DBC Megathread

[Roger Mexico]

34 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It is ironic with DTC that one of its councillors was literally wetting his pants all over Twitter last year claiming private landlords would be kicking tenants out after the Covid protections were removed. Yet it’s them kicking people out on the street instead. 

I think the difference is that housing authorities tend to go the formal route through Small Claims while private landlords will send lawyers letters quickly and evict people.  Also most private tenancies are for a year while HA ones are for longer, so there is less need for private landlords to take court action.

This means that it takes much longer for HA landlords to evict someone and as Mistercee pointed out the way the same cases appear again and again makes it look as if there are more than there really are.  The long time to resolve these cases also means that in some cases the tenant has a chance to start repaying arrears and staying in the property.

[Gladys]

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think the difference is that housing authorities tend to go the formal route through Small Claims while private landlords will send lawyers letters quickly and evict people.  Also most private tenancies are for a year while HA ones are for longer, so there is less need for private landlords to take court action.

This means that it takes much longer for HA landlords to evict someone and as Mistercee pointed out the way the same cases appear again and again makes it look as if there are more than there really are.  The long time to resolve these cases also means that in some cases the tenant has a chance to start repaying arrears and staying in the property.

Is it only rent arrears that you can be evicted for?  There must be other potential  breaches that could cause a termination of your lease,  like not maintaining it in good order, unauthorised sub-letting, etc.  

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Is it only rent arrears that you can be evicted for?  There must be other potential  breaches that could cause a termination of your lease,  like not maintaining it in good order, unauthorised sub-letting, etc.  

You can be evicted for 'anti-social behaviour'.  I found a document on Onchan Commissioners website (though it seems to be a general DoI publication) which explains eviction policy both for that and unpaid rent and the procedures followed.

[Omobono]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Is it only rent arrears that you can be evicted for?  There must be other potential  breaches that could cause a termination of your lease,  like not maintaining it in good order, unauthorised sub-letting, etc.  

Not true ,evictions can be for drug dealing   , antisocial behaviour  and kiddie fiddling   to name a few ,there was a time when you were allocated a local authority house , you looked after it and behaved sensibly ,because if you blotted your copy book ,then no one else would be prepared to house you , but behaviour and consideration of your neighbours plus paying your rent ,even if you are in receipt of benefit seems to have gone out of the window , 

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Is it only rent arrears that you can be evicted for?  There must be other potential  breaches that could cause a termination of your lease,  like not maintaining it in good order, unauthorised sub-letting, etc.  

I think you can be asked to leave if you exceed a certain earnings threshold or have a certain amount in the bank? 

[Amadeus]

5 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Presumably that should all have been done before anyone is kicked out not afterwards? 

And there will have been contact already and this was more general advice. I haven’t seen what case this is about but safe to say evictions don’t just happen. There is a lengthy process to be followed. 

[finlo]

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I think you can be asked to leave if you exceed a certain earnings threshold or have a certain amount in the bank? 

That earnings threshold must be pretty high!

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Manx17 said:

There are people getting turfed out in Castletown as they have been told they earn to much as they both work and they doubled their rent and they can’t afford it. So they are now looking for something with children in tow. So maybe these homes are not for families anymore. It would be interesting to find out if people that have well paid jobs in these local boards are themselves being housed with cheaper rents. 

Well if you want to blame anyone, blame all those MF posters who banged on endlessly about people who live in council houses who earned vast amounts of money.  Of course there was no evidence that this actually happened much but to please the massed ranks of Telegraph/Mail/Times readers, not just on MF, it was decide to make tenancies for five years in 2014 and people are reassessed at the end of that.  (Of course the few who were taking the piss were unaffected as it only was for new tenancies).

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

They do , don’t you remember the person that died and all his worthy goods thrown in a skip and he tried to salvage some of it, I don’t think you should really comment defending evictions as you said you don’t know this case. 
All that matters is a person has to sleep rough on the streets as they can’t afford private rent. Or should they become a number on the benefits list? 
it’s one way anyway to keep steep private rents going up hey. How many Douglas corporation employees have corpy houses? How many drug dealers and kiddy fiddlers been turfed out of there houses . Or are they just rewarded? It’s not something to just pass off . It’s peoples lives your talking about.

What are the circumstances?  Evictions don't just happen and if this person says they always pay in advance there must be more going on.  

[The Voice of Reason]

28 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

They do , don’t you remember the person that died and all his worthy goods thrown in a skip and he tried to salvage some of it, 

I don’t I’m afraid. Was he some sort of poltergeist?

[hissingsid]

Very tasteless remark, it was a very sad case and nothing for Douglas Corporation to be proud of.

[2112]

15 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Very tasteless remark, it was a very sad case and nothing for Douglas Corporation to be proud of.

Agree - was very poorly executed by Douglas Corporation. 

[2112]

I can only imagine that Douglas Corporation and the DOI have got nowhere with various tenants who may have large arrears accumulated through Covid restrictions etc, and despite contact and repayment plans being broken have resulted in legal action for possession. However, it could be for other reasons such a breaking the terms of their tenancy agreement such as anti social behaviour. Perhaps the DOI and the Corporation are planning to evict so they can house refugees? Far fetched idea I know but you never know.

[Happier diner]

54 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I don’t I’m afraid. Was he some sort of poltergeist?

Reincarnation 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, finlo said:

That earnings threshold must be pretty high!

No. It's when you have more than one motorhome outside your house.