Private Member's Bill on revenge evictions to be presented to Parliament

mrginge

anselld wrote: »

There are existing laws and enforcement powers to protect all those things if Civil servants could be bothered to enforce them.

The point was about inefficiency of process due to multiple touch points which *could* be better controlled (and therefore cost less to mange and provide greater consumer protection) through a single entity.

thesaint

mrginge wrote: »

The point was about inefficiency of process due to multiple touch points which *could* be better controlled (and therefore cost less to mange and provide greater consumer protection) through a single entity.

Sounds like an argument for universal credit. :money:

mrginge

thesaint wrote: »

Sounds like an argument for universal credit. :money:

Absolutely

SerialRenter

jjlandlord wrote: »

This bill would bring a significant new amount of work to councils.

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is not a major issue: Fact. This only concerns a small number of tenancies.

Error error, does not compute.

All the resources already exist, it would just allow them to be utilised by tenants who are currently fearful of eviction if they were to report repair issues.

The way shelter have worded it, seems to imply it won't effect your average landlord, just those who have a bad habit of threatening their tenants and leaving them in squaller.

jjlandlord

SerialRenter wrote: »

All the resources already exist.

They obviously don't.

Do you think councils have a bunch of people sitting around, doing nothing, that could easily used to assess all the claims tenants would make in order to stop an eviction.
Even I don't think they have

SerialRenter wrote: »

Error error, does not compute.

Read post #14 again, especially the last part.

SerialRenter wrote: »

The way shelter have worded it, seems to imply it won't effect your average landlord, just those who have a bad habit of threatening their tenants and leaving them in squaller.

Do you believe that Shelter is a fair and impartial party?

Thrugelmir

Perhaps what's really required is licensing of landlords/property. Then there's a set standard at the outset. On which decisions can be made.

Brallaqueen

Wouldn't it just be easier to rescind sec21 in general? make more grpunds of section 8 mandatory therefore LL would need a reason to evict

Brallaqueen

Otherwise it is just delaying the inevitable 6 months and the revenge will happen as soon as the time is up.

mrginge

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Wouldn't it just be easier to rescind sec21 in general? make more grpunds of section 8 mandatory therefore LL would need a reason to evict

Jj doesn't like legislation that is only designed to protect the minority and since most of the grounds (in reality all) under s.8 are only used in a few cases, we should really scrap the whole lot and save some cash.

thesaint

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Wouldn't it just be easier to rescind sec21 in general? make more grpunds of section 8 mandatory therefore LL would need a reason to evict

"Mandatory" grounds are far from that.

Landlords rarely evict without grounds, but only use the Sec 21 because tenants and legal aid solicitors no that the landlord is in for a spanking if he uses a Sec 8.