End of No Fault Evictions?

kimplus8

as a renter I personally welcome the change. I rented 3 properties over a space of 2 years because the landlord 'changed their mind' or wanted to move in. One of the properties I had only been in for 4 months when they gave me notice to leave at the end of my 6 month tenancy because her daughter had baby and she wanted to rent the house to her instead.
all the while It cost me significantly inmoving fees, time off work, reference and tenancy fees again etc. Plus I ended up having to take somewhere £100 more per month because that is all that was available at the time in the area I lived in. Looking back I should have refused go and waited for the council to help but I didn't want an evection etc to happen with my children.
I understand some landlords have changes in circumstances that will make them need the house back, (a landlord I had 10 years ago had. bereavement and needed to sell to pay for things) but going on a years sabbatical abroad and renting the house out as a long long term let to then get to 10 months and 'want the house back' is not of benefit to anyone except the landlord.

need_an_answer

kimplus8 wrote: »

as a renter I personally welcome the change. I rented 3 properties over a space of 2 years because the landlord 'changed their mind' or wanted to move in. One of the properties I had only been in for 4 months when they gave me notice to leave at the end of my 6 month tenancy because her daughter had baby and she wanted to rent the house to her instead.
all the while It cost me significantly inmoving fees, time off work, reference and tenancy fees again etc. Plus I ended up having to take somewhere £100 more per month because that is all that was available at the time in the area I lived in. Looking back I should have refused go and waited for the council to help but I didn't want an evection etc to happen with my children.
I understand some landlords have changes in circumstances that will make them need the house back, (a landlord I had 10 years ago had. bereavement and needed to sell to pay for things) but going on a years sabbatical abroad and renting the house out as a long long term let to then get to 10 months and 'want the house back' is not of benefit to anyone except the landlord.

I absolutely agree with you...I see many properties in my area that are advertised on RM both for sale and for rent.

That helps no one.

If you are embarking or considering becoming a LL then I believe that's the path you should start on and stay on...I'm A LL with several properties who finds themselves in the position of having a young adult offspring wanting to return to the area where 1 of my properties is located, it would be easy to say "live there" but I recognise the need for the tenants in situ to stay there...so offspring will need to rent privately from another LL!

We never bought or invested in any of our BTL properties with the intention of anyone other than tenants living there...that's where the mindset of some "landlords" differ.


all too often on these boards you read a thread that basically askes should I become a LL...simple answer if you don't want to run a business and be accountable to your tenants then "no ..its not the business for you"

dekaspace

I was trying to not sound accusational myself hence not trying to side, but I have had landlords who complain about me as a tenant but make it almost impossible for me to leave which makes no sense unless they want easy money


On the landlord moving side I had a friend who had a dodgy "landlord" as in they only wanted cash in hand or to a specific bank account turned out they weren't registered and friend only found out when he lost his job and had to get benefits, the LL put on the waterworks and got the other tenants to harass him (I was witness to this on the occasions I went round) and even told if he didn't leave they would gang together and phone police and say he was smoking pot in his room.


As it turned out the other tenants were friends with LL and had an agreement that they lived there until she returned from 2 years abroad.


My last property was awkward (and in Scotland) the ceiling collapsed in bathroom due to flood from upstairs neighbours mould on walls, smashed toilet etc and LL didn't care and council couldn't rehome me due to me having a property I was pretty much told by LL if I complained I would be given my notice! Council told me they could rehome me then but I had to be evicted first!

westernpromise

Guerillatoker wrote: »

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?

Yes. If you scroll down this article you will find a comparison of renting versus owning costs by region.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/landlords-could-stop-letting-no-fault-evictions-banned/
Renting costs more than buying almost everywhere, the exceptions being London and Manchester. Elsewhere it's cheaper to buy than rent. In Burnley renting costs almost twice what buying does.
Whatever's holding people back from buying, it's not that it's too expensive.

AnotherJoe

AdrianC wrote: »

I haven't seen anything suggesting tenancies won't be able to include periodic rent review clauses...

What landlords won't be able to do is say "Sign this new tenancy, at a higher rent, or I'll give you an s21".

