Repeal S21.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

I can, and I wrote it, but you seem to have difficulty with reading.

The question was one of supply. You seem to be of the opinion that supply and tenure are the same thing. They aren't. That was what I was pointing out to you. At least mrginge made some effort to address the issue.

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I would suggest that increasing security and, in so doing, minimising churn would far outweigh the loss of a few "accidental" landlords who can't offer their properties on a short-term basis. It may even encourage them to sell up rather than face the costs of an empty property.

You're free to try again, if you like.

ah so you agree with me then. Thanks.

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The question was one of supply. You seem to be of the opinion that supply and tenure are the same thing. They aren't.

I repeat: I wrote about the reality (not a fairytale) in my previous post.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

ah so you agree with me then. Thanks.

That supply wouldn't be adversely effected? Of course. You're welcome.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

I repeat: I wrote about the reality (not a fairytale) in my previous post.

No. You talked about changing tenures, not changing supply. Very different things.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Let me get this straight. You are predicting a short term house price crash at exactly the time when the number of former tenants, many of whom are looking to buy, are thrown into the housing market? And you can't guess what happens next?

<puts hand up> I know! Me, Sir!

Lots of people who can't or don't want to take on a mortgage and buy a place are evicted, with nowhere to move to because there are lots of empty flats on the market with vacant possession waiting for a buyer to take their pick and complete the lengthy legals.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

<puts hand up> I know! Me, Sir!

Lots of people who can't or don't want to take on a mortgage and buy a place are evicted, with nowhere to move to because there are lots of empty flats on the market with vacant possession waiting for a buyer to take their pick and complete the lengthy legals.

Close, but not quite. Any such change in the legislation will not happen overnight. It will be a much more gradual transition than the one you assume. Those who are ready to buy and just waiting for this opportunity will be very prepared, deposit ready, mortgage offer in place, solicitor hired etc etc etc. If anything, for them, the whole process will be quicker than usual, so availability will increase, not decrease.

AdrianC

So buyers will be happy to proceed with purchases without vacant possession, will they?

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

So buyers will be happy to proceed with purchases without vacant possession, will they?

I'm not saying that. But there are steps they can take along the house purchase route that don't depend on vacant possession or even a specific property. Mortgage offer in principle, deposit, solicitor etc.

And, of course, gaining vacant possession will be easier as most tenants would be very keen to move away from a S21 tenancy and into the security of a non S21 tenancy. In fact, I doubt if many landlords will need to serve notice as tenants will be tumbling out of their rented S21 properties as fast as they can. Of course, the really clever LLs will be offering their existing tenants a non S21 tenancy at the earliest opportunity.

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. You talked about changing tenures, not changing supply. Very different things.

I think that it is now clear that you have no grasp of reality or economics.