End of section 21

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 don't understand why you think it can't happen? Of course private landlords can sell all their properties if they want. If they can't sell them they can leave them vacant. That has happened before as well. There were a lot of vacant flats over shops that the shop owners would not let due to the security of tenure from the rent acts.

Cakeguts

edgex wrote: »

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

No not that one. The one contained in this article. https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/section-21-is-going-but-lets-have-a-say-on-how-it-goes

Cakeguts

sammyjammy wrote: »

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.

Well when we get back to the rent acts situation in housing he won't have a problem because there won't be anywhere for him to rent so he will have to do what most people had to do then which is to buy somewhere.



In the 1960s it was either live at home with your parents, get social housing or buy a house. There were very few private rentals available. Have a look at the affect of the rent acts on rental property.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales



Those properties that became vacant were sold off and those properties where the tenants had security of tenure did not come back onto the market so there was huge reduction of properties available to rent.

Smodlet

Cakeguts wrote: »

I don't understand why you think it can't happen? Of course private landlords can sell all their properties if they want. If they can't sell them they can leave them vacant. That has happened before as well. There were a lot of vacant flats over shops that the shop owners would not let due to the security of tenure from the rent acts.

LLs who leave their properties empty can be liable to pay double council tax on them. Empty properties can attract squatters, drug users, chavs of all descriptions. In some cases, councils can compulsorily purchase them, Cakeguts; a horrifying thought for you, I imagine. They can certainly take action to force LLs to do repairs.

Of course, you can leave your properties empty if you want to. There are several reasons it is not necessarily a good idea, though.

ripplyuk

OP, I’m still struggling to understand. Why would abolishing the S21 mean that rental properties turn into slums? Surely we would still have the normal channels and laws that the tenant can use to force the landlord to do essential repairs, if needed?

I’m guessing the rent act was to prevent landlords charging more than a reasonable rent. Why would be that be a problem? Obviously I can see the problem for greedy landlords but I mean the decent ones.

edgex

So heres the actual consultation;
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-new-deal-for-renting-resetting-the-balance-of-rights-and-responsibilities-between-landlords-and-tenants

The government is committed to modernising the rented sector, and intends to introduce a new, fairer deal for both landlords and tenants.

On 15 April 2019, the government announced that it will put an end to so called ‘no-fault’ evictions by repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Under the new framework, a tenant cannot be evicted from their home without good reason. This will provide tenants with more stability, protecting them from having to make frequent moves at short notice, and enabling them to put down roots and plan for the future.

The government also proposed to strengthen the section 8 eviction process, so landlords are able to regain their property should they wish to sell it or move into it themselves. This will provide a more secure legal framework and a more stable rental market for landlords to remain and invest in.

This consultation seeks views on how section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 has been used in the past, and the circumstances in which landlords should be able to regain possession once it has been abolished, including what changes may be necessary to the existing grounds for possession in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988.

We are also inviting views on the implications of removing the ability of landlords to grant assured shorthold tenancies in the future, how the processing of repossession orders through the courts could be improved, and whether the reforms should be extended to other types of landlords, most notably, to housing associations.

Quite why the OP didn't link to it on their first post, or when asked, & is relying on links to one-sided websites to back up their claims :think:

sal_III

Cakeguts wrote: »

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

So who is going to buy your top quality properties? If it's not LLs then it will be someone looking to move "up the ladder" so what's happening with their homes?

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

I get my information from using my own brain, not from reading RLA and other LL association websites, that are far from impartial.

Cakeguts wrote: »

I don't understand why you think it can't happen? Of course private landlords can sell all their properties if they want. If they can't sell them they can leave them vacant. That has happened before as well. There were a lot of vacant flats over shops that the shop owners would not let due to the security of tenure from the rent acts.

So you prefer to lose money on a property, only because you can't no-fault evict, or will be getting low rent controlled return in some part of the country if it happens at all?

Talk about trowing your toys out of the pram and cutting your nose to spite your face.

You might be in a position to be able to afford having a vacant property. Most LLs have mortgages up the wazoo and can't. Not to mention other disincentives like double council tax, compulsory purchases, increased insurance, you name it. And if you think tenants are bad, wait until you get squatters in your vacant property.

noddynoo

This has happened to us Our landlord hasn't even been contactable the last 2 years and suddenly out of the blue a section 21 Please think about giving your tenants longer to get sorted.

Smodlet

Tenants who do not pay their rent are squatters in all but name, I think. I absolutely support the reform of the eviction process, having endured the Chav from Hell for two and a half years because her LL was so useless, I had to tell him what a Section 21 was; he had never heard of one and kept blaming his letting agent. It took him a while to realise his property is his responsibility.

I also applaud the abolition of no fault evictions. It would be nice to think this will improve the calibre of tenants in some areas as they will not have to live with this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They might be more inclined to stay and respect a property as their home rather than as a place from which they can be evicted on a whim.

It is not like me to be optimistic but this is the best news I have heard in an age. I also think this is a fascinating discussion and am heartened by the opinions of so many LLs who seem to support this legislation.

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

Tenants who do not pay their rent are squatters in all but name, I think. I absolutely support the reform of the eviction process, having endured the Chav from Hell for two and a half years because her LL was so useless, I had to tell him what a Section 21 was; he had never heard of one and kept blaming his letting agent. It took him a while to realise his property is his responsibility.

I also applaud the abolition of no fault evictions. It would be nice to think this will improve the calibre of tenants in some areas as they will not have to live with this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They might be more inclined to stay and respect a property as their home rather than as a place from which they can be evicted on a whim.

It is not like me to be optimistic but this is the best news I have heard in an age. I also think this is a fascinating discussion and am heartened by the opinions of so many LLs who seem to support this legislation.

There is no provision for anyone to evict the chav from hell in the new legislation. Anti social behaviour is a descretionary ground for eviction and will require proof. The only mandatory grounds are rent arrears and the landlord wanting to sell or move back in. Everything else is descretionary so there is a chance that you would never get rid of the chav from hell under the new rules. I would think that the useless landlord would be even more useless because he would be unable to do anything about it. No section 21 and all assured tenancies with security of tenure. He wouldn't be able to evict her. That is another fault in the new legislation to go with the ability to introduce rent controls. The mayor of London is already trying to introduce rent controls in London to stop rents from rising due to the lack of private rental property. Rent controls would really reduce the number of rental properties available.



What I think a lot of people haven't realised is that it won't stop the landlord from evicting tenants. They can evict simply because they want to sell or move back into the property or move a family member into the property. The only difference is that the landlords will have to tell the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy that they will want the property back to sell or to move back into. It would be possible to introduce this into the Assured Shorthold Tenancy. There is no need to abolish the section 21 just so that tenants know that the landlord is evicting them to sell the property. It makes no sense.



This article explains why the legislation hasn't been thought through properly.



https://news.rla.org.uk/blog-the-section-21-consultation/


I have also read that someone said that security of tenure is great but only if there are available properties to start with.