Section 21 No Fault Notice

amy104

Are there any practical reasons why this was implimented as a no fault notice?

It hardly seems fair that good tenants can effectively be evicted because a landlord doesn't like you or they don't want to carry out repairs.

I just wondered if there were other morally acceptable reasons you'd want to evict someone for but not give a reason.

poppysarah

It's normally so letting agents can screw both sides over for a fat fee.

DVardysShadow

amy104 wrote: »

Are there any practical reasons why this was implimented as a no fault notice?

It hardly seems fair that good tenants can effectively be evicted because a landlord doesn't like you or they don't want to carry out repairs.

I just wondered if there were other morally acceptable reasons you'd want to evict someone for but not give a reason.

Yes, it was done at a time when there was a shortage of rented property. It was felt that the no fault notice would be a good counterbalance to the previous situation with total security of tenure, which led to a shortage of supply.

theartfullodger

Since the cr*m*nal Thatcher brought in HA Act 1988 the LL/T relationship changed.


"When it comes to security of tenure the pendulum swings back and forth between tenants and landlords. The Rent Acts were drafted from the point of view that private letting is a means of providing homes. The Housing Act 1988 was drafted from the point of view that private letting is an investment." (Source, "lawcruncher", LLZ). The "Assured Shorthold Tenancy", in particular Section 21 of the HA 1988 was probably the main change in this act (discuss..).

(The Rent Acts were what governed private lettings prior to HA 1988.).

The only thing assured about Thatcher's Act was that the Landlord was assured of being able to kick the tenant out for no reason at all. Of course it ain't morally defensible: For the avoidance of doubt I'm not in favour of it & have never used the S21 route in over 10 years of lettings.

Morality in Landlord/Tenant relationship?? Now, there's a thought: Write to Cameron & see if he wants to change things... Conservatives?? By their actions yee shall know them....

Cheers!

Artful (Landlord).

DVardysShadow

theartfullodger wrote: »

Since the cr*m*nal Thatcher brought in HA Act 1988 the LL/T relationship changed.


"When it comes to security of tenure the pendulum swings back and forth between tenants and landlords. The Rent Acts were drafted from the point of view that private letting is a means of providing homes. The Housing Act 1988 was drafted from the point of view that private letting is an investment." (Source, "lawcruncher", LLZ). The "Assured Shorthold Tenancy", in particular Section 21 of the HA 1988 was probably the main change in this act (discuss..).

(The Rent Acts were what governed private lettings prior to HA 1988.).

The only thing assured about Thatcher's Act was that the Landlord was assured of being able to kick the tenant out for no reason at all. Of course it ain't morally defensible: For the avoidance of doubt I'm not in favour of it & have never used the S21 route in over 10 years of lettings.

Morality in Landlord/Tenant relationship?? Now, there's a thought: Write to Cameron & see if he wants to change things... Conservatives?? By their actions yee shall know them....

Cheers!

Artful (Landlord).

It is a fair comment. And the pendulum is very definitely in play. Something in the middle is required. 6 month tenancies with 2 months notice from the LL combined with the inability of so many to buy is leading to a rootless underclass of havenots.

But total security of tenure is not good either. As a student, I could not find satisfactory rented accommodation due to a shortage of supply caused by excessive security of tenure. Even now, on these boards we see about 2 or 3 cases a year of houses with tenancies from that period, which are being sold at a fraction of their value, with a sitting tenant, a controlled rent and no ability to view. It is alright if you can get a tenancy like that in a decent house, but if it is the only legally recognised tenancy, this will migrate all rented housing to rundown stock.

I think a better balance would be a tenancy with 6 rolling months of security and 'renewing contracts' to be a thing of the past.

alta

Cutting out all the "chest beating"...........your LL does not have to give a reason to serve a Sec 21, it may sound harsh, but in the end, it is his property. From a tenants point of view, it is annoying if you feel there is no reason for it, especially if you have been a "good" tenant.
If you really want to know more, ask the Agent or LL, he does not have to give you a reason, but may well do.

Morals do not really come into it. Don't forget 99% of landlords let their property for financial gain, whether to pay a further mortgage, or to help with a pension, of putting little Johnny, and his 3 sisters through Uni.

jjlandlord

A landlord will always have a reason to seek possession, it's just that section 21 allows this reason to be unrelated to the tenant.

If there is no problem with the tenant I think the most probable reason would be that LL want to sell with vacant possession, or perhaps completely refurbish.

theartfullodger wrote: »

"When it comes to security of tenure the pendulum swings back and forth between tenants and landlords. The Rent Acts were drafted from the point of view that private letting is a means of providing homes. The Housing Act 1988 was drafted from the point of view that private letting is an investment." (Source, "lawcruncher", LLZ). The "Assured Shorthold Tenancy", in particular Section 21 of the HA 1988 was probably the main change in this act (discuss..).

I had this quote in mind as well. Quite accurate, I think.

mrbadexample

theartfullodger wrote: »

The only thing assured about Thatcher's Act was that the Landlord was assured of being able to kick the tenant out for no reason at all. Of course it ain't morally defensible: For the avoidance of doubt I'm not in favour of it & have never used the S21 route in over 10 years of lettings.

There's always a reason - people don't do things for no reason. I can't see the problem though. Even though a tenant may have done absolutely nothing wrong, there will always be times when a LL wants the property vacated. Why shouldn't they be able to?

In your scenario, if a tenant decides to stay forever, the LL can't get his property back. Is that right?

theartfullodger

alta wrote: »

Cutting out all the "chest beating"...........your LL does not have to give a reason to serve a Sec 21, it may sound harsh, but in the end, it is his property. .................

err... b***ocks, no it ain't it's the Tenant's property!! Alta you appear to subscribe to this urban myth about it still being landlord's property - see Tessa Shepperson's excellent explanation on this point here...
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

Tessa is a highly respected Solicitor specializing in LL/T law: Never needed to but I'm told she's popular with agents & landlords for legal assistance.

mbe said

There's always a reason - people don't do things for no reason. I can't see the problem though. Even though a tenant may have done absolutely nothing wrong, there will always be times when a LL wants the property vacated. Why shouldn't they be able to?

Well, as you'd know .. err.. no maybe not, better explain, (booked that course yet??) , HA 1988 Schedule 2 gives 17 grounds for eviction that the private LL may use get get T out, see..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/schedule/2

You're right, there always is a reason, why shouldnae the LL state what it is and go through the courts (as he has to go through courts for S21) to gain possession??

Councils & Housing Associations do not have an equivalent to S21 and seem to manage to get by, charging significantly lower rent than wicked capitalist landlords (like me..).

Cheers!

Artful

agrinnall

theartfullodger wrote: »

err... b***ocks, no it ain't it's the Tenant's property!! Alta you appear to subscribe to this urban myth about it still being landlord's property - see Tessa Shepperson's excellent explanation on this point here...
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

Tessa is a highly respected Solicitor specializing in LL/T law: Never needed to but I'm told she's popular with agents & landlords for legal assistance.

Interesting article but to my mind in the situation under discussion here the imprtant point is:

• during that period of time [of the lease] the property belongs to the person renting the property

The thing is, the lease that the T has signed is for a particular duration. At the end of that time, which is the point at which a S21 can be issued, the lease is over and the property once again belongs to the LL.

Turnbull2000

Because ultimately, it's not your house and likely never will be.