Repeal S21.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, no, it doesn't. The decision I'm talking about is before tenants get involved. It's not tenant-specific in any way, it's purely about risk vs return-on-investment for an individual who - currently - happens to have a rental property or three.

You cannot run a business based on letting property to tenants without having some regard to your customer, the purchaser of your service, your client..... The tenant. If the tenant does not fit your business model, you don't have a business.

mrginge

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

What about fees/admin for new contracts? Without the possibility of being given an S21, I can't see why a tenant would want a new fixed term contract. Not needing to worry about that would be a reduced cost to the LL - easily quantifiable if they're using an agent who charges directly for such things.

There would be no concept of a fixed term anymore, so you are correct in that LAs would not be able to charge the tenant & LL for renewals.

However. The LA is not likely to simply accept the loss of this income.
There are two possibilities.
1. The LA charges both tenant and LL a higher initial fee to compensate.
2. The LA increases their %age charged to the LL.

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Overall, they would reduce. The largest single cost is voids. With better security, LL will get longer term tenants and, as a direct result, fewer void periods. Those using agents will get "double bubble" savings on re-let admin charges.

I am really trying, but you're not making it very easy.

A void period is not a cost.
It is a reduction in income.

Think about this.

A taxi driver has to buy a car to run his business. It costs him £1000 a month. This is his COST.
He drives people around all day. He makes £1500 a month. This is his INCOME.
He goes on holiday for a month. He still has to pay for his car of £1000. But he makes £0 income.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

A void period is not a cost.

I genuinely laughed out loud at that one. Ask a landlord.

mrginge

Good grief.

mrginge

Actually i will give you a v.v.v.v small concession, in that the LL will become liable for some costs that would normally be paid by the tenant. - e.g.utilities.

But the fundamental issue is a loss of income. If you cant see that then there is no hope.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The largest single cost is voids.

Nope. The largest single cost is a bad tenant.

If there is a good tenant in place, no sane landlord will s21 them in the first place, so the existence or otherwise of s21 will not make the slightest difference.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You cannot run a business based on letting property to tenants without having some regard to your customer

Once again, the decision we are talking about is the one BEFORE that - do you want a business based on letting property, or do you not?

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

Nope. The largest single cost is a bad tenant.

No. It's voids.

AdrianC wrote: »

If there is a good tenant in place, no sane landlord will s21 them in the first place, so the existence or otherwise of s21 will not make the slightest difference.

Then why would repealing S21 be an issue?

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

Once again, the decision we are talking about is the one BEFORE that - do you want a business based on letting property, or do you not?

Owning a property that doesn't attract tenants isn't a business based on letting property, it's just owning an empty property. Letting relies on attracting tenants willing to let.