No Fault Evictions {Merged}

BobT36

eddddy said:

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 

Exactly. Who's going to check or even hold them to account if it was even possible to find out they were just fibbing? 
"Soz m8, my mates, mate's girlfriend's brother wants to live there, out you go". 
This change is completely toothless. 

Both times I've been evicted, one was due to the landlord wanting to sell, the other they wanted a family member to live there. Fortunately for the former we were planning to move anyway, and the latter we had extended notice due to COVID. No idea how people somehow pack everything and move out within two months, especially if have kids, complicated jobs, need unfurnished etc. etc.

Yellowsub2000

SoThis point about LLs selling up and available properties will plummet is ridiculous.

the houses are still there? Who is going to buy them? With mortgage ms going up and getting harder to get not many will be in a position to buy and everyone now thinks property will be faking for years.

so will all these properties sit empty? No someone will have to rent it out 

Chrysalis

MattMattMattUK said:

caprikid1 said:

No-fault evictions to be banned in reform of rental sector - BBC News

I am sure this has been posted many times but surely this is not what the rental market needs at this point in time, with dwindling supply and a lack of variety IE 4 Beds / Rural / Quality property this can only make matters worse.

I appreciate the arguments from both sides but surely this market cannot suffer a further reduction in supply or am I missing something and higher rents and less availability is what renters want in exchange for more stability ?

The removal of no-fault/S21 evictions is probably a good thing, but there should still be a way for a landlord to end the rental at the end of the contract, with perhaps a notice period, so they have to give six months notice and that end of tenancy cannot happen during a fixed contract. That being said it is likely that rent increases, upon annual review, will be used as the new no-fault eviction method, eg. you want a tenant out you stick the rent up. The anti-social eviction provision is good, though I think it should possibly be changed to landlords having an obligation to evict anti-social tenants.  There should also be a quicker, cheaper/free and more effective process for evicting non-payers, a maximum of three months from non-payment to a possession order being granted and the tenants removed by bailiffs/police. 

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. 

What you describing is just a longer notice period S21, S21 already isnt used on people inside AST.

What I have observed is my rent increase in the last 2 years combined is almost 35%, an absolutely massive increase, the scary thing is, this is happening city wide.

Large rent increases will be the new S21 by stealth, although S13 protects against that to a small degree.

The problem is housing is already broken, some have started to come round to it and thinking its only recently got broken, but its been broken for a while, the roots of the problem been thatcher's decisions.