but as I said, even if landlord had a court ruling in favour of getting due rent back, even being able to chase that would be something.... like other companies are able to do? Or stop providing the service if tenants fail to pay rent, like other companies..
Landlords already have exactly the same remedies available to them to enforce their judgments as other judgment creditors do, so you've already got your wish on point one.
On point 2, I agree with you. The reform that's needed is a timely, effective mechanism for termination and eviction in cases of serious default by the tenant (including non-payment of rent)
This is a bit disingenuous. A hotel bill or restaurant bill is payment on the spot, which is what the criminal law (making off without payment) attaches to. Once a tenancy starts, non-payment is a contract debt, so that offence can never apply to rent, however flagrant the case. The contexts aren't comparable.
Well, two points.
You're talking about a different offence now - early it was obtaining goods/services by deception (which would be an offence committed when you order the goods, intending not to pay for them). The leaving-without-paying offence is only committed when you leave the premises. It's easier to prosecute becase you don't have to prove the intention not to pay when the order was placed; just the fact of non-payment when the customer did a runner.
But, as you say, the contexts aren't comparable. The leaving-without-paying offence isn't relevant here because the problem is not tenants absconding; it's the exact opposite. So I don't think you can say landlords are being discriminated against because they don't have a leaving-without-paying offence available to them. Such an offence would be no use; it wouldn't address the problem landlords actually face.
What every other supplier has instead is the civil remedy of ceasing supply on default.
Well, not
every other supplier. A commercial landlord can't throw commercial tenants out immediately on default; he has go to court, get a judgment, get an eviction order, put it in the hands of the sheriff. A hospital can't cease providing necessary medical treatment when a patient defaults on a bill. I agree, cases like these are relatively few. But it shouldn't astonish us that, when what is supplied is somebody's home, that's one of the situations that is likely to fall into the class of services you can't withdraw unilaterally and immediately. There are not many places in the developed world where a landlord can through out a residential tenant immediately, without going through a judicial or quasi-judical process that take some time.
To some extent you and I are in furious agreement here. What is needed is for landlords to have a timely, effective termination/eviction mechanism where a tenant is in serious default. But that mechanism will not be the landlord deciding "I've had enough of this — I'm sending the boys around". It will involve a court or tribunal; it will involve the landlord having to demonstrate the breach; it will involve an opportunity for the tenant to demonstrate any breach by the landlord, and seek a (timely, effective) remedy.
There has been a recurring complaint in this thread that the regulatory legislation creates lots of offences for landlords to commit, but none for tenants. This is seen as unfair. Why isn't non-payment of rent, or mistreatment of the premises, a crime?
But, if you look into this, the failure by the landlord to honour his side of the tenancy agreement is not a crime. Failure to allow the tenant access to the premises? Not a crime. Entering the premises without the tenant's permission or other legal authority? Not a crime. Failure to keep the premises in a habitable condition? Not a crime. And so on. On
both sides, the enforcement of the obligations of the tenancy agreement is not seen as a matter for the criminal law.
The offences relate to the
regulatory obligations - failing to register a tenancy; setting rent above the legal maximum; providing false infomration in connection with a registration; etc. They are not for enforing the terms of the tenancy; they are for enforcing the obligations arising out of the regulatory regime. Those obligations are largely imposed on the landlord. And, as mentioned earlier, that's absolutely typical of regulatory regimes — providers are regulated; customers are not.
A thought experiment; what would it be like if we did decide that enforcment of tenancy agreements was a matter for the criminal law? That would have to work both ways, obviously, and so this would result in landlords being exposed to prosecution for a range of new offences:
- failure to afford quiet possession
- failure to ensure hot and cold running water, etc
- failure to maintain appliances in working order
- failure to carry out necessary repairs
- failure to insure the structure
- faiilure to maintain the common areas
- failure to return the security deposit in a timely manner
Etc, etc. If I'm a good landlord who does all these things, I might think that would be a great idea. But looking at the sector as a whole, making disputes over the performance of the contract a police matter probably isnt a good idea. Other countries don't do this, and we don't do it in relation to other classes of private contract, even if they are regulated private contracts, so I doubt that it would be a good idea here.