So there will have to be a mechanism to manage that otherwise on the one hand rent rise acts as a de facto eviction if the tenant doesn't accept it (possibly because its very high for that reason) , or a tenant refusing to accept a rent rise can stay indefinitely and LL's can never raise rents. I wonder what happens in Scotland (perhaps that question should be appended to every post here )

FBaby

I can see this causing a real drop in the quality and diversity of the property available.

I agree. I had a prospective tenant whose circumstances I wasnt totally satisfied with but who in the end agreed to give a chance to. They turned out to be dreadful tenants, breaking fixtures, not looking after the property to the point that things just had to be replaced, causing terrible damp which was their doing (as indeed no problem before and after). As it happened, they left of their own accord but had they'd not, I would have wanted them out ASAP before they created yet more damage. That wouldn't be possible now.

I will now be very selective to who I let the property to, even more than before meaning that some families who would love the property will have no chance. I would prefer to wait longer for the right tenant than take the risk with one I don't trust not to destroy the place.

SpiderLegs

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

There is no way a reasonable landlord has a massive sulk over this and leaves a property empty. It makes no sense.

The eviction process is already prolonged whether it’s s.21 or s.8 ground 1 so this garbage about people going abroad is a red herring.

The risk return stuff is just more rubbish. There’s a tiny tiny increase in risk, but all you sensible landlords want long term tenants who will be paying your mortgages (around three years is it the average tenancy?) . You’re telling me you’re going to leave a property empty and sit on a negative return because you’re a bit scared that the tenants you don’t want to kick out anyway are going to do you over?
And while you’re sat with a deteriorating property that’s costing you money, all these millions of other landlords are selling up to depress the housing market and wipe out any further HPI for your empty properties?
Sorry, don’t buy it.

Efficiency of occupancy means very little here. HMOs will stay as HMOs with the same occupancy because the ‘risk-return’ you mention above is so massive that it will make very little sense to sell up.
Those kind of properties are exactly what skew your efficiency of occupancy numbers so it’s not really relevant.
The more likely scenario on sales is that it’s single properties that are occupied by the same number of people renting as would be after it’s sold.

SpiderLegs wrote: »

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

Point proven.

need_an_answer

westernpromise wrote: »

Whatever's holding people back from buying, it's not that it's too expensive.

This particular sentence has got me thinking about students,they don't want to buy,neither do they necessarily want more than a 9 or 10 month tenancy each year.


They are also on the whole more receptive to paying less for accommodation than your standard,professional or family renter.


Whilst its unlikely to have a great impact on them as they do tend to move on after the allotted tenancy term expires it will be interesting to see how HMO's fair in all this.

westernpromise

SpiderLegs wrote: »

There is no way a reasonable landlord has a massive sulk over this and leaves a property empty. It makes no sense.

The eviction process is already prolonged whether it’s s.21 or s.8 ground 1 so this garbage about people going abroad is a red herring.

The risk return stuff is just more rubbish. There’s a tiny tiny increase in risk, but all you sensible landlords want long term tenants who will be paying your mortgages (around three years is it the average tenancy?) . You’re telling me you’re going to leave a property empty and sit on a negative return because you’re a bit scared that the tenants you don’t want to kick out anyway are going to do you over?
And while you’re sat with a deteriorating property that’s costing you money, all these millions of other landlords are selling up to depress the housing market and wipe out any further HPI for your empty properties?
Sorry, don’t buy it.

Efficiency of occupancy means very little here. HMOs will stay as HMOs with the same occupancy because the ‘risk-return’ you mention above is so massive that it will make very little sense to sell up.
Those kind of properties are exactly what skew your efficiency of occupancy numbers so it’s not really relevant.
The more likely scenario on sales is that it’s single properties that are occupied by the same number of people renting as would be after it’s sold.



Point proven.

We'll see, won't we?

fishpond

If a tenant defaults on the rent, I can give them a section 8 and an s21 to run side by side.
Or I can give them an s8, which means they have made themselves homeless by not paying the rent, which afaik means that they will not be rehoused by the council.
If I give them an s21 they should be rehoused as it is a no fault eviction.