A completely absurd story is developing in Moscow. The woman lost access to her own apartment, which was allegedly occupied by an unscrupulous tenant. The victim wanted to break the agreement and return the money to the employer, but he refused. But they say it is impossible to evacuate him. Moreover, it is not possible with a court decision. The tenant is a Ukrainian refugee with many children. Additionally – and this adds rigor – he remains under house arrest in rented accommodation. In despair, the woman settled in the entrance opposite the disputed flat with her children.
The story is complex and dark. But it seems that such stories may become more and more common. It is becoming increasingly difficult for landlords and tenants to part ways without making mutual demands.
56 percent of Russians renting housing admitted that they had disagreements with their landlords. Today, dissatisfied tenants are increasingly taking their claims to court.
There is a view that the rental housing market, while in a turbulent region, is actually moving towards development and growth in such an intricate way.
Only recently has our recruitment industry begun to emerge from the shadows. This is partly due to the growing awareness of citizens who earn passive income by renting square meters. The vector is largely determined by the state. And naturally he became more active because he has financial interests. However, it prefers to shake bourgeois investors on behalf of disadvantaged tenants. It’s more noble this way, isn’t it? One of the trends of the past year is that courts are increasingly considering employment contracts not registered in Rosreestr as fictitious. This kills two birds with one stone – the transfer of less serious short-term contracts concluded for 11 months into the category of long-term ones (of course, if this is really the case), increases tax collection and gives more guarantees to employers. These guarantees specifically help prevent “unfair evictions.”
Essentially, approximately the same thing happened if the cohabitation of a man and a woman under certain conditions is recognized in court as a legal marriage and the parties will automatically receive the corresponding rights and obligations. Of course, not all property owners are happy with this; not all of them plan to “marry” their tenants, even in exchange for legal privileges.
And that’s what happened. Tenants are increasingly demanding that property owners approve temporary registration at the place of stay, emphasizing that this is essentially the responsibility of the property owners. Of course, property owners may still not want to act according to the law, but competition in the rental market is such that it forces property owners to either agree to register tenants or compensate for their reluctance with good discounts. However, these reductions will not protect property owners from possible penalties. So people began to register for rental housing more often, and those who have children also register them for rental apartments. Moreover, according to the new rules, minors can be registered on someone else’s property even without the owner’s permission. Evacuation of registered residents of the apartment and even those with small children is again more difficult.
But all the changes that occur are quite normal. Tenants’ rights must be protected. Of course, not to the detriment of homeowners.
But since a new image of a civilized rental market has just been formed in our country, most of its participants do not understand where the rights and obligations of the parties end and absurdity and arbitrariness begin.
Let’s take the same story that became the informative reason for this text. The mother of many children initially agreed with the tenant to rent for a year and demanded rent from him for six months – by the way, in the amount of more than a million, and she immediately spent half of this money to pay off the mortgage debt. However, a month later, the landlord’s personal circumstances changed; He decided that he wanted to live in his own apartment and that the tenant should move out too. As a moral justification for his desire, the landlord cited the tenant’s alleged violation of living conditions: he brought strangers into the apartment and threw away an expensive sofa. Lawyers rightly point out to the woman that all these nuances require experimentation and this is not a reason to organize demonstrations with children living on the landing. Yes, trials may take several months. It’s sad but normal. These are risks every homeowner should be prepared for.
But what is not entirely normal and healthy is that similar cases may develop in the future. It is always confusing how in such stories the emphasis is placed on pity, on some kind of social injustice. For some reason, when controversial cases regarding the possible eviction of a person from a rented apartment are presented to the public, the emphasis is not on the legal aspect, but on the portrait of the “victim”. For some reason, it suddenly becomes important to report that the tenant is a refugee, a large family, or a single mother with a sick child. From where? Why? What does it matter the status of one of the parties to the dispute if we are talking mainly about business relations, rather than the implementation of social and charitable programs? Isn’t this an overly compassionate approach when conflict is thought to be harmful?
Ultimately, this could also lead to the European scenario where other landlords have to tolerate, for example, tenants who stop paying altogether for almost years. Seriously, employers turn to some social lawyers, prove that their clients belong to vulnerable segments of the population – that’s it, then the courts can continue endlessly and without results. Well, or in a year or two, some fund will compensate the unlucky owner for his losses, but not in full, because, for example, there is a rule in the country according to which landlords are obliged to provide 40 percent compensation to low-income tenants. % discount.
No, it’s clear that victims of circumstances really need help. But there is still a big difference between the provision of assistance to people in distress by the state, charities and volunteers in accordance with the social contract, and the forcible transfer of the burden of social responsibility onto the average person. who has never thought of such a thing.
It may be ugly that an ordinary person has not thought of such a thing (why is he so callous?), but as you know, the philanthropy that comes out of necessity is a lot. Moreover, no one can be sure whether a person who shudders at sacrifice has the resources to do so. After all, what happens if rental income pays for the medical care of one’s elderly parents?
Social and commercial areas should still be separated. Of course, no one needs a wild rental market; Everything should be open and civil, with the rights and obligations of all parties clearly defined.
Charity is possible, but of your own free will. Speculation about the difficult situation of one of the participants in the transaction, pressure for pity can only lead to abuse. We still have too many of these. Both sides already see themselves as the most oppressed side. There is no need to invent new problems with an unhealthy leftist bias.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.
What are you thinking?
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.