Landlord-Tenant Eviction Disputes

People fire their landlord all the time. It's called moving.

In some states, once you get a renter, it is very hard to evict them. Many abuse this.

This strikes me as something like a landlord changing the locks when a tenant gets behind on the rent. In many jurisdictions this is illegal, as there exists a defined process for dealing with non-payment of rent: eviction.

The apartment building and its tenants have recourse against abusive tenants: they can break the lease and eject the tenant. That recourse doesn't exist with short-term renters, who are going to leave soon anyways.

Unless they get sued by an unhappy landlord

One big issue is how hard it is to evict people. A normal tenant would be out as soon as they got an eviction notice... but a normal tenant also pays rent, and probably doesn't get evicted.The type of people that don't pay rent and get themselves evicted tend to ignore eviction notices too... meaning you have to go get a court order and have the county sheriff throw them out.You'd also have to worry about Equal Opportunity Housing laws. You could largely mitigate getting deadbeat tenants i

The UK government just enacted a law last week that gives tenants in England a lot more protection against that kind of thing.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-rent...

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The "swift" solution would send you to jail in mere hours. You're presumed guilty. Yes, it defies any logic, but that's the way that it is.My mom's husband had rented his previous flat (to complement his pension) to two women. They were working, very "normal" persons, and the contract specified that no other person could live there. One of them started dating a man and, a year later, there were thre

I blame the landlords.For example, they bitch about how hard it is to get tenants out of the house due to existing laws.That's absolutely true, but what do they think the laws were put into place for? On the whole, they cannot be trusted to be fair. They did it to themselves.

actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address.if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go a