Repeal S21.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

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

And we know how confused your thoughts are on the matter.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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.

You've never bought a house, have you?

lulalola

Apologies if someone else has said this already and I've missed it...but not every tenant wants to stay in their current place long term! Lots of tenants move of their own accord; they buy, they want a different kind of place, they re-locate for work, they want to move in with a partner. I have have private rented in a number of properties over the past 10 years and have never been asked to leave a property - it's always been me giving notice, for some of the reasons listed above. I'm sure there are plenty of other tenants like me who move on every couple of years...at which point an LL can consider whether they want to sell or do something else with the property instead of getting into another rental arrangement.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

You've never bought a house, have you?

Are you suggesting that the prospective purchaser who sees a house advertised and already has a mortgage offer in principle, sufficient deposit and a solicitor lined up isn't likely to complete quicker than another prospective purchaser of the same property with none of the above?

AdrianC

Oh, right. By "deposit", you were meaning "had it saved up"? Well, clearly, that does decrease the tmie between offer and completion...

Finding a solicitor is not the time consuming bit. It can easily be done after the offer's been accepted without introducing delay.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, right. By "deposit", you were meaning "had it saved up"? Well, clearly, that does decrease the tmie between offer and completion...

Finding a solicitor is not the time consuming bit. It can easily be done after the offer's been accepted without introducing delay.

Granted, finding a suitable solicitor can be the work of a moment. But even if the mortgage offer is the issue, that could take a week or two to resolve. When we are talking about "motivated vendors" desperate to offload their toxic stock, a week here and there could make all the difference. Either way, the full effects will be spread over a decent period of time, so I wouldn't envisage your predictions of very short term chaos to be valid.

mrginge

lulalola wrote: »

Apologies if someone else has said this already and I've missed it...but not every tenant wants to stay in their current place long term! Lots of tenants move of their own accord; they buy, they want a different kind of place, they re-locate for work, they want to move in with a partner. I have have private rented in a number of properties over the past 10 years and have never been asked to leave a property - it's always been me giving notice, for some of the reasons listed above. I'm sure there are plenty of other tenants like me who move on every couple of years...at which point an LL can consider whether they want to sell or do something else with the property instead of getting into another rental arrangement.

A very good point.

I see that LUTC has thanked you, which seems a little odd given that you're arguing against the need to remove s.21.
Perhaps LUTC is just being polite.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

A very good point.

I see that LUTC has thanked you, which seems a little odd given that you're arguing against the need to remove s.21.
Perhaps LUTC is just being polite.

I've even mentioned you positively in another post. If I agree with someone, I agree with them. I'm not dogmatic.

However, lulalola is discussing tenant flexibility, which has nothing to do with S21. Tenants do not rely on S21 for flexibility, so its repeal would not effect that issue.

mrginge

Pop quiz.
Q. If s.21 was removed, what impact do you believe that would have on the cost of letting a property.

A. The landlord's costs would increase
B. The landlord's costs would decrease
C. No impact

Explain your answer.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

Pop quiz.
Q. If s.21 was removed, what impact do you believe that would have on the cost of letting a property.

A. The landlord's costs would increase
B. The landlord's costs would decrease
C. No impact

Explain your answer.

Now there's an interesting question. Overall, I would say C. No impact. However, as requested, that reply needs further detail.

For the "accidental" LL, ie, the LL who has inherited a property they wish to gain income from, or who is not prepared to sell a property at a realistic market price, the costs will increase as they are more likely to require the tenant to vacate at the LL convenience (ie when the property value reaches their desired level). However, for the professional LL, who relies upon the income from their tenants, the greater security, longer residency and reduced void periods, would be a cost reduction.

I guess the real question is, do tenants want professional landlords, or amateurs?