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

seven-day-weekend

Marisco wrote: »

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

That's one answer I suppose.

Johno100

They've already introduced similar in Scotland and I've yet to hear any major complaints or of a collapse in the private rented sector there.

https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/eviction/eviction_of_private_tenants/grounds_for_eviction_-_assured_and_short_assured_tenants

Plenty of reasonable grounds for eviction and covers the issue of wanting to sell the property or move back in.

Jackmydad

Another nail in the coffin of private rentals.
Should ensure there's less rental property available, but hey! No problem. We'll just build 'em all nice new houses.
Or rather we'll say we'll build 'em nice new houses.
That "magic money tree" is the gift that keeps on giving dreams.

tommix

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

Imo most private landlords are money grabbing, tight fisted shysters who treat their tenants with utter contempt...Sure you get the odd good one, but most of 'em want locking up.:cool:

Jackmydad

tommix wrote: »

Imo most private landlords are money grabbing, tight fisted shysters who treat their tenants with utter contempt...Sure you get the odd good one, but most of 'em want locking up.:cool:

Most private landlords are just the opposite. They provide decent housing, and treat people reasonably.
Some aren't. You can't tar them all with the same brush.
However some tenants are a complete nightmare to deal with.
A very, very, expensive nightmare.
And some aren't.

But again, all these rules will eventually make more and more decent landlords get out of the business.
And of course the socialists are ready to fully meet the needs of people who want to rent, the same as they were the last time they were in, and the time before, and the time before that. . .

always_sunny

Jackmydad wrote: »

Another nail in the coffin of private rentals.
Should ensure there's less rental property available, but hey! No problem. We'll just build 'em all nice new houses.
Or rather we'll say we'll build 'em nice new houses.
That "magic money tree" is the gift that keeps on giving dreams.

Indeed and it's a bit of a worry for those who can't afford or just don't want to buy.
BTL in the UK is becoming too much of a risky business due to lopsided legislation, easy to BTL abroad with better yields and less BS.

Alikay

Jackmydad wrote: »

Another nail in the coffin of private rentals.
Should ensure there's less rental property available, but hey! No problem. We'll just build 'em all nice new houses.
Or rather we'll say we'll build 'em nice new houses.

If being a private landlord becomes less lucrative, they may sell their BTL properties which may mean purchase prices lower sufficiently to allow the middle-income renters to buy instead, so there wouldn't be the need for so many private rentals. Would have to be combined with much higher interest rates on savings to make that likely though.

seven-day-weekend

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.

This was posted on another discussion (I think by WesternPromise).

I absolutely agree.

Jackmydad

Alikay wrote: »

If being a private landlord becomes less lucrative, they may sell their BTL properties which may mean purchase prices lower sufficiently to allow the middle-income renters to buy instead, so there wouldn't be the need for so many private rentals. Would have to be combined with much higher interest rates on savings to make that likely though.

Most "middle income" renters could buy anyway if the wanted to.
Not everyone wants to buy, or to have the responsibility (and cost!) of home ownership.
Could make a difference too house prices though. Time will tell.

For what it's worth I agree with S-D-W's post above.
You'll end up with bad landlords, because the good ones have already nearly had enough of rules and regulations to give tenants more rights.

How about a law to be able to kick out the ones who don't pay the rent without all the present hassle?
Or criminal damage prosecutions for people who do massive damage to properties?

martinthebandit

If I ruled the world I'd insist the Conservative party stuck to conservative principles and stopped being bloody socialists!