End of No Fault Evictions?

caprikid1

Guerillatoker wrote: »

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.

You make the assumption that people renting can easily buy and are interchangeable. They are far from it.


I should also add that a lot of people do not want to purchase, they have a minimum house size, they are not committed to an area / individual the list goes on.


The stock of housing may not change but the rental stock will.


I can see this creating an empty homes crisis as more and more will leave houses empty that would previously been let.


There are many times of renters, this legislation will help a few hurt the many.

westernpromise

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

Broadly speaking, if you make the system unfair to good landlords, you'll be left only with bad ones.
Rachmanism happened in a rent-controlled tenant-centric rental market. There will be ways to remove tenants that only bad landlords will resort to.
We're headed back to the era of Man About The House and Rising Damp.

Thrugelmir

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?

Hopefully you will have let the property on a fixed term contract and kept the tenant informed of your intentions.

westernpromise

SpiderLegs wrote: »

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.

No, not quite, on several counts.

First, the landlord may well be prepared lo leave it unoccupied, on several grounds. For example, people posted overseas for work who would have let their place out will not do so, in case they can't get it back without a prolonged court process when they want to return. For others there is the changing risk versus return calculation. For example I own a place worth about £900k that lets for £28k a year. Take off the letting fees etc (15%), the various tests I have to pay for (gas safety etc) and the more frequent dilapidations (eg you have to repaint, between tenancies, more frequently than otherwise) and I probably clear £10k after tax. That's a tolerable return on equity at the moment, but if the risks increase, the return had better do too. Otherwise, for a lousy £10k I'll just leave it empty. I still get the capital appreciation, there's no wear and tear, I don't have to waste money on gas safety checks and my children can move in when they finish university.

So some owners will leave property empty.

Some will sell but this is the second point. You're making the very common mistake of assuming equal efficiency of occupancy between rented versus owned property. This just isn't so. I've heard it said that renters occupy 25 square metres and owners 33, so a 100 square metre house will let to four people, but will be occupied by only 3 if sold to an owner occupier. The case is even more acute where 6-bed HMOs may house 12 people but if sold wil house a family of maybe 5 to 6, max.

The upshot is that when 3 renters buy, a fourth is evicted and must look for a new rental in a pool smaller by not only the property just sold by by the removal from rental of all the marginal supply. So it is incorrect to assume that "The house is still there" because the sum of a lot of less-occupied houses is a net reduction in houses.

need_an_answer

It doesn't seem that long ago the the government were telling us all that longer tenancies were the way to go forward...now it seems the tenant is in the driving seat when determining how long they want to stay in a property,so all the consultation about fixed term tenancies now seems a waste.


LL's or indeed owners wont want to keep properties unoccupied simply because after 6-12 months the council tax ramps up too.


I really think this is the beginning of the end for a LL with little intention of being a business.

westernpromise

davidmcn wrote: »

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

The point I think, David, is more that you would have to go to court to get back into your own property.

FBaby

Like Tom, my biggest concern would be a tenant using this to never pay on time, accrue no payment for two months than paying just enough to make an S8 worthless and doing this over and over.

Thankfully, could still use S8 to sell the property which would be the plan if I get bad tenants. It's not worth the stress.

AdrianC

need_an_answer wrote: »

It doesn't seem that long ago the the government were telling us all that longer tenancies were the way to go forward...

Longer fixed-periods, yes.

now it seems the tenant is in the driving seat when determining how long they want to stay in a property,so all the consultation about fixed term tenancies now seems a waste.

Yup. Consistent, isn't it?

LL's or indeed owners wont want to keep properties unoccupied simply because after 6-12 months the council tax ramps up too.

Right, and...?

I really think this is the beginning of the end for a LL with little intention of being a business.

Sorry, is there a downside?

Freecall

Surely the real reason behind this is to reduce pressure on Local Authorities.

No Section 21 = No responsibility for rehousing

Simple as that. One of the Government's biggest problems solved!





....or did we think that a Tory government suddenly decided to help tenants to the detriment of the property owning classes?

:rotfl:

Guerillatoker

caprikid1 wrote: »

You make the assumption that people renting can easily buy and are interchangeable. They are far from it.

No I'm not. I'm making the assumption that there are currently renters who are priced out of the purchasing market who would like to purchase if affordable.

Can you prove me wrong?

westernpromise wrote: »

You're making the very common mistake of assuming equal efficiency of occupancy between rented versus owned property...

But surely we want to move away from the use of HMOs and forcing those of low income to live in shoeboxes.* This policy may not solve the issue, but if it begins to address it, isn't that progress?


* I understand that for some people they do think single, low income people should live in tiny rooms in shared houses, so I suppose I'm not talking to such people.

Freecall wrote: »

Surely the real reason behind this is to reduce pressure on Local Authorities.

Oh it definitely is, but until the country votes in an actual philanthropic government, and people stop viewing taxation as an injustice, we have to take what we can get.