If I ruled the world both the renter and property owner would AGREE a notice period either way and s

ChrisK....._3

If I ruled the world both the renter and property owner would AGREE a notice period either way and should not be bound beyond the terms they both AGREE to. The government have no place dictating the conditions that a property owner should tolerate! in they're own home from renters. Hands up who would be happy for the government to install a renter in one of your bedrooms in your home and let them dictate the terms that they will reside in your bedroom. If a home owner says that you can rent one of my rooms provided you set yourself on fire on Friday's you simply say no thanks, I can't agree to those terms, I'll find a different property. That's why it's called an AGREEment. Both parties AGREE terms of the trade and write out an AGREEment and get a copy each. Neither party owes the other a reason to cease to AGREE, neither need to attribute blame, they owe each other one single moral and legal obligation which is the mutually AGREED notice period. and anyone who thinks the gov are doing this because of moral grounds is a knob

Mirror Online: Section 21 changes in full: Landlords to FINALLY be banned from unfair evictions.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/section-21-changes-full-landlords-14314727

Marvel1

ChrisK..... wrote: »

If I ruled the world both the renter and property owner would AGREE a notice period either way and should not be bound beyond the terms they both AGREE to. The government have no place dictating the conditions that a property owner should tolerate! in they're own home from renters. Hands up who would be happy for the government to install a renter in one of your bedrooms in your home and let them dictate the terms that they will reside in your bedroom. If a home owner says that you can rent one of my rooms provided you set yourself on fire on Friday's you simply say no thanks, I can't agree to those terms, I'll find a different property. That's why it's called an AGREEment. Both parties AGREE terms of the trade and write out an AGREEment and get a copy each.

Mirror Online: Section 21 changes in full: Landlords to FINALLY be banned from unfair evictions.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/section-21-changes-full-landlords-14314727

It's not their home it's the tenents, and I welcome it.

Many landlords and tenents post, they want their property back after being aboard, for family members ect and it's not the tenents fault.

Marisco

Hells teeth, these Easter holidays seem to stretch forever


Whatever stops landlords kicking people out for no reason is fine by me. And a reason doesn't include asking for repairs to be done.

Gavin83

I don't have an issue with the current rules, I think landlords should be free to evict but I can understand why the Government would change it.

I'm curious what would constitute a valid reason to evict. I expect in reality the situation won't change much and besides, if you really want to get rid of a tenant you can just price them out.

Marisco

Gavin83 wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the current rules, I think landlords should be free to evict but I can understand why the Government would change it.

I'm curious what would constitute a valid reason to evict. I expect in reality the situation won't change much and besides, if you really want to get rid of a tenant you can just price them out.

What, for no reason?



Non payment of rent, non upkeep, or trashing, the property, or subletting?

seven-day-weekend

Marisco wrote: »

Hells teeth, these Easter holidays seem to stretch forever


Whatever stops landlords kicking people out for no reason is fine by me. And a reason doesn't include asking for repairs to be done.

Does 'a reason' include wanting to sell your property or wanting to live in it yourself (or a family member)?

I agree asking for repairs to be done is no reason to kick someone out (you would think the LL would want to keep their asset in good condition) - unless of course the requests are unreasonable, like someone I know who expected a fitted kitchen when there was a very nice freestanding kitchen installed.(And the landlord didn't evict them, just ignored their request).

seven-day-weekend

Most private landlords just want a tenant who will pay the rent, look after the property, report any reasonable repairs and hopefully stay for a decent period. Most don't want to evict. You then have all the hassle of getting a new tenant.

I think LLs will be far less likely to rent to a new tenant if they know they can't evict them. This will lead to even more shortage of rented property.

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Does 'a reason' include wanting to sell your property or wanting to live in it yourself (or a family member)?

I agree asking for repairs to be done is no reason to kick someone out (you would think the LL would want to keep their asset in good condition) - unless of course the requests are unreasonable, like someone I know who expected a fitted kitchen when there was a very nice freestanding kitchen installed.(And the landlord didn't evict them, just ignored their request).

It was a case on VD this am that brought that up. A lass was saying she'd been given a section 21 just because she'd asked the LL to repair the leak that was was coming through the ceiling, that was getting worse and worse. Yes you would think a LL would want to keep the property up to scratch, but as you see from some of the CH5 progs, some just don't care if they are slums so long as the rent is paid.


As for reasons, so long as you've told the tenant that it's only a short term let then that is fine. But if you've said nowt and let them think it was a "forever home" then no I don't think you should be allowed to evict just because a family member wants it.

seven-day-weekend

Marisco wrote: »

It was a case on VD this am that brought that up. A lass was saying she'd been given a section 21 just because she'd asked the LL to repair the leak that was was coming through the ceiling, that was getting worse and worse. Yes you would think a LL would want to keep the property up to scratch, but as you see from some of the CH5 progs, some just don't care if they are slums so long as the rent is paid.


As for reasons, so long as you've told the tenant that it's only a short term let then that is fine. But if you've said nowt and let them think it was a "forever home" then no I don't think you should be allowed to evict just because a family member wants it.

Well I do, if the family member was homeless. There is no way I would favour my tenant over (for example), my son.

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well I do, if the family member was homeless. There is no way I would favour my tenant over (for example, my son.

That's easily sorted though without evicting anyone, just give them the deposit/bond money to enable them to rent somewhere else.

Marvel1

Marisco wrote: »

That's easily sorted though without evicting anyone, just give them the deposit/bond money to enable them to rent somewhere else.

Or move in with yourself while they get sorted.