[fdgdasfadsf]

Letting someone have possession of property (yes tenants have possession) like this can be a dangerous thing to do in some jurisdictions - they can quickly gain rights to live there and you lose the rights to evict (or increase the rent - which could be a problem if they are charging you to live there!). Far more likely is that people start renting the empty property out+ - which will increase the supply in the rental market and help the housing costs... I.e. the intended effect.

EDITED + (with proper tenancy agreements which usually provide some balance of power between owner and tenant)

[paulcole]

You might be interested in Whoosh.ly, my JDAAS (joke detection as a service) start up.

[jackweirdy]

How much do you charge for detecting self referential jokes that are rhetorical questions?

[tkxxx7]

favorite'd into oblivion.

[Whitestrake]

Part of me was disappointed to find NXDOMAIN.

[Scoundreller]

BC lets you evict "if you or an immediate family member (parent, son or daughter of you or your spouse only) wants to move in"

http://www.tenantsbc.ca/evicting%20a%20tenant.htm

[loopdoend]

Same in Ontario. Tenants don't have rights. Basically, save your money and become a landlord.

[edblarney]

"Same in Ontario. Tenants don't have rights. "

No, tenants have pretty strong rights in Ontario.

It's very difficult to evict someone who does not want to go.

[biafra]

Similar in Germany. It is called Eigenbedarfskündigung. And pretty much the only way to evict. And it can be challenged in court.

[dx034]

But that's the main difference to other countries. In Germany, it's the only way to get a tenant out (if they pay the rent). It's basically impossible to get a tenant out if you can't find a family member who wants to move in. It's a contract that can only be cancelled by one party (the tenant). Wouldn't call that no rights for the tenant. I can't think of other contracts that cannot ever be cancelled ordinarily by one party.

In most other countries the landlord has the right to cancel the agreement with certain notice.

[fdgdasfadsf]

In the UK the key is to make sure that the tenant is Assured Shorthold rather than Assured. Assured tenants can't be evicted (unless they don't pay rent or other similar reasons) and their rent can't be put up unless they agree to the increase. Assured shorthold puts the balance of power in favour of the landlord+. The default (since the late 1990's) is Assured Shorthold tenancy - but if someone tried to play silly legal games as joked about by the GP their tenant might accidentally become Assured.

I am not a solicitor. I am not your solicitor. If you need legal advice on any of these issues stop reading and find a solicitor.

+ (not as much as most people assume because most tenants don't know or enforce their rights - wrongly thinking that it would be difficult when in reality the landlord will usually fold after a couple of letters long before things go to court.)

[teh_klev]

> In the UK

Scotland and England have differing private landlord tenancy laws so it's worthwhile checking the fine details in this respect. Scotland has a similar agreement to the Assured Shorthold and Assured tenancy:

1. Short Assured Tenancy where [0]:

a) the tenant is entitled to remain in the property for at least six months provided they abide by the conditions of their lease. A landlord can only evict if there are reasonable grounds [1]

b) after the six months is up the landlord can then give notice to quit and the tenant has to leave [2]

In both cases these provide reasonable and fair conditions for both landlord and tenant.

[0]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/rent...

[1]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/evic...

[2]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/evic...

2. Assured tenancies [3]

a) a tenant can more or less remain in the property for an unlimited period of time provided they aren't in breach of their tenancy agreement

b) the landlord has a much harder time evicting tenants unless there are "grounds" for eviction [4]

In this case the tenancy is skewed to be more favourable to the tenant and the landlord has to do a lot more work to secure an eviction [5[

[3]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/rent...

[4]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/evic...

[5]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/evic...

In many cases now, most properties are let as Short Assured Tenancies. Anecdotally, my past three tenancy agreements have been Short Assured Tenancy agreements.

In Scotland:

Tenant deposits are no longer permitted to be held by landlords or agencies and should be deposited into one of three tenancy deposit schemes within 30 days of the beginning of the tenancy [6].

Landlords and agencies are no longer permitted to charge for additional "costs" such as credit checks and "administration fees" on top of a tenants deposit and first month's rent. In England this obnoxious behaviour is still a plague on tenants seeking to rent [7].

Most landlords are now required to register with the Landlord registration scheme run by the Scottish government [8]

[6]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/payi... deposits schemes

[7]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/find...

[8]: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/rent...

[EdwardDiego]

The Short Assured Tenancy doesn't sound that great though - you have no certainty about your living circumstances past six months.