End of No Fault Evictions?

ognum

I am a LL and hav only ever evicted one tenant, she was the best tenant until her boyfriend moved in and then the situation deteriorated.

She refused all inspections, treated the flat very badly, refused any interaction with the letting agency and accused me of harassment despite the fact I had never spoken to her and had replied politely to an email she sent to me.

I realised she wanted to be evicted to get social housing, it was all a ploy. She couldn’t leave and be intentionally homeless. We went to court, I supplied all the evidence requested by the court, she supplied none. She then decided to take me back to court for harassment (as I said I have never met or contacted her) and submitted a claim against me.

In return I submitted a claim against her though I never would have if she had just disappeared into her social housing. I claimed my transport costs, ballif, locksmith costs etc. The court awarded me all my costs and her nothing.

However, I asked in court not to claim anything from her and a judgement to be set by the court that the issue could not be returned to court in any way. This she agreed to.

There was no point in accepting the judgement, she would not have paid and we would have gone around another circle. Better to just finish the matter.

This is the one tenant that has been a problem. My other tenants stay for about three years and move on, they either buy a house or change jobs and move. They are all young professionals. The new law will make no difference.

AnotherJoe

Marvel1 wrote: »

Yes, you decided to be a landlord, it's not the tenants fault.

Ok thats one POV. In which case, what incentive is there for anyone to let their property out when they go abroad? Or indeed if they think that at some point they may wish to let relatives live in their house? Or even if they have adult children who could conceivably need a house at some point.

So, fewer homes for rental, plus if you decide to take a chance anyway you'd increase the rent to compensate for the risk and costs, end result net result rental prices increase.
And either you'll have to bribe the tenants to leave or sell the house (In order to get short of them if they wont move) and buy another, again extra cost. Again, rental rates rise.

Law of Unintended Consequences.


Though it looks from the news articles that even Labour arent so barking as to go as far as you'd want.

AnotherJoe

davidmcn wrote: »

Are you really arguing that isn't likely to be one of the exceptions to the rule? See comments above.

No, I'm commenting on Marvel1's post.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Ok thats one POV. In which case, what incentive is there for anyone to let their property out when they go abroad? Or indeed if they think that at some point they may wish to let relatives live in their house? Or even if they have adult children who could conceivably need a house at some point.

Umm, why should there be an incentive?

Residential letting is a business activity. You rent the property out, you do not know when you will get it back. That's one of the very basics.

Currently, you can issue s21 notice, and in two months you can then start to take court possession proceedings if the tenants do not move out voluntarily. That still doesn't mean you WILL definitely have it back on date X to fit in with your whims and preferences.


You rent a property, it's your business activity - but it's the tenants home. I know which of those two I think deserves more priority when it comes to inconveniencing one of the two over availability.

So, fewer homes for rental

I don't know whether you've noticed, but... yes... that's been explicit government policy for the last few years.

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/communities-and-local-government/2017-19-Correspondence/Government-response-Private-Rented-Sector-Cm-9639.pdf

The_Government wrote:

...
the PRS has doubled in size over the past 15 years
...
The Government’s policy objective is to reform the PRS to deliver a high-quality, fairer, more secure and more affordable sector. We want to give local authorities and tenants the tools they need to tackle poor practice.

AnotherJoe

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, why should there be an incentive?

Residential letting is a business activity. You rent the property out, you do not know when you will get it back. That's one of the very basics.

Why should there be an incentive? So as to increase the amount of available housing stock.

Suppose you will be abroad or just another part of the country too far to commute for a couple of years. Expensive to sell, and you might like the house anyway. Now, theres still an incentive, which is not to let it out (if you could not reoccupy your house when you returned, which may not be an issue according to these articles)

SpiderLegs

AdrianC wrote: »

Agreed.

Reduce supply, demand remains constant = increase in prices.

Add in that landlords are taking on increased risk...

This is basically scaremongering nonsense.

There is no change to the overall supply or demand for housing.

LLs are just moaning because their cash cow just got a tiny bit harder to maintain.

wesleyad

One thing that made me laugh was they are saying the one of the main reasons for the change is the S21 is being used to make people homeless... YES because the bloody councils refuse to rehome until the S21 has ran it's course and courts have evicted! Talk about having it both ways.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Why should there be an incentive? So as to increase the amount of available housing stock.

It doesn't.
The amount of stock remains the same.

SpiderLegs wrote: »

There is no change to the overall supply or demand for housing.

Yes, I know.

But the amount of stock within the private rental sector decreases if landlords move out of the lettings business. Yes, some of the demand may also decrease, if prices fall to a point that allows people to purchase - but not every tenant wants or is able to purchase.

In practice, I suspect you'll find empty properties on the market, which does decrease the amount of stock in use.

SouthLondonUser

Does any one know what happened in Scotland after tougher rules were introduced?

It would be very interesting to understand.

Unsurprisingly, there are landlords here who refuse to admit that s21 can be sued for revenge evictions...

Guerillatoker

If small landlord stop letting out properties due to this (arguable) doesn't that just mean more houses coming to market, at more affordable prices and therefore less rental demand as people renting are now able to buy, when previously they were priced out?

Obviously lower house prices will harm homeowners (a tribe I recently joined) but we are probably not the ones in need of a leg up anyway.