Landlords' Lament, the end of Section 21

AG47

Malthusian wrote: »

So if a landlord wants to get rid of a tenant they now have to issue a section 8 instead of a section 21.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Is 8 a nicer number than 21? How many tenants are likely to go to court to try and force a landlord to let to them when they don't want to? That doesn't seem like a very positive solution to the problem of a landlord who refuses to do repairs.

But it will take longer for the tenant to get out, and all the time they are not paying rent.

triathlon

Arklight wrote: »

These landlord types have heard the news on this forum. They don't like it. They don't like it one bit!

https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2019/4/government-set-to-consult-on-axing-section-21

Yes it is probably to reduce the pain that undoubtedly will inflict tenants in the future, but I seriously don't know why we bother. There will be less rental property available in the coming years and more costly, so many tenants and the people who proclaim to look after them constantly keep shooting themselves in the foot.

AG47

need_an_answer wrote: »

I believe the answer to both your questions could be yes.

At present there are LL's who become so not through the conscious decision of saying "I want to run a business" but because they want to buy a new property and keep their options open to keep the original property(common in second marriages for example) or they are moving for a set period of time job wise and want to retain the property should they wish to return...in the meantime whatever the reason is,they rent it out.


If you potentially have to give a tenant an unlimited time tenancy agreement then they could on top of all the other LL legislation say its not worth it and sell.

Whilst it may free up previous rental property onto the selling market not all tenants can afford to buy or indeed want to buy their own home...

As a result fewer rental type properties for rent could mean demand outstripping supply in some areas and rents increasing.

There is always a need for good quality rental properties but there is also a requirement for good but basic properties where rents are lower and suit a level of need for a tenant.
Whilst I never believe any tenant should put up with a lack of repairs or genuine work that needs doing some standards of properties are lower and attract a lower rental market.In forcing all LL's into fully maintaining to a high standard,you automatically push the quality of the property up but you could be forcing the tenant who cant afford the increased rent out....

There are many types of rental properties across the sector in the same way there are many types of tenants...one size doesn't fit all.

As a LL of a few years standing and multiple properties I have had to use a section 21 only once in order to formally end a joint tenancy where the relationship had broken down between the 2 tenants and the remaining tenant not wishing to leave once the joint tenancy ended(they were not also able to afford the rent solely)….rent arrears would have escalated very quickly.

The number of properties remains the same,nregradcless of if its lucrative to rent it out or not so much anymore.

What do you mean all these properties will remain empty? If so they will have to pay the expensive empty council tax.

What I'm saying is, the argument that because it's not so easy or profitable to BTL anymore, or as easy to be a LL, this does not mean less properties out there for tenants to choose from. The properties are still there it's just they wil be cheaper and the tents ts have more rights

AG47

triathlon wrote: »

Yes it is probably to reduce the pain that undoubtedly will inflict tenants in the future, but I seriously don't know why we bother. There will be less rental property available in the coming years and more costly, so many tenants and the people who proclaim to look after them constantly keep shooting themselves in the foot.

There may be less people choosing BTL because it's harder to compete with government and housing association cheaper rentals properties.

But how can there be less rental properties available? The number of properties in the uk is still going up every year, meanwhile the number of people who are able to raise the funds to be able to buy is going down.

So what will happene to all these new properties being added to the supply every year?

AG47

One of the largest impacts will be "Buy-to-let lenders are also likely to watch the proposed change closely and may be less likely to lend if landlords find it harder to evict unruly tenants."

BTL is going to be harder and more costly going forward.

AG47

Programs like nightmare landlords and tenants from hell are going to love this, they take delight in filming the misery of landlords trying to evict nightmare tenants.

BTL is dead.

So the question remains, what will happen to all the excess properties that will be empty but to expensive for most people to buy?

Either prices will come down a long way or they will remain empty and have to pay expensive council tax.

triathlon

AG47 wrote: »

One of the largest impacts will be "Buy-to-let lenders are also likely to watch the proposed change closely and may be less likely to lend if landlords find it harder to evict unruly tenants."

BTL is going to be harder and more costly going forward.

Yes, and it is only tenants that will suffer. A very small minority have as usual screamed at the moon at how unfair the world is to them, and I include the cult site HPC.com. But who will suffer?
Yes the poor majority of tenants that we look after and who are happy renting

Arklight

triathlon wrote: »

Yes, and it is only tenants that will suffer. A very small minority have as usual screamed at the moon at how unfair the world is to them, and I include the cult site HPC.com. But who will suffer?
Yes the poor majority of tenants that we look after and who are happy renting

Yes you're all heart. Thank goodness you chose landlording rather than nursing or one of the other caring professions.

Arklight

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't think that this affects me much, as I'm selling up soon anyway, and for years I've tried to get tenants to sign up for longer than my usual tenancy length of one year. Over multiple properties not one tenant has wanted a longer contract. Although some have tended to stay on for many years (11 years was the longest), currently have one tenant for over 7 years, and they don't look like moving, although last year they asked us if we would sell to them, so they might move if they buy elsewhere. There is usually quite a bit of work at a change of tenancy, so it is much better to have a long term tenant.

Tenants don't want to sign up to long tenancies because if they have to move they would be in the position of not being able to.

Long tenancies don't offer security of tenure, they offer being locked into a financial contract for a period of time that suits the landlord with the prospect of being arbitrarily evicted at the end of it.

Imagine you were forbidden from selling your house for 24 - 36 months or more but might just be chucked out at the end of that period. Would that make it feel like a secure home?

In Germany tenants can give a reasonable period of notice, three to six months I think, and then leave. Other than breach of contract the landlord can only reclaim the property if they are moving back into it themselves, and then with plenty of notice.

In return, German tenants take responsibility for most maintenance and providing their own fittings.

There isn't a noticeable shortage of rental properties in Germany, but then they tend to view Housing as a way of housing people, rather than a get richer quick scheme for people who are already comparatively rich, as in Britain.

chucknorris

Arklight wrote: »

Tenants don't want to sign up to long tenancies because if they have to move they would be in the position of not being able to.

Long tenancies don't offer security of tenure, they offer being locked into a financial contract for a period of time that suits the landlord with the prospect of being arbitrarily evicted at the end of it.

Imagine you were forbidden from selling your house for 24 - 36 months or more but might just be chucked out at the end of that period. Would that make it feel like a secure home?



There isn't a noticeable shortage of rental properties in Germany, but then they tend to view Housing as a way of housing people, rather than a get richer quick scheme for people who are already comparatively rich, as in Britain.

What makes you think that I'm not aware of this, I've been a landlord for over 28 Years. In fact, my post made it very clear that I knew that tenants don't want to be tied into longer contracts.