End of No Fault Evictions?

westernpromise

Guerillatoker wrote: »

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.

Landlords don't determine mortgage lenders' deposit criteria.

[Deleted User]

I'm really p*ssed off at news if changes to the legislation. We had just made a big decision to move to another area for a trial period whilst letting our home out for 12 months. We would have made that clear to the tenant and safeguarded our home. It's not happening now due to lack of clarity about what may happen. ����

Guerillatoker

westernpromise wrote: »

Landlords don't determine mortgage lenders' deposit criteria.

But house prices do.*

*The amount of the deposit, that is. The "criteria" is a red herring brought to the conversation by you alone.

quantumlobster

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

SouthLondonUser

Querty wrote: »

Definitely. Their system appears to be a lot different, so it is not as reliant on s.21 for mandatory evictions. I

Could any one elaborate? It would be interesting to understand how evictions work in Scotland but I admit I don't know much about it

Cakeguts

I am not sure what will happen to the tenants that have been evicted from social housing for non payment of rent and anti social behaviour. Good private landlords are not going to want to house the problem tenants because they will not be able to get a quick eviction anymore.

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes, and the point cannot be made too often that landlords cannot end tenancies. There are only two parties who can:

Where do you mean? Certainly not in England. Most ASTs, if not all, have a break clause after which either party can terminate the contract without giving any reason.

What were you trying to say? I couldn't follow.

westernpromise wrote: »

If a tenant claims to have been evicted because they wanted work done, I tend to be sceptical.

So every single case reported in the press was a lie, a total fabrication?
Including the cases mentioned by posters on this forum?

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

"needs doing" is subjective. Different tenants will put up with different level of inefficiencies and disservice. If no bathroom is working and all the windows are broken, sure, the landlord can't let out the property.
But there is a whole range of stuff that needs fixing but that other tenants might be willing to put up with.
Or the landlord could be less than totally honest and hope the new tenant won't realise till it's too late - that's what happened to me: I understand the landlord I mentioned did NOT fix the radiators but found a new tenant around September. The new tenant would have been unlikely to find out about the radiators before signing, because they are communal and cannot be controlled from within the flat.

My philosophy as a tenant is that, if the landlord behaves correctly, I will be the best tenant ever, even paying myself for minor fixes the landlord should probably pay for. But if the landlord doesn't do his job I will be his worst nightmare. There are quite a few landlords who do not want a tenant like me (and I don't want landlords like them). In these cases, a revenge eviction can make perfect sense and can continue to provide no incentive whatsoever to fix whatever needs fixing.

westernpromise wrote: »

I suspect there is something else going on, probably non-payment of rent.

In some cases, sure. But in all?
I find it shocking that landlords here are so reluctant to admit that this can happen. Really, really shocking.

westernpromise wrote: »

I would personally be quite reluctant to spend money maintaining a property that was occupied by someone who was not paying the rent.

And I would be quite reluctant to pay the rent to a landlord who violates his contractual obligations and doesn't fix whatever needs fixing. If I don't pay, the landlord has ways to get rid of me, both here and in Scotland. If the landlord doesn't do his job, I have little to no recourse. I cannot withhold rent like New York law allows, for example.

SouthLondonUser

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Or the landlord could be less than totally honest and hope the new tenant won't realise till it's too late - that's what happened to me: I understand the landlord I mentioned did NOT fix the radiators but found a new tenant around September. The new tenant would have been unlikely to find out about the radiators before signing, because they are communal and cannot be controlled from within the flat.

PS
I don't know exactly how much the repairs would have cost, nor how much the estate agent charged the landlord for finding a new tenant, but it is not hard to think of quite a few repair works that can easily cost more than 1 or 2 months of rent, therefore making it a perfectly rational, however morally questionable, choice to revenge-evict a tenant and find another one who won't complain, or won't find out about the issues straight away.

lookstraightahead

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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'!

My point is that it needs running like a business so what a landlord might do "even in their own home" is irrelevant. It's far too subjective and frankly of no concern to the tenant what the owner does in their own home. If there is no heating in the winter at my place of work, an emergency electrician is called out to try and avoid people having (under health and safety legislation) to be sent home. This is how landlords should run their businesses - with business skills. On the other hand, there should also be adequate procedures to protect landlords. People rent out their houses without any knowledge of what they are doing.

I think landlords should hold a qualification in being a landlord if I'm honest.

SouthLondonUser

@lookstraightahead, I couldn't agree more. Plus the whataboutery of pointing out that some tenants are less than sensible is irrelevant and misleading. No sensible person denies that unreasonable and dodgy individuals exist among both landlords and tenants.

Pointing out "oh, but some tenants are unreasonable" when talking about revenge evictions is like pointing out "oh, but some landlords are unreasonable" when talking about missed rent: totally irrelevant and misleading.