End of section 21

sal_III

I fail to realize how issues around 1 month seasonal demand associated with the Fringe has to do with the overall rental market? If anything the no no-fault eviction is protecting "normal" renters who were getting evicted by greedy LLs who wanted to cash in during the price inflation caused by the high demand during the Fringe.

Your gloomy future only includes grotty houses and magcorp owned flats. So what will happen with your properties? They aren't going to vanish, someone will have to buy them and someone will live in them either as an owner or as a renter.

You keep threatening that if you and other private LLs sell their portfolios there will be swathes of homeless people, someone will have to buy your properties no? So unless the new owners sit on an empty property (which isn't going to happen since like 90%+ are BTL mortgaged and the banks won't allow it). Tomorrow there will be the exact same number, exact same quality homes as today (ignoring any new builds) and someone will live in them either as an owner or as a renter.

The increasing demand hence cost for private rentals is caused by the simple fact that the population is increasing faster than the housing stock. There are plenty of factors that are causing the disparity. The absolution of s21 evictions isn't one of them.

If by your own account you only ever issued 4 s21 notices in 30 years and all of them were for wanting to sell the property (which you will still be able to do in the future). Why do you care about it being abolished? Sure if there are further changes that would prevent you from evicting non-paying tenants etc. it would be perfectly understandable, but so far such changes are imaginary and far fetched.

babyblade41

I do hold one property as they are long term with no mortgage on the property , it's a home to the tenants and they have taken care of it as their own, have now asked if they can change the bathroom and showed me their plans to landscape the garden.
As long as I have the necessary paperwork on any major changes then they do as they want and the house is un-recognisable to when they moved in
It is gorgeous now and somewhere they are proud to live in ..a nice part of SE Oxfordshire with a rent they'd be hard pushed to find with a very affordable rent.

The rest of the stock was sold off 18 months ago and no hope of venturing back into private rental again

So glad I did, the abolition of section 21 won't affect the current house as I'd never want to live there and never have .

If the people want to move then it will be sold ..simples

Cakeguts

Semple wrote: »

I'm sure you've only said that in jest, as frankly that would be ridiculous.

Based on your claim of having a number of long-standing tenants, i'm going to go on the assumption that you're a fair and reasonable landlord. The problem is there are a number of landlords out there who are not fair and reasonable, and would happily issue s21 notices to tenants who complain of the smallest things that require maintenance - those landlords are the ones that are ruining things for fair and reasonable landlords.

From a good tenants perspective, all they want, is to know that they have some security in the home that they are renting, and that when issues arise (as they always will) they can request the landlord to fix/repair/replace in reasonable time and without fear of reprisals.

From a landlords perspective, i'm sure the only two concerns you have is that the tenant pays rent on time, and that they treat the property with care and respect.

I agree there needs to be much quicker fast-tracking to evict tenants who fall into arrears. But at the same time there needs to be protection for good tenants who end up with rogue landlords who do anything to avoid their duties as a landlord.

We have long standing tenants because we are good at it but unfortunately the new rules won't let us use an s21 to evict someone when we can see that something is starting to go wrong. There doesn't seem to be anything in the consultation document or the survey that covers a tenant moving out and letting the property on Airbnb or to cover a tenant who has 20 cats and the landlord is still responsible for the internal repairs when the cats have ruined the interior. The only mandatory possession orders are if the landlord wants to sell the house or move back in which would be no fault so it doesn't remove no fault evictions at all and if the tenant is in rent arrears. There is something in there about antisocial behaviour but I think the landlord has to prove it you can't just evict because the chav from hell is annoying all the neighbours.



What these new rules will do is cause all the fair and reasonable landlords to sell as soon as the property becomes vacant because we can't risk rent controls (again) and so tenants will only be able to rent from the rogue landlords who break all the rules. And they will be renting grotty properties in grotty areas at very high rents. This is exactly what happened last time someone did this. Then what happens is that because the rents are very high for grotty properties rent controls are introduced across the board. The last of the good landlords get out quick and you are left with the rogues.


