he/she doesn't have to pay any rent for two months. If I were a renter, I'd go for a deal like that.
I hope the tenants who are kicked out find somewhere else that they like better and leave their former landlord's property empty after the olympics have come and gone. my son is living in london (in a residence hall) and he is being kicked out. not sure where he will go. his girlfriend is an RA and has been for years yet the manager of the hall has no problem giving them the boot for few weeks.
eehhhh! it least its good to know our society is not the only one thats fu__ed up. thats as bad as charging $35 for a gallon of water in a disaster.
The olympics was great for the Greek economy...
While I agree it's wrong, I'm brought to mind about ticket scalpers for things like concerts and the super bowl. Of times such as when Cabbage patch dolls were big news, and people were selling them for well over their actual cost.
People are simply naturally greedy and will take advantage whenever they can get away with it.
That's the capitalist way baby! It's all about the self-interest motive (aka greed).
Only those who have no ethics will do so.
Thats just plain out garbage. You gonna screw your natives over for some people who only gonna be there a month or 2? Yes I agree I would never return to the area...see how they like it if no one is ever to return. Freakin jerks.
Greedy Bas*ards maybe they should throw the Queen out of her Castle and rent it for 100million...I bet she would get it......Should be laws against that.
There is a law. It allows any property owner to raise the rent at the end a lease as long as the owner gives the tenant a two month notice prior to the end of the lease to find something else. Sounds fair to me. Nobody is forcing you to stay.
They're laws road warrior are very limited and substandard. Being able to charge whatever price is not ethical. There should be a reasonable limit affordable to the general public.
Road Warrior - You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to find affordable housing in London in the best of times. Try paying $1,000 a month as a couple for a tiny room in a 5-bedroom house you share with 7 other people 30 minutes out of central London. That was 3 years ago--I can only imagine what my old landlord would charge now.
Good God, if you don't like renting, buy your own place to live. You see I'm a landlord, I take on RISK by renting to a tenant, I have a lease that states what each party is responsible for and states the rent, security and anything else. It is a BINDING legal contract that would hold up in any court. If the lease ends, I have no obligation to rent to the renter again, if they were a good tenant I would but if I knew I could double the rent because my area suddenly became in demand (economics 101) I could care less about the tenant, if he/she wishes to live in the in the demand area, he/she pays the in demand price that comes along with it.
I don't live in NYC because rents are high, people pay insane rents and as areas become better and leases end, the rents go up... this is basic economics and if you don't like it go live in the wilderness somehwere away form society.
The insanity that you think anyone has a 'right' (legal or otherwise) to remain in a rented apartment outside the terms of the signed lease and local rental laws is laughable.
If people cannot afford rent, then I guess they need to move to an area where they can afford it, change jobs or both. They can also go live in section-8 housing (paid for by taxpayers). I collect rent, I pay my taxes, deal with rental laws, tax laws since of course I have to pay taxes on my rental income (everyone seems to think the money is 'free').
Ethics...please, next time you see someone homeless on the street, hungry, no money....where is the ethics in you walking past them eating your food and wearing nice clothes as you go to your home? Oh wait, there is nothing illegal wrong with that...but ethically it is somewhat wrong that you don't help that person? Feed them? Give them a bedroom in your home? Nonsense....the world is not fair, it never has been and never will be. The only thing different is there is a segment of the population (we call them the OWS whack jobs here in the US) that think the world owes them a living and a 6-figure salary job with no experience, a free house, and all loans wiped clean.
Three are laws you fool, they call them the leases they sign (contracts) and applicable local rental/housing laws. Tenants have 'rights' based on what is in the contract the sign and the laws in the area applicable. Enough said.
@drc: You are the fool because you think everyone lives by U.S. laws. Guess what? They don't!!!
What though has been questionable is rental agents stipulating that tenants having to move out during the Olympics if they are to be given a lease or risk huge penalties which they could legally seek redress to if tenants decide not to get out of their houses during this period as greedy landlords try anything they can to sock it to last minute tourists looking for accommodation.
If you don't like the terms of the lease, don't sign it.
I thought the British had better manners than this.
Geeze, I expect this sort of thing from America; I thought you Brits had a little more class than that...then again, pretty much all the old economies are toast, won't be long until the whole West disintegrates most likely. China and India are pretty much gonna own the next century, and they will no doubt laugh their asses off at the pretentions of those who thought English would be the universal language someday.
Perhaps parliament could impose a temporary "winfall tax" on these "investors" in order to compensate other tax-payers for the cost of sheltering those that become homeless.
Alternatively, perhaps those who become homeless as a result of this could be allowed to camp out on the Olympic grounds; painting a lovely picture for foreign tourists and, in particular, olympic team members and visitors from third-world nations (don't worry, we'll give the campers a fresh bath just before the influx of visitors... after all Potemkin Village is not a new concept).
This is the difference between how the Brits handle such situations and their criticisms of Ukraine and Euro 2012.
It's not greed at all. Foreign tourists are willing to pay big dollars for three weeks of housing, money that the economy sorely needs and tax revenue for the entitlements that liberals love so much.
