End of No Fault Evictions?

SouthLondonUser

The landlord would have claimed the electric heaters provided were sufficient.
I claimed they were not.
I remember contacting the Citizen Advice Bureau and they said that, realistically, since the landlord had provided something, however inadequate, the chances of me proving it was inadequate and therefore forcing him to fix the radiators were very slim.
I also remember contacting the council about it. They said they would have looked into it but it would have taken a long time since they had to prioritise people who were with no heating at all (shocking how many such tenants there are, maybe not all landlords are as good as those who post here?).

The protection from eviction lasts only six months, and only if the council serves a specific notice to the landlord (I forget the technical name). If the council takes no action or serves a different kind of notice, no protection whatsoever.

I don't understand: do you deny that revenge evictions are a thing? Please clarify.

Would you be opposed to a process that allows tenants to withhold rent, like in NY, if certain repairs aren't made on time? I don't know how else to get the landlord's attention, honestly. Note that in NY "not paying" is not enough: you need to show the funds are available and they are typically left in a dedicated account for this very purpose.

AnotherJoe

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Well, a system like this would prevent rent increases by 10% every year, which has been known to happen in the past in certain parts of London. Oh, cry me a river for the poor landlords who will no longer be able to increase rent by 10% a year...

Careful what you wish for, AIUI the last time rent controls came in (late 70's) renting dried up.

SouthLondonUser

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Careful what you wish for, AIUI the last time rent controls came in (late 70's) renting dried up.

Sigh... yet more misinformation ....

I am not in favour of rent controls. Nor am I aware that these proposals have anything to do with rent control. If I am mistaken, please clarify.

Capping future rent increases is different from rent control. With rent control, the initial rent is capped.

Again, think of Scotland: if I understand correctly, Scotland limits future rent increases but not the initial rent. A landlord is still free to charge £3k a week for a two-bed flat in the middle of nowhere.

KK14

There are bad landlords & bad tenants.
I was the victim of a section 21 a few years ago.
I had lived in the property for a year. Kept very clean. Reported issues promptly. Passed inspections & rent paid on time.
Got a section 21!
I was very unhappy about that but nothing I could do. Heard on the grapevine that the property was to be sold.
Nothing of the sort.
Day after my moving out day, property went back up to let with a £25 increase a month which I would have paid.
That is what the outlawing of section 21 is for!

tom9980

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

The landlord would have claimed the electric heaters provided were sufficient.
I claimed they were not.
I remember contacting the Citizen Advice Bureau and they said that, realistically, since the landlord had provided something, however inadequate, the chances of me proving it was inadequate and therefore forcing him to fix the radiators were very slim.
I also remember contacting the council about it. They said they would have looked into it but it would have taken a long time since they had to prioritise people who were with no heating at all (shocking how many such tenants there are, maybe not all landlords are as good as those who post here?).

The protection from eviction lasts only six months, and only if the council serves a specific notice to the landlord (I forget the technical name). If the council takes no action or serves a different kind of notice, no protection whatsoever.

I don't understand: do you deny that revenge evictions are a thing? Please clarify.

Would you be opposed to a process that allows tenants to withhold rent, like in NY, if certain repairs aren't made on time? I don't know how else to get the landlord's attention, honestly. Note that in NY "not paying" is not enough: you need to show the funds are available and they are typically left in a dedicated account for this very purpose.

As a stop gap electric heaters are fine, I had to use some for 6 weeks recently in my own home.

Of course revenge evictions exist, but i definitely believe shelter massaged their figures and ignored that a large number of these s21 evictions also had real tenant faults not disclosed because landlords were not asked.

The NY system you describe sounds ok to me, I am not adverse as long as it is correctly administered, which is frankly doubtful if councils are involved.

However you highlight that the council failed to help you rather than show that the law needed strengthening. This is the same problem with s8 eviction on paper it sounds good but in practice takes too long because the courts are too slow, so I and most other landlords use s21 instead wherever possible.

Its clear as mud that what is required is not tougher laws but courts, councils and others actually doing their job. In the meantime good tenants and Landlords will suffer.

chucknorris

westernpromise wrote: »

Broadly speaking, if you make the system unfair to good landlords, you'll be left only with bad ones.
Rachmanism happened in a rent-controlled tenant-centric rental market. There will be ways to remove tenants that only bad landlords will resort to.
We're headed back to the era of Man About The House and Rising Damp.

I don't think that there is anything really unfair about this though, what specifically do you think is unfair? Furthermore I would much rather have long standing tenants, than re-letting my properties every year.

Mr.Generous

Of course the other change in the property letting law we have coming will have an impact too.

No longer able to charge tenants fees for letting, costs will come down I expect, but landlords will have to pay them.

So landlords will be evicting people who are good tenants, look after the property and pay the rent so that they can have a rent void period, pick up the utility bills, council tax and pay fees to get new tenants - for the hell of it?


Landlords only make any money when the property is rented out. Six month rentals don't make the best return on the capital invested. You rarely get a new tenant in straight away when one leaves. You pay a tenant finding fee. You pay to bond a deposit. When you take these fees off twice a year rather than once every three years (say) it makes a big difference.


Believe it or not most landlords are in it to make money. Most want an easy life with settled tenants. Evicting people for no reason is probably a very small percentage of cases or you are only hearing one side of the story.

Querty

For those who are not landlords but either own their own home or aspire to one day,, here is a scenario to consider... Next door to your home and major asset you have Tenants from Hell moved in, making your life a complete misery. At the moment, if you are lucky, their landlord can use a s.21 at the end of the fixed term and you know they will go eventually. Think through how it would affect you if that were not the case... You would have to declare the problem if you wanted to sell on TA6 form and who would want to buy it unless at a hugely dropped price?

OK, you are thinking, a S.8 could remove them, after all it is a "fault eviction". Not so easy, it is DISCRETIONARY so has to go through the full court process, and you know how the law is an !!!...the burden of proof lies with the complainants and your life will be at the mercy of the judge on the day...

You will not think s.8 is so great then.

SouthLondonUser

Querty wrote: »

At the moment, if you are lucky, their landlord can use a s.21 at the end of the fixed term and you know they will go eventually.

That's a big IF. There will also be landlords who couldn't care less as long as the tenant is paying the rent.

What is your point? That revenge evictions do not happen? Or that they are too few for anyone to bother?

Querty

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

That's a big IF. There will also be landlords who couldn't care less as long as the tenant is paying the rent.

What is your point? That revenge evictions do not happen? Or that they are too few for anyone to bother?

My point is that getting rid of s.21 has a lot of consequences which need to be understood.