End of No Fault Evictions?

letitbe90

quantumlobster wrote: »

It does no such thing. Landlords will still be able to evict in the event of needing to sell or live in the property. What you can't do under the proposal is evict people "just cuz", which is what S21 facilitates.

Section 8 is there for when there's fault on the part of the tenant, and that's not changing.

What if tenants don’t want to accept a rent increase, or don’t take care of the property?

Brilley

Roland_Sausage wrote: »

My wife is in the process of inheriting a property from a relative who owned her property outright and recently died.

Since we don't desperately need the money at the moment, we were considering renting it out, with the option to sell it in the future should the need arise.

We would keep the property as a safety net which could be sold should life take an unexpected turn, ie we lose our jobs through illness, redundancy, etc, or somehow end up homeless and need somewhere else to live. You just can't predict how life will turn out.

This proposal seems to take away this safety net, by effectively giving any tenant lifetime rights to the property.

Now I'm wondering whether it's worth the hassle of renting it out, and whether we should just sell it now and sit on the pile of cash.

We were in the same situation and decided to go the rental route. So far we have been lucky as we have an exceptionally good tenant. To take some of the pain pout of the process we use a local agent that takes 10%. However we don't make a "huge" amount, (about 4% return after agency fees).

We have no regrets with our decision at the moment and we are not looking to sell while the tenant is in residence. However if the tenant were to move out we would probably make the decision to sell at that time rather than re-rent.

babyblade41

saajan_12 wrote: »

The thing is Section 21 isn't just used to evict "just cuz". Why would a logical landlord do themselves out of consistent rent from a good tenant? Its usually because the tenant has breached terms but in a way thats difficult to prove for a Section 8 discretionary ground where the judge can decide subjectively, eg keeping pets, haphazard rent payments, nuisance to neighbours, overcrowding, property destruction etc.

.. and this will be the problem , I think there will be a decrease in private stock and increase n rogue landlords.

I'd rather have more of the rogue LL's pulled over the coals rather than putting the restrictions on really good LL's

chucknorris

I'm a landlord and have no problem with this, apart from the fact that I would now have to go to court, why can't repossession to sell be handled without the need for a court appearance? Hopefully when they amend the section 8 notice to include reasons of selling or moving back into the property, they might also amend the need to attend court. Although that said I usually have very good relationships with my tenants, so hopefully it wouldn't go that far anyway.

I have recently slowly started selling up, mainly down to my age (I'm 61) and I want a more relaxed eventual retirement. I've been a landlord for 28 years, and I have never evicted a tenant, other than once for non payment of rent.

AnotherJoe

Roland_Sausage wrote: »

My wife is in the process of inheriting a property from a relative who owned her property outright and recently died.

Since we don't desperately need the money at the moment, we were considering renting it out, with the option to sell it in the future should the need arise.

We would keep the property as a safety net which could be sold should life take an unexpected turn, ie we lose our jobs through illness, redundancy, etc, or somehow end up homeless and need somewhere else to live. You just can't predict how life will turn out.

This proposal seems to take away this safety net, by effectively giving any tenant lifetime rights to the property.

Now I'm wondering whether it's worth the hassle of renting it out, and whether we should just sell it now and sit on the pile of cash.

Why does it need to be a "pile of cash"? Invest it.that's what the house woudl be, an investment, just with more risk and most likely lower longbterm returns thana stock market fund. And a shed load more hassle.
Thought experiment ; let's say relative wasn't leaving it to you and you already had the equivalent amount of money invested in "Acme medium risk stock market fund" . Would you suddenly decide to sell it all and buy this specific house in order to start a landlord business? If the answer to that is "no", then why would you keep this house and become a LL? Even if you wanted to get into the LL business whatvare the odds thisnisbthe best property for that?

And yes I agree with your general proposition that laws like this will have unintended consequences such as s decreasing the amount of rental property that's around. It will certainly significantly reduce the small LL market. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing. .If you have a business with say ten tenancies there's probabiy always one moving on and so you can release equity by selling those as they come vacant. If there's just one property and you intended to sell it when time came to need the money, you'll have to "bribe" the tenants to move out or go to the cost and hassle of court where you might lose

need_an_answer

It going to certainly reduce the amount of properties that are for rent whilst a person decides what to do with them, eg you wont be able to rent a property out whilst perhaps living away for a few years due to a new job.

Maybe it will deter that band often called the reluctant landlord,although IMO theres nothing reluctant about what they do.


It will reduce housing stock and again probably put up rents as a result simply because of supply and demand.

It will take out a level of affordable housing that whilst may not be high quality is actually needing in the housing market for rental.

SpiderLegs

I don’t get this idea that plans like this ‘reduce housing stock’

The house is still there, so unless the LL wants to leave it sat unoccupied they will either have to sell it or put up with these (apparently) draconian measures.

davidmcn

letitbe90 wrote: »

What if tenants don’t want to accept a rent increase

Then I expect there'd be a mechanism for determining what the rent ought to be e.g. in Scotland it's this:

If you have a private residential tenancy, your landlord can only increase the rent once every 12 months. To increase the rent they have to give you at least 3 months notice, using the prescribed ‘rent increase notice’ form. If you agree to the rent increase it will become payable when notice expires. If you don’t agree to the increase, you can refer the proposed increase to the local rent officer, this has to happen within 21 days of you receiving the original notice. The rent officer will make an order stating the rent payable and from which date that rent will come into force.

letitbe90 wrote: »

or don’t take care of the property?

That would be a breach of the tenancy agreement (i.e. "fault", not "no fault"!) and grounds for eviction.

need_an_answer wrote: »

you wont be able to rent a property out whilst perhaps living away for a few years due to a new job.

I expect one of the other exceptions to the rule (as in Scotland) would be because the landlord wants to move into the property.

caprikid1

Will it reduce the amount of people choosing to be landlord's ? = Yes


Will it cause some Landlords to exit ? = Certainly Yes


Will it stop casual lets ? = Almost certainly


Could it reduce prices = Potentially


Could it increase Rents, combined with the wiping out of Fee's almost certainly.


A benefit to the few a cost to all.

tom9980

I evicted a tenant in 2017 using s21 because they had been in arrears by around £300-1500 for 10 months, mostly in the £300-500 range but had a feeling they were in trouble and evicted using s21.

I didn't consider going to court using s8 to be beneficial, it would cost more, takes longer and the judge gets to decide. I made the estimation these tenants were a bad risk and my guess was that a Judge would have given them more chances which would expose me to more risk. I gave them 10 months to sort it out and helped them secure HA housing afterwards something an s8 eviction would have made impossible.

In general I am not against it at all but I reserve judgement until we see what changes they make to allow problem tenants to be evicted quickly. But my current tenants are leaving in the next month or two to buy so I will watch carefully and at the very least will tighten my letting criteria to include only tenants with guarantors.