End of No Fault Evictions?

SouthLondonUser

Sure. A better starting point might be:

• to acknowledged that both landlords and tenants may be guilty of dodgy behaviour
• to acknowledge that one's behaviour is not necessarily representative: you may not indulge in dodgy practices, but this doesn't mean that others don't
• to acknowledge that legislation should protect against this kind of dodgy behaviour; saying that one never revenge-evicted anyone or that one never trashed a landlord's property is irrelevant
• to look seriously into what has and hasn't happened in Scotland
• to avoid unfounded scaremongering

kimplus8

need_an_answer wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you...I see many properties in my area that are advertised on RM both for sale and for rent.

That helps no one.

same in my area, It baffles me that the letting agents don't understand why nobody wants them. -well Doris if there is a risk that I'm going to get given a section 21 in a few months when I've had to pay almost £400 in costs then no I'm not interested.

gt94sss2

I suspect that this proposed change might cause some problems for landlords who target the student market - such tenancies tend to be for 12 months and the landlord needs the student out of the property before the start of the next academic year or they may find their ability to rent the place again seriously affected given thats the peak rental season/market in many university cities.

kimplus8

markin wrote: »

Not sure i see your problem with having a 6 month tenancy and being asked to leave after 6 months.
.

it was the fact they told me the property was a long let and the contract would change to an AST after the 6 months and continue when the landlady must have already known that her daughter was pregnant and wanted the property for her. I was used asa stop-gap. had I known the property would only be a 6 month let I would have not taken it.

Querty

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Sure. A better starting point might be:

• to acknowledged that both landlords and tenants may be guilty of dodgy behaviour
• to acknowledge that one's behaviour is not necessarily representative: you may not indulge in dodgy practices, but this doesn't mean that others don't
• to acknowledge that legislation should protect against this kind of dodgy behaviour; saying that one never revenge-evicted anyone or that one never trashed a landlord's property is irrelevant
• to look seriously into what has and hasn't happened in Scotland
• to avoid unfounded scaremongering

Definitely. Their system appears to be a lot different, so it is not as reliant on s.21 for mandatory evictions. If you want to get rid of s.21 then the whole system needs to be sorted out. Things are bad enough already even with the s.21 in the length of time it can take to remove bad tenants.

lookstraightahead

I suppose the way that this is going is that only professional landlords, who take this seriously as a business and act as professionals, should be able to rent out properties.

The people who see tenants as short term cash cows while they sell their properties, or the landlords who think it's ok for tenants to live in conditions that are less than what they pay for (and I certainly do mean going without heating / hot water etc because landlords say "they put up with it in their own home"), need shaking up. I would like to see it set up like a proper business. Tradespeople on hand to deal with 'customer' issues etc.

However on the flip side, there also needs to be laws in place to protect landlords when tenants act in a less than favourable way and I'm not sure we have that in place either.

I do think landlords need to see rentals as a career choice.

seven-day-weekend

lookstraightahead wrote: »

I suppose the way that this is going is that only professional landlords, who take this seriously as a business and act as professionals, should be able to rent out properties.

The people who see tenants as short term cash cows while they sell their properties, or the landlords who think it's ok for tenants to live in conditions that are less than what they pay for (and I certainly do mean going without heating / hot water etc because landlords say "they put up with it in their own home"), need shaking up. I would like to see it set up like a proper business. Tradespeople on hand to deal with 'customer' issues etc.

However on the flip side, there also needs to be laws in place to protect landlords when tenants act in a less than favourable way and I'm not sure we have that in place either.

I do think landlords need to see rentals as a career choice.

Whilst of course I agree that it is the LL's reponsibility to provide heating and hot water, I have read on these very forums where some tenants expect a plumber to come and repair the boiler straight away. Now that on the whole is just not possible, everybody has to wait, even home owners. Maybe this is what is meant when the LL says they have to put up with it in their own homes. They would have to wait too.

No-one has a team of tradesmen sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for 'the call'!

Guerillatoker

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes. If you scroll down this article you will find a comparison of renting versus owning costs by region.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/landlords-could-stop-letting-no-fault-evictions-banned/
Renting costs more than buying almost everywhere, the exceptions being London and Manchester. Elsewhere it's cheaper to buy than rent. In Burnley renting costs almost twice what buying does.
Whatever's holding people back from buying, it's not that it's too expensive.

Sorry, I'm not registered with the Telegraph so cannot read it.

I presume the calculation is monthly? If not the following will not be relevant: I have just purchased a house with a comparable monthly mortgage cost to my previous rent... but I needed £15,000 deposit. I wouldn't have needed as much if the house was cheaper.

westernpromise

dividendhero wrote: »

A moments thought would reveal that any LL would prefer to know about problems as soon as possible, so the line about being evicted due to reporting a faulty boiler is usually BS. As posted previously vast majority of "no fault" evictions are unpaid rent

Yes, and the point cannot be made too often that landlords cannot end tenancies. There are only two parties who can:
1/ the tenant
2/ a court
If a tenant claims to have been evicted because they wanted work done, I tend to be sceptical. If the work needs doing the landlord won't be able to let the property unless it is done, so all he achieves by a "revenge eviction" is a void. I suspect there is something else going on, probably non-payment of rent. I would personally be quite reluctant to spend money maintaining a property that was occupied by someone who was not paying the rent.

Fortunately I've only over been in the bit of the market where you're renting to London professionals, so other than about 25 years ago I've never had a rent defaulter and never had a flat wrecked. Maybe further down the scale it's different.

westernpromise

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

The fact that a landlord will apparently not be able to recover his property or remove the tenant other than for a narrow range of purposes, and will lose the most expeditious current way of doing so in the event of rent arrears.