Road Warrior are u blind. The greed is on the end that's charging it and the expense of someone else that's been living there and now has to leave. If it wasn't for avarice, they absolutely wouldn't do so. As for those willing to pay, do they have a choice. They would also be willing to pay market rate as well. When supply becomes limited, exploitation rises. That is the nature of man.
I would love to see terrible apocalyptic level punishment brought down on people like that.
As they suffered in whatever perfectly poetic way that fate chose for them,....you couldn't help but say, "They deserve that,...f 'em".
Flesh eating zombie tenants would be too good for them.
It sounds hypocritical, but I hate to see all the violence there is in the world today, but these are things that people will do under pressure,...given no choice - or VERY poor ones,....without hope,....dominated by power for the sake of others' gain. It's not a surprise to me.
The greedy and unjust are creating a hell for everyone to live in, so that they can get more and more. SQUEEEEEEZE. Live by the sword,...die by the sword. I hope that the misery they create comes back to them and theirs tenfold.
This is another case where greed makes people stupid. For the enormous profit to be made in the short term, why not:
1: Go to your tenants who've been paying on time and offer to pay the rent of where they relocate to and then welcome them back after the Olympics is just a memory? Why is this such a radical idea? It's not a perfect solution, but better than any I've read here.
2: You could also go to your tenants and offer to profit share if they can accommodate any of the Olympics crowd as "guests", or even just not charge them rent for 3 months.
yep...would be a good time for a vacation anyways! The tenant can take what they would normally pay in rent, plus a little from the landlord and take a trip to the mainland, or even the colonies...
Landlords in Williston, ND are doing the exact same thing right now (Oil Boom).
Landlords in Williston, ND are doing the exact same thing right now (Oil Boom). oops sorry didn't mean to post this twice.
It's okay, we need to hear it twice. This smash-and-grab way of living is unsustainable, which we will discover sooner or later. I haven't watched the Olympics in years, but it isn't the games that are at fault; it's the "windfall profit at any cost" mindset. No amount of "regulation" can solve that issue. I feel sympathy for those who are displaced by the greedy, and hope they will find affordable lodging.
They're on a month-to-month lease and the price went up. they don't want to pay, so they got evicted. what's the big deal? they wanted the Olympics, they got it.
The big deal ??? It doesn't take much brain power to figure it out.
The big deal? It's called ethics and morality.
Ethics and morality, like enjoying an ice cream while a kid in Africa starves. Blah blah.....
London has it's laws. Contracts are binding. No contract, good luck. This Rule of Law thing actually works
for the better.
Such amusing comments...there is the crowd of people who 'rent' from a landlord that think they have MORE rights other than the rights in the signed lease or afforded by rental laws. I own property and let me tell you it is NO walk in the park dealing with 'renters' because most are either too stupid to own property. I charge rent slightly higher than my area commands because I provide a NICE apartment, If they trash the apt (like some fools on here think they should) they would not get their 2k/security back and are still liable for damanges (in court) above any beyond that. My tenant has a right to everything in the lease, if her lease ends she goes...if she does not she gets evicted. If it states in the lease she has to vacate for 2-months (because of the olympics) and she was stupid enough to sign the lease, then that is her problem.
If the olympics were held where I live, and I could get 24k for a few weeks I would do it in a second, I would also plan it up-front so the tenant would not have the lease run into the period I'd want to rent it..and that is my legal right. As far as ethics? please I'll rent my apartment for what the market commands and anyone that brings ethics into the picture is someone that would never run successfully run a business or own rental properties.
Ethics? sounds more like jealousy that you don't own a property there to make quick/easy money on someone stupid enough to pay it. it is not price gouging, which occurs after natural disasters, it is IN THE LEASE which is a LEGAL DOCUMENT. Oh wait, I don't like that part of the law, I only want laws that I agree with to be enforced.
Welcome to reality..if you don't like it go live in a cave.
What is going to be when the Olympics is over? The landlors are going to have some cash for a while, then they will need to look for more tenants..London is expensive, but they still give the impression that if you rent paying by-weekly you have got a deal...The same old crap..I lived there three decades ago, and things didn't change much over there.
Who said the tenants being evicted wanted the Olympics?
drc - this is your second comment I have read and I am truly nauseated by your statements. True, as a landlord you can legally set the rental terms as you see fit and within the parameters of the law. However, as a human being with blood running through your veins, you are a cockroach. Maybe you are trolling the boards and making these comments to stir the pot or maybe these are really your beliefs. Either way your statements are vile and putrid and are a perfect example of humanity being lost by GREED and IMMORALITY.
DRC you are one of the greedy bastards.
Tenants have more rights than the landlord in most cases. If they refuse to leave you have to take them to court to get them evicted. By that time, hopefully, the stupid games will be over.
@drc
"Welcome to reality..if you don't like it go live in a cave...."
Hold that thought, Shylock - it's the way we're headed, with greedy thinkers like you leading the way. The difference will be, you'd better be big enough and tough enough to rate a nice warm spot in the corner, or you'll be huddling with the little guys near the entrance. Let's see how far your chutzpa will get you in that situation.