No Fault Evictions {Merged}

daveyjp

ProDave said:

Effectively this means anyone who owns their house and for whatever reason want to move away for a while, perhaps a few years, are now not going to let their property.  They can't be sure they will be able to evict a tenant when they want it back, even if it has been let on the understanding it is for a fixed term.

Not if when the law is drafted it takes this and similar needs for flexibility scenarios into account, as it does with commercial leases.

Just as not every landlord wants a tenant forever not every tenant needs a property forever.

user1977

ProDave said:

Effectively this means anyone who owns their house and for whatever reason want to move away for a while, perhaps a few years, are now not going to let their property.  They can't be sure they will be able to evict a tenant when they want it back, even if it has been let on the understanding it is for a fixed term.

See my comments above. Or do you have reason to believe that won't be one of the exceptions?

eddddy

Sea_Shell said:

How will this effect landlords who genuinely want to sell and exit the market.

Is that deemed a reasonable reason to issue a notice?

Or will they be forced to sell with sitting tenants?

ProDave said:

Effectively this means anyone who owns their house and for whatever reason want to move away for a while, perhaps a few years, are now not going to let their property.  They can't be sure they will be able to evict a tenant when they want it back, even if it has been let on the understanding it is for a fixed term.

The white paper says:

...we will introduce a new ground for landlords who wish to sell their property and allow landlords and their close family members to move into a rental property. We will not allow the use of these grounds in the first six months of a tenancy, replicating the existing restrictions on when Section 21 can be used. This will provide security to tenants while ensuring landlords have flexibility to respond to changes in their personal circumstances.

Although I'm not sure how it will deal with dodgy situations like:

• The landlord evicts to move back into the rented property - but after 2 weeks in the property, "changes their mind" and decides to rent it out again

• The landlord evicts to sell the property - but the sale "unexpectedly" falls through 2 weeks later, and so the landlord decides to rent it out again 

user1977

eddddy said:

Sea_Shell said:

How will this effect landlords who genuinely want to sell and exit the market.

Is that deemed a reasonable reason to issue a notice?

Or will they be forced to sell with sitting tenants?

ProDave said:

Effectively this means anyone who owns their house and for whatever reason want to move away for a while, perhaps a few years, are now not going to let their property.  They can't be sure they will be able to evict a tenant when they want it back, even if it has been let on the understanding it is for a fixed term.

The white paper says:

...we will introduce a new ground for landlords who wish to sell their property and allow landlords and their close family members to move into a rental property. We will not allow the use of these grounds in the first six months of a tenancy, replicating the existing restrictions on when Section 21 can be used. This will provide security to tenants while ensuring landlords have flexibility to respond to changes in their personal circumstances.

Although I'm not sure how it will deal with dodgy situations like:

• The landlord evicts to move back into the rented property - but after 2 weeks in the property, "changes their mind" and decides to rent it out again

• The landlord evicts to sell the property - but the sale "unexpectedly" falls through 2 weeks later, and so the landlord decides to rent it out again 

Assuming it ends up similar to Scotland, the tenant would be able to take the landlord to tribunal if the reasons for eviction seemed bogus - of course in practice, that assumes the tenant will bother, after they've moved out, to keep an eye on what the landlord does or go to the trouble of raising a tribunal action.

Yellowsub2000

When does the scrapping of no fault eviction actually start?

is there a law to protect the tenants from the LL putting the rent up an unreasonable amount that the tenant can’t pay then using that to evict them?

Yellowsub2000

So if the LL wants the tenant out but they always pay rent on time and have no other faults, what is to stop the LL doubling the rent then when tenant obviously can’t pay it they can start the eviction process?

Martico

Yellowsub2000 said:

When does the scrapping of no fault eviction actually start?

It's only having its first reading in parliament. It will be debated, batted between the Commons and the Lords, with possible amendments being agreed along the way, then put to a vote. It's a process 

Yellowsub2000

Martico said:

Yellowsub2000 said:

When does the scrapping of no fault eviction actually start?

It's only having it's first reading in parliament. It will be debated, batted between the Commons and the Lords, with possible amendments being agreed along the way, then put to a vote. It's a process 

We all know it’s going to happen it’s looking certain now.


the devil is in the details 


there needs to be rent caps in line with inflation to stop LLs easing the rent to £1000000 per day then saying the tenant hasn’t paid their rent 😡

[Deleted User]

This is good news. Landlords can't be trusted with no fault evictions.

It will take time but as they leave the market better landlords will take up, and prices will fall so renters can buy.

Combined with 100% mortgages accounting for rent payments, hopefully many will be able to buy the place they are already in at a nice discount.

Section62

MattMattMattUK said:

I think the idea that it will reduce supply is incorrect, though what it will likely do is increase costs at the bottom of the market slightly, but most good landlords already operate on this basis anyway. 

I think there will be some reduction in supply (e.g. properties that might otherwise be let short-term while working abroad), but the bigger issue in my mind is this will lead to greater 'conglomeration' of the rental market.

All the additional restrictions are making it tougher for the one-house landlords to make a safe return on their money, and I suspect when put into practice the new provisions in totality will make it less attractive for small landlords to be involved.

I can see this leading to the larger (corporate-type) landlords expanding to fill the gap - with an ongoing demand for properties to invest in meaning house prices not becoming more affordable as some people seem to hope.

As a general rule I feel that the replacement of small traders with large entities is not that good for the consumer, so I can't say I'm confident renters as a whole will be better off under the new regime.

I'd also predict that the rent increase loophole (increasing rent to 'evict' through affordability) will lead to the need for additional legislation to (further) limit the size of rent increases, so the market effectively becomes fully government regulated.

The end point is probably going to look like a private equivalent of the existing public/social rental provision - i.e. a few providers with very large portfolios, who adopt a very inflexible approach towards tenants.