References do not seem to work. With a licence this can be endorced if the tenants fails to pay rent, damages the property or upsets nearby residents with excessive noise. This would warn any new landlord of potential trouble. The landlord should also be liable if they rent their property to a tenant they know will cause trouble to others living nearby
2007-10-30 01:25:46 · 8 answers · asked by bwadsp 5 in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
It is also a basic human right for a law abiding person to live in piece without excessive noise
2007-10-30 01:46:45 · update #1
I think it would be a ridiculous added annoyance to the process of renting.
I took a new job recently 300 miles from my house. For three months I need to rent an apartment.
It's been 11 years since I've had to rent. I've had to go to all the hassle of finding a place, credit checks, getting the utilities in my name and paying extra because it's a 3 month lease. I'll (hopefully) never be renting again. And for that you want me to have to go through a bunch of paperwork and fees with the government for a license to rent???
If you are having that much difficulty with renters, I suggest you sell the property and invest in mutual funds.
2007-10-30 01:36:07 · answer #1 · answered by penhead72 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's tricky. If the whole property is being rented, then a license is required. If it is a sublet and the landlord resides on the property, technically no, but taxes are required to be paid on that. Not having a license does not negate any written contract. A contract is a contract unless the circumstances negate anything written in the contract. If the lessor is in breach of contract, then there's a problem. But if the contract is being upheld, there's not really any problem. Are you just trying to get your landlord in trouble because he irritated you? Or is there some other issue that you're really trying to find out about? It just seems like an obscure question.
2016-05-26 02:04:49 · answer #2 · answered by tamra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that sacrificing people's human rights to satisfy business interests is an acceptable practice.
Housing is a necessity and I don't see an individual's business as being more important or important enough to justify the collection (and possible abuse of) sensitive personal information.
2007-10-30 01:41:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No need. That's what background and credit checks are for. If you're too lazy to properly vet your prospective tenants, invest in equity markets instead. (You'll probably get a better rate of return anyway.)
2007-10-30 01:49:08 · answer #4 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nice idea but it'd be a waste of time - how would you police it? Don't forget that dog licenses were scrapped (in the UK) for a reason - waste of time. You couldn't get the resources to police something like that in the same way you do for vehicle licenses (and the TV license in the UK).
2007-10-30 01:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
may work.....but who will foot the bill in setting this up? Landlords should be vetting the agents they use to find their tenants....
2007-10-30 01:37:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Licences don't mean anything. Any sort of licence is a bad idea. You can 'fake' your way to get one.
2007-10-30 01:28:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Have a star - excellent suggestion.
2007-10-30 01:27:56 · answer #8 · answered by Just some guy 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