What we have got coming now is history repeating itself. Sadiq Khan is already calling for rent controls in London because rents have gone up so much that poorer people can no longer afford the rent levels. And this is because landlords are selling. This will just happen all over the country as it did before. As soon as you reduce the number of rental properties available the rents rise.



The people who want security of tenure in good quality properties are going to be the hardest hit because there won't be any good landlords with quality properties only the criminal landlords with badly maintained property in bad areas. It will just make the situation with rogue landlords worse because they will be the majority of landlords. All the good ones like us will disappear.



So as has already happened in Scotland rents will rise.


https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/nearly-50-of-landlords-could-sell-if-section-21-abolished This is what tenants are going to be faced with.



Last time a government did this they didn't have Right to Buy going at the same time. This time it will be a double blow to poorer tenants because they will have high rents poor quality housing and not chance of getting social housing.


The reason why the assured shorthold tenancy was introduced was to get more quality rental properties available because the rent acts had decimated the rental market so what is going to happen now is the government housing minister is going to repeat the faults of the past and affect far more tenants than those affected by "no fault" S21 evictions.

onwards&upwards

Toys and pram come to mind.

The country doesn’t run for your benefit, shocking as that might seem!

edgex

Cakeguts wrote: »

I hope this is in the right place.



Having just filled up the government "consultation" on the end of section 21. The consultation very much indicates that they have made up their mind to change this and I think there is a lot of indication of possible security of tenure for tenants in the future (all tenancies will become assured tenancies) I wondered how many landlords would sell their portfolios before it is introduced.



I am considering making all of our tenants homeless because of this. Some of them have rented from us for many years but I don't feel I am being given a choice.

What consultation have you filled in?

Not the biggest one, as that was last year
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/overcoming-the-barriers-to-longer-tenancies-in-the-private-rented-sector

sammyjammy

Cakeguts wrote: »

The number of tenants evicted for no fault not including where the landlord wants to sell or move back in which will still be the case is so small that it is insignificant so why go to all the trouble of changing the legislation. Not only that but it is an insignifant number of the housing moves over all. So how come this really small group of people are suddenly more important than all the rest of the population? Does the government really want to end all private renting except the bad properties? They are going to lose all the build to rent schemes too.

Tell that to my brother and his family who live in Cornwall and get moved on every six months or so, children changing schools, disruption for them as a family and no home.

Cakeguts

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Toys and pram come to mind.

The country doesn’t run for your benefit, shocking as that might seem!

Well it won't make any difference to me because I won't be a landlord anymore. But the area we are letting in will lose a good landlord and several good quality rental family houses. They won't be bought by other landlords because at the price they are now they don't provide enough yield. This will though https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-82994666.html and this https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72084259.html


Or you will be left with these build to rent properties in a cheap area that is why they could afford the land to build to rent but look at the cost of the rent? That is more than we charge for a prime area so the rents are expensive for where they are. The local housing allowance for that area is £493.65 for a 3 bed house. So £200 per month less than the rent for these houses.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-73103803.html

muhandis

OP, from what I can tell, you have been a landlord with multiple properties for a long time now. Fair play to you.

You have had a good run, your business model has no doubt given you good returns over the years and decades past. I think it's too much to expect that a business will run in the same manner, in the same environment for decades on end. Especially one that is a basic requirement for people - a roof over their heads.

If you feel that the business is no longer viable (from the other responses on this thread, not all landlords feel the same), like all other businesses, you are free to sell up and find another more profitable business to invest in. No doubt there will be someone to buy your houses and someone to live in them.

The scenarios you have painted are extreme (I think) and imho very unlikely to come to pass, to put it mildly.

