Repeal S21.

franklee

Cornucopia wrote: »

As a LL I would be quite happy to see S21 weakened or removed... if S8 were strengthened.

It doesn't make sense to me that it takes as much effort to get rid of a bad tenant as a good one.

Maybe they could put both under the same new simpler procedure taking out the !!!!!footing a tenant can do with a S8. However I do think that when contested these things still need to be looked at in court was we have now for both S21 and S8. So that's still going to be a bottleneck.

Lord_Baltimore

Perhaps landlords will change their target audience: use the existing Section 21 to get rid of the current tenant and re-let to students only who only want comparatively short term tenure, certainly don't want to buy but have the money to pay the rent.

Post repeal, this would effectively restore some flexibility for the landlord but could leave non-student ex-renters with a homeless headache because their potential permanence is unattractive?

franklee

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

But I thought housing associations (or some) were partially publicly funded?

Yes but at least they keep the property available to let for those who need it - if only Dave would scrap his right to buy at a discount for them which I also disagree with.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Perhaps landlords will change their target audience: use the existing Section 21 to get rid of the current tenant and re-let to students only who only want comparatively short term tenure, certainly don't want to buy but have the money to pay the rent.

Post repeal, this would effectively restore some flexibility for the landlord but could leave non-student ex-renters with a homeless headache because their potential permanence is unattractive?

There's only so many students to go round, and they have their own issues and headaches as well. And, of course, if more landlords are chasing them, the value of those lets will decline and any profitability will soon be wiped out.

Lord_Baltimore

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

There's only so many students to go round, and they have their own issues and headaches as well. And, of course, if more landlords are chasing them, the value of those lets will decline and any profitability will soon be wiped out.

True, although there are millions of them and even if properties are filled at a cheaper rate, it won't lead to the desired pool of vacant places for ex-tenants to buy.

franklee

Of course regardless of landlords the other main player is the mortgage lenders. Will lenders still want to lend if there was no S21 or a long minimum fixed term? Will that mean landlords will need a larger deposit or be cash only buyers? That would take the heat out of the housing market. It would also stop the building of large portfolios by remortgaging to take equity out to buy the next property which currently means people already in the market can easily buy more properties while FTBs saving a deposit see prices rise moving the goalposts further away. I don't think any politician would dare risk it even though restoring some sanity to the market would be helpful long term IMO.

jjlandlord

Pointless thread to debate a non-issue.

S.21 is there to encourage investment by giving confidence that possession can be recovered easily.

However, landlords do not want to go to the cost and uncertainty of evicting good tenants.

In many parts of the country people are moaning that there are not enough houses and that prices are high: the last thing one intelligent person would want is to make matters worse.

Pixie5740

Yet there are landlords who go to the effort of evicting good tenants because they are too ignorant to know better.

There will always be demand for a rental market but there needs to be a better mix of short term and long term lets available. A 6 month AST is considered long term but 6 months isn't a long time at all.

If successive governments continue to insist upon social housing tenants' right to buy but fail to build/provide more social housing and expect the private rental market to pick up the slack then they need to do something to give long term renters more security.

Lord_Baltimore

jjlandlord wrote: »

Pointless thread to debate a non-issue.

S.21 is there to encourage investment by giving confidence that possession can be recovered easily.

However, landlords do not want to go the cost and uncertain of evicting good tenants.

In many parts of the country people are moaning that there is not enough houses and that prices are high: the last thing one intelligent person would want is to make matters worse.

You know that. I know that. Making that view known to a wider audience is never pointless. History teaches us that wars can begin on 'non-issues' .

princeofpounds

No-one is suggesting removing the tenants right to end a tenancy, so flexibility would remain the same for tenants who may choose to rent.

That is a very naïve view of what flexibility means. It does not just require the tenant to make a decision to move, it also requires a new LL to feel comfortable granting a tenancy.

Many mobile phone contracts are 18, 24 or even more months now - not for any particular reason other than it costs the networks a lot for the smartphones they "give away free" and clawback through the monthly contract, so I'm not sure that's a great analogy.

I think you missed the point by a staggering amount. Of course I am not directly comparing mobile phones with rental property. These were just illustrations of comparative timescales, pointing out that the security of 'tenure' on something as insignificant as a mobile phone or gym membership is much better than the security of tenure of something as important as housing. pick whatever you like - magazine subscriptions, internet TV deals. You can even guarantee postal redirection for longer than you can guarantee being able to living somewhere.

Perhaps there should be separate tenancies for people without school-age kids...?

No, also a silly idea. The point is that making serious life decisions is very very hard when you cannot effectively plan for longer than 6 months ahead.


Schooling is just one example of that. Transport to work is another. Continuity of healthcare a third - forget a school year, the S21 takes less time than a pregnancy.


In fact, the pressure doesn't happen after 6 months. Given S21 has to be served 2 months in advance, and a little lead time, people often start worrying about whether they will have to find new accommodation a mere 12 weeks after moving into a property. That is pretty crazy, almost forcing a nomadic mindset.


Given the number of viewings that it requires to secure rental property, and the fees involved, you can spend a huge amount of your annual holiday and your disposable income simply trying to find somewhere to live. God forbid if you don't have a very understanding employer too.