End of section 21

FBaby

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.

So it will just become a standard clause, ie. be aware that at some point in time, I'll be selling or coming back to live in the property. No different to the S21 given at the start of the tenancy, just in case....

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

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.

Yes but the ground for antisocial behaviour is not mandatory so even if you have the proof that you have a chav from hell the judge can still decide not to give possession especially if the chav has had advice from the local council, housing charities etc and can convince the judge that they aren't as bad as everyone is saying they are. Section 21 meant that possession had to be given and the chav had to go.

Cakeguts

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

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!

He could have died or become extremely ill. You don't know that he didn't have a reason.



You are never going to get a private rented house where you are not going to get a letter in the post. Private rented houses are owned by private people and at some time their properties are going to become part of an estate.

Wanderingpomm

Cakeguts wrote: »

He could have died or become extremely ill. You don't know that he didn't have a reason.



You are never going to get a private rented house where you are not going to get a letter in the post. Private rented houses are owned by private people and at some time their properties are going to become part of an estate.

Def not dead or ill as he was in the UK on a tour of the uk shortly before he issued the letter.


The point of the proposed legislation is to give tenants more security. You need to treat tenants with respect and not just as a means to line your pockets. Just getting a section 21 in the post because your landlord has decided he wants you out is a horrible way to deal with people. This is their lives you are messing with.

franklee

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

Just getting a section 21 in the post because your landlord has decided he wants you out is a horrible way to deal with people. This is their lives you are messing with.

Having to move to someone elses' timetable is very disruptive and expensive especially when it comes out of the blue.

In my few years as a tenant I got two section 21 notices and compared to other tenants that wasn't so many.

The first landlord always wanted to sell but we didn't realise it had been for sale before we took it. He just wanted us there until the market picked up. We were served a section 21 and sure enough it went up for sale after we left. Overpriced it didn't sell so it was let again. That tenant got under a year before he too was evicted and it eventually sold.

Second time round I got assurances from the letting agent that the landlord was in it for the long term. We were able to stay for a few years but oddly enough just after it became clear a new boiler was needed the landlord decided to sell and the boiler was left limping along. So another section 21 for us. It stood empty and for sale for several months before finally selling.

At least the letting agent wasn't too bad. Most others back then served a section 21 notice to all tenants as routine at the start of every tenancy (nicknamed Sword of Damocles). This was noticed by the likes of Shelter and they campaigned to have a time limit for a section 21 to be used by. I suspected that change after so long unchanged would be the start of a slippery slope. Not long after other amendments were made, need to serve gas safety certificate etc. for the section 21 to be valid. So the direction of travel is clear, how far they will go less so.

Cakeguts

franklee wrote: »

Having to move to someone elses' timetable is very disruptive and expensive especially when it comes out of the blue.

In my few years as a tenant I got two section 21 notices and compared to other tenants that wasn't so many.

The first landlord always wanted to sell but we didn't realise it had been for sale before we took it. He just wanted us there until the market picked up. We were served a section 21 and sure enough it went up for sale after we left. Overpriced it didn't sell so it was let again. That tenant got under a year before he too was evicted and it eventually sold.

Second time round I got assurances from the letting agent that the landlord was in it for the long term. We were able to stay for a few years but oddly enough just after it became clear a new boiler was needed the landlord decided to sell and the boiler was left limping along. So another section 21 for us. It stood empty and for sale for several months before finally selling.

At least the letting agent wasn't too bad. Most others back then served a section 21 notice to all tenants as routine at the start of every tenancy (nicknamed Sword of Damocles). This was noticed by the likes of Shelter and they campaigned to have a time limit for a section 21 to be used by. I suspected that change after so long unchanged would be the start of a slippery slope. Not long after other amendments were made, need to serve gas safety certificate etc. for the section 21 to be valid. So the direction of travel is clear, how far they will go less so.

There was always a time limit for section 21. That is what the fixed term of 6 months is about. I think what may have happened is people generally don't understand what they are signing? A tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 6 months is a contract to say that you can live in the property for 6 months. It isn't a contract to say that you can live in the property for 3 years or more. The chances are that you can renew the contract or go onto a rolling contract but it doesn't have to. If you decide not to leave after 6 months then the landlord can issue a section 21 and go to court to get possession.



If you want security of tenure you need social housing. What the government is trying to do is to make private landlords house tenants who should be living in social housing so the fault is with the lack of social housing not the assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The changes need to come in the form of more social housing and the end of Right to Buy and Right to Acquire not changes to private renting.

Lunchbox

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

It makes a lot of sense. When we were renting, we were moved on three times in three years by landlords wanting to sell. It cost us thousands (and any chance we had of a deposit for buying at the time) in referencing, contract and moving fees. Each time, the landlords/agents had told us that there was no intention of selling at the beginning of the contract, if they had, we wouldn’t have taken the property.

Kentish_Dave

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.

I rent out two properties, and While I’m not going to be evicting anyone I am quite likely to leave them empty when the current tenants leave.

The after-Tax return just doesn’t justify the effort any more. One is a large flat in Canary Wharf, which I’ll try to sell once Brexit is sorted out, and the other is a family home in the North which I’ll just leave empty for when we go back there to see my family.

It’s unlikely that the flat will go to a landlord, the yield is too low.

Cakeguts

I have just found this.



https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/



What often happens with security of tenure introduction on private renting is that landlords sell. 40% are predicted to do so if these changes come in. That causes rents to rise because people are trying to rent a decreasing number of properties so in order to keep rents down governments or states as in this case tend to introduce rent controls. This is research into what happens to neighbourhoods where there are a lot of rent controlled properties and what happens to the rent controlled properties.



Sadiq Khan is already trying get rent controls introduced in London.



This is an article about that. https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-are-rent-controls-and-who-do-they-benefit-4408


And this one including the quote from Assar Lindberg


https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html


These studies are by landlord groups they are by economists.


Then this BBC one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028342


There are other ways for people to invest their savings so private landlords will sell their property and do that it is just less hassle.

Cakeguts

Lunchbox wrote: »

It makes a lot of sense. When we were renting, we were moved on three times in three years by landlords wanting to sell. It cost us thousands (and any chance we had of a deposit for buying at the time) in referencing, contract and moving fees. Each time, the landlords/agents had told us that there was no intention of selling at the beginning of the contract, if they had, we wouldn’t have taken the property.

You do realise that if the changes are made every rental property will have the notices of intention to sell or move back in issued at the beginning of every tenancy so you won't know if the landlord intends to sell in the next 8 months or in the next 30 years. It won't make any difference you still won't know WHEN they intend to sell.