I wish you luck with whatever course of action you take but think that overall, having more security of tenure for tenants is a good thing.

sal_III

Cakeguts wrote: »

We have long standing tenants because we are good at it but unfortunately the new rules won't let us use an s21 to evict someone when we can see that something is starting to go wrong. Something going wrong would allow you s8 eviction There doesn't seem to be anything in the consultation document or the survey that covers a tenant moving out and letting the property on Airbnb or to cover a tenant who has 20 cats and the landlord is still responsible for the internal repairs when the cats have ruined the interior. Doesn't need to be, since no sub letting and pets limitations are standard terms in an AST, so you can again use s8 to evict for breach of contract and seek cost from the deposit/insurance. The only mandatory possession orders are if the landlord wants to sell the house or move back in which would be no fault so it doesn't remove no fault evictions at all and if the tenant is in rent arrears. There is something in there about antisocial behaviour but I think the landlord has to prove it you can't just evict because the chav from hell is annoying all the neighbours. This is the only good point you have made so far, but some vetting in advance could help a great deal in not getting such tenant in the first place. By your own account you haven't the need to use s21 for such issue in 30 years

What these new rules will do is cause all the fair and reasonable landlords to sell as soon as the property becomes vacant because we can't risk rent controls (again) Again with the rent controls, their potential implementation has nothing to do with s21 abolition and so tenants will only be able to rent from the rogue landlords who break all the rules. No they will be able to rent from the plethora of LLs that are caught by the potential rent control, as they won't or can't offload their properties on a flooded market. And they will be renting grotty properties in grotty areas at very high rents. So what happens to all the non-grotty properties in this scenario? Do they vanish? This is exactly what happened last time someone did this. Then what happens is that because the rents are very high for grotty properties rent controls are introduced across the board. The last of the good landlords get out quick and you are left with the rogues.

What we have got coming now is history repeating itself. Sadiq Khan is already calling for rent controls in London because rents have gone up so much that poorer people can no longer afford the rent levels. No, the rent goes up because private LLs increase it to profit from the increased demand. Please cut the "good Samaritan" BS you didn't buy several properties to help people get roofs over their heads, you did it for profit And this is because landlords are selling. This will just happen all over the country as it did before. As soon as you reduce the number of rental properties available the rents rise. There are only 3 ways to reduce the number of rental properties available: A) demolish existing rented buildings (not happening). Owners evict tenants and keep existing rented buildings empty (not happening) C) More renters turn to owners. In order for the current private LLs sell, someone will have to buy the property. There is ZERO chance that all those properties will end up in rogue LL hands

The people who want security of tenure in good quality properties are going to be the hardest hit because there won't be any good landlords with quality properties only the criminal landlords with badly maintained property in bad areas. It will just make the situation with rogue landlords worse because they will be the majority of landlords. All the good ones like us will disappear. According to your predictions they will be able to get low rent on a rent controlled property without tread of no-fault eviction I can see this as a good thing.



So as has already happened in Scotland rents will rise.


https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/nearly-50-of-landlords-could-sell-if-section-21-abolished This is what tenants are going to be faced with.



Last time a government did this they didn't have Right to Buy going at the same time. This time it will be a double blow to poorer tenants because they will have high rents poor quality housing and not chance of getting social housing.


The reason why the assured shorthold tenancy was introduced was to get more quality rental properties available because the rent acts had decimated the rental market so what is going to happen now is the government housing minister is going to repeat the faults of the past and affect far more tenants than those affected by "no fault" S21 evictions.

You keep basing all of your assumptions/predictions on rental properties vanishing, just because you and other private LLs sell of their portfolios - this simply can't happen.

Cakeguts

sal_III wrote: »

You keep basing all of your assumptions/predictions on rental properties vanishing, just because you and other private LLs sell of their portfolios - this simply can't happen.

I got my information from this https://news.rla.org.uk/renting-housing-crisis-as-landlords-sell-up/ Where did you get yours from?


You need to read the quote from David Smith in this article.