We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
End of No Fault Evictions?
Options
Comments
-
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.
This is one of the reasons why I think it's a good idea and hope it goes through.
We see posters from both sides on here, landlord wants to evict to move their own family in, or goes aboard and wants to move back in on return. It's not selling etc, without thinking the impact of the tenet.0 -
The bottom line is we need more social housing.
No wonder the government is wanting to make it harder to evict people when there is no where for them to go if a private tenancy fails for whatever reason, they aren't doing this out the kindness of their hearts.
Good tenants do need security aswell.0 -
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.
Reduce supply, demand remains constant = increase in prices.
Add in that landlords are taking on increased risk...0 -
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.
Very few Judges will give possession on discretionary grounds and if they do its normally suspended and the tenant has to breach the tenancy again before the landlord can get the property back.
A section 21 has its place and the proposed changes will not stop the rouge landlords they will still ignore legislation just as they do nowThis is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
This is one of the reasons why I think it's a good idea and hope it goes through.
We see posters from both sides on here, landlord wants to evict to move their own family in, or goes aboard and wants to move back in on return. It's not selling etc, without thinking the impact of the tenet.
Are you really arguing that if, say I am returning from abroad having let out my property you think its a good idea that I cannot move back into my own property?0 -
AnotherJoe wrote: »Are you really arguing that if, say I am returning from abroad having let out my property you think its a good idea that I cannot move back into my own property?0
-
Maybe if there are less BtL landlords, property prices would fall ...0
-
AnotherJoe wrote: »Are you really arguing that if, say I am returning from abroad having let out my property you think its a good idea that I cannot move back into my own property?
Yes, you decided to be a landlord, it's not the tenets fault.0 -
-
Norman_Castle wrote: »
Private landlords need to accept responsibility for their tenants, not just view them as a source of income. Responsible landlords shouldn't be harmed by these proposed changes.
That's far from true..Most of the "no fault evictions" are anything but, vast majority are in fact arrears. It's quite common for tenants to tell a pack of lies to the court, eg they'll claim they withheld rent because heating was faulty. Case gets adjourned, they stay rent free for a few more weeks while LL loses even more money. Hence it's much easier simply to for a section 21.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards