End of section 21

SusieT

I can see the positives in this as t the moment I would think a big percentage of S21 notices could have faults due to the amount of conditions that need to be met.
I may be wrong, but (as a landlord of 1 property) it appears that
If I wanted to live in it at some point in the future, or, if a family member wanted to live there I could use S8. I imagine something along the lines of "the landlord may at some point in the future require this property as their/(family) home.
If I wanted to modernise the property (not just decorate or carpet it), then I could use S8
If the tennant was in breach of contract to a point that was irrevocable (not just Mr/Mrs X has painted the bedroom bright fuschia), I could use S8
I want to sell the house (if the prices ever go up to part way what I have laid out this will happen), I can use S8, and again I can see this being written into any contract.
Rent arrears I can use S8 - this should however be tightened so that landlords can go to court after 2 months and get posession, no ifs and buts and we may pay at some point or we just paid part of the rent when we thought we really really had to, or poor us, a rubber stamp job with a very short waiting time so that the baliffs can be in and house cleared within 3 months of the last period paid for. Also, that the deposit can also be used to cover court/baliff costs and rent arrears in the case of it going to court.

I think there will most certainly be landlords getting fed up and selling, this will also mean that in some areas rent will go up and yes sadly I can see some people having a hard time affording a house in a reasonable area for their budget and possibly having to move away from schools, friends, family to find somewhere.

onwards&upwards

Cakeguts wrote: »

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

How could it possibly be a mandatory ground when there is no universally agreed upon definition?

If it was mandatory it would be open to massive abuse by landlords.

SpiderLegs

My heart really bleeds for this poor landlord who is now going to be forced to closed down their multi property empire that has generated them huge profits for god knows how long.

All because of a proposed legislative change that
A. Doesn’t really affect them (as they are a ‘good’ landlord)
B. They will be able to get round anyway
C. Will inevitably lead to the imposition of further north-Korean style controls that no sane government of any colour would dare to propose ever.

How absolutely terrible for the poor chap.

FBaby

People are so naive to think that this is introduced to give justice to tenants! Since when does the government make decision on the basis of fairness! Very naive.

The only reason for this is the result of the housing crisis and the number of tenants who use being evicted to get rehoused in social properties. People are even prepared to stay in a gritty b&b if it means getting 5hst cheaper secure property that you can even buy and sell at profit in a few years.

All the government is doing is shifting the responsibility of housing people who would prefer social housing into landlords.

A LL who issues a S21 will do it for three reasons: sell, move back or believes they can a better tenant. The first two remains, so it means if that landlords can't shift tenants. Why would they want to do that, considering the short term cost of doing so! If it is because the tenant complains of repairs and these requests are reasonable then surely no tenants will want to move in, or if they do, they'll pester the landlord just like the previous tenant, so what to gain?

Landlords want new tenants when tenants are causing them problems. Because the standards of care of the property are low and T&W is progressing at a very high speed in the main instance.

I am not too worried about this because the option to move back or sell is there. I would be prepared to move in for 6 months if it meant getting rid of a problematic tenant. And yes, if it becomes more trouble than what it is worth, I'll sell.

A bit confused about the ' letting know in advance you'll be moving in/selling' though. Surely the point is that are likely not to know. In my case, because it would be dependent on the tenant, but ultimately,but could be because of a job loss, or seperating from my OH, instances that could happen at anytime.

Sadly in the town I let my property, such family homes, in a convenient location for school and commute, are very rare. I'd have no problem selling, but it would one less property for a young professional family who is in need of renting whilst saving to buy. This legislation certainly won't help them.

Smodlet

The power of spin, eh, FBaby? I have to say your interpretation makes more sense than anything I have read so far. I knew there was something wrong with the world when I felt optimistic. Silly me.

Cakeguts, your thoughts, please?

Slithery

FBaby wrote: »

A bit confused about the ' letting know in advance you'll be moving in/selling' though. Surely the point is that are likely not to know. In my case, because it would be dependent on the tenant, but ultimately,but could be because of a job loss, or seperating from my OH, instances that could happen at anytime.

I believe that this it currently what happens in the Scottish system - to be able to evict a tenant for either of those 2 reasons you need to have written the relevant clauses into the original contract otherwise you can't evict.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

The power of spin, eh, FBaby? I have to say your interpretation makes more sense than anything I have read so far. I knew there was something wrong with the world when I felt optimistic. Silly me.

Cakeguts, your thoughts, please?

Yes I am sorry I am no good at spin (or essays) There are several problems. Regarding the chav from hell as an example. There are more evictions every year from social housing properties than from private rented property. Those evictions from social housing who won't be rehoused in social housing have to find somewhere else to live. Private landlords house them. So you can get one of these evicted tenants from social housing for antisocial behaviour renting from the landlord who owns the house next door.



In order for the new private landlord to evict them for antisocial behaviour under section 8 the landlord has to provide the same level of proof that the social housing landlord had to but they probably have a whole department that deals with antisocial behaviour whereas the private landlord is often a single individual. So how is a private landlord supposed to get this proof when they often don't live near the property and it is the neighbours who are getting the brunt of the antisocial behaviour? Eviction is descretionary so how on earth do you get rid of antisocial tenants under section 8?



Our properties are rented by people who do not have to rent. They can all bar one afford to buy a house but at the present time it suits them to rent.



Reasons why people rent from choice.


The house is near a good school. (Once the child/children leave the school they move.)



Their house has been flooded.


Their house has been damaged by fire and is uninhabitable ( we have had two different tenants who were in this situation if they can't find a rental they have to stay with family or in a hotel often for several months)


The tenant has split up with their partner and is renting while looking for a smaller property.



The tenant has moved area and is renting before buying again.



The tenant has moved in with a partner and is trying living together before buying together.



The tenant wants to break a chain to sell.



None of these people are renting because that is their only option for housing it is all from choice or from damage to a house that they own.



A lot of people think wrongly that the only people who rent are tenants who can't get social housing.



If you own properties in an area which is sought after and expensive there is usually a shortage of rental property simply because landlords can't make any money because the difference between what you pay to buy and what you can get in rent is too great and if you need a mortgage you will make a loss. Businesses that always make a loss eventually fail. All of our properties are in prime areas. Our business model is to offer tenants more choice of rental. So those people who want to pay for a more upmarket rental in an expensive area can. It is just like any other sales business where you offer choice of products at different prices.


The mistake that most people make is that they think that ALL tenants rent because they have to. They really don't get the idea that there are many tenants who rent because that suits their lifestyle at the present time.



As we know there is not enough social housing available and what the government wants to do is to park the tenants who have to rent into private rentals so that councils can continue with Right to Buy and so that the government can say that they have dealt with homelessness. There are now a huge number of tenants in private rentals who should really be in social housing but they can't get it. There are also tenants in private rentals who have been evicted from social housing for various reasons.



From the research that I am reading through at the moment the people who will sell property will be the landlords who are offering the good quality in a good area accommodation because the risk of getting a a probem tenant and not being able to evict them is too high for their business models so they will just sell up. As their tenants would be able to buy anyway it won't actually affect them. The people who it will affect will be the people who have been flooded out or had a fire or who want to move to another part of the country (job mobility) and the people who rent between buying or selling and the people who have a relationship breakdown and those who have to rent because they can't get social housing. Once you lose all the decent rentals in good areas you get everyone who need to rent chasing the properties that are left. The research is saying that if we lose section 21 40% of landlords will sell. That doesn't mean that all first time buyers who want to buy will be able to. Some people can't get a mortgage and it is these people who should be in social housing but can't get it because there isn't enough who will lose out.



The housing problems in the private rented sector are all caused by a lack of social housing. If the tenants who have to rent were all in social housing most of the problems of evictions would go. Right to Buy has made the social housing situation worse. The simple solution is to ban Right to Buy and Right to Acquire and then to provide more social housing. What people who have to rent should be doing is lobbying the government to get more social housing not trying make landlords sell up and in the process reducing the amount of rented accommodation available. Social housing offers secure accommodation at affordable rents. Private landlords can never offer affordable rents because a lot of them can't borrow money to buy the properties at the interest rates that social housing providers can.




The prediction is that as it stands at the moment with the length of time it takes to get possession for rent arrears by section 8 that most landlords will not take tenants claiming benefits because of the risk and because the market for rental properties is growing but the number of available properties is decreasing the high risk tenants who should be in social housing will have the most problems finding somewhere to live. For benefit tenants it is expected to get worse because of the reduction in available properties and an increase in the number of tenants chasing fewer and fewer properties. More tenants and fewer properties will cause rent rises. Another reason to stop Right to Buy and Right to Acquire while building more social housing.



Scotland has already got this problem. In a previous post about the Edinburgh Fringe because I am no good at spin the point got missed. It isn't a problem for the landlords that they can't accommodate performers in the Fringe the problem is for the Fringe performers who can't find anywhere cheap enough to stay. They used to be able to before the new tenancies were introduced but they can't now. So the point made is that the Edinburgh Fringe performances will now become more elite because only wealthy people will be able to take part.



The fact that there is already an example in Scotland of what happens if you lose the equivalent of section 21 and the unintended consequences on the less well off renters you would think that England would not make the same mistake?



There is on other thing about these so called "no fault" evictions. Just because a landlord doesn't give a reason for issuing a section 21 doesn't mean that it was "no fault." For example I can see a case where a tenant would be issued a section 21 because they had a dog that barked all day when the tenant was out at work but the noise really annoyed the neighbours. The tenant who isn't there in the day when the dog is barking would record this as a no fault eviction but actually there was a fault. So when managing agents say that they haven't had any no fault evictions they are likely to be telling the truth. It is just that the landlord hasn't given the tenant a reason as to why they are at fault. Some of the no fault evictions will because the landlord has decided to move back in or has decided to sell, some of them will be down to the perception of the tenant that they were not at fault. An antisocial tenant isn't going to think that they are antisocial they will just think that eveyone including the landlord "has it in for them."


There have been posts on here that show that some people still believe the myth that all private landlords are wealthy. Some private landlords only own one property. They live in a rental and let a property. Many private landlords have put their savings into rental properties. Imagine going to the bank to get your savings out to go on holiday only to be told you can't have them because the bank has decided that you can only have them for certain specific reasons and going on holiday is not one of them. This is what moving to section 8 feels like for some landlords.


There is one more thing that no one seems to have noticed. Lots of people are kept in employment by work needing to be done on rental properties. For example there are gas safe plumbers whose entire work is gas safety certificates. Home owners do not have their gas appliances checked so often. Gardeners who keep the gardens in good condition between lets, tradespeople who do the repairs that home owners would DIY. Decorators who paint properties between lets, and the cleaners who clean the houses. If many private landlords leave these tradespeople will lose their jobs.

Smodlet

Just to be clear, the only people I was accusing of spin are politicians, to whom it is stock in trade. I had not thought of FBaby's interpretation which, given its cynicism (a language I speak) I feel is probably the best. It is probably my lack of understanding which is to blame; after all, I am not, nor ever claimed to be, a LL.

Just about everything I have learned has been from this forum and the links posted therein. You, Cakeguts, know why I needed to learn and I thank you once again for your support with the Chav from Hell situation.

You are good at essays, imho. I now understand your point of view much better. In principle, I still applaud the abolition of Section 21; in practice, it will probably be just another complete b@11s up by the government, on a par with but worse than the "energy price cap". Clueless amateurs paid for by our taxes.

Wanderingpomm

Why are you not given a choice? You can still evict with reason.
I was evicted from a flat I loved with absolutely no explanation. Just an unexpected letter in the post.

The LL lives in Dubai so certainly isn’t moving in.
You need to remember that these are people’s homes!

Smodlet

onwards&upwards wrote: »

How could it possibly be a mandatory ground when there is no universally agreed upon definition?

If it was mandatory it would be open to massive abuse by landlords.

Surely, if neighbours have provided evidence to both the police and the council, who have initiated legal proceedings, this would constitute proof whatever the "definition". If both bodies have acknowledged there is a problem to the extent of embarking on legal proceedings (because the LL was too useless to have a clue or to employ a LA who could remain sober, let alone do his job) this would fit the definition?

Still it took months before the C from H was removed: They had to have a female bailiff; none was available for two months. Why? The C was a prostitute, fgs! They had to do so much pointless box-ticking, it is a wonder she is not still there now.

In the end, she was sentenced to five months... After we had endured two and a half years of hell; how long did she serve? Seven weeks. This country is not going to the dogs; it went long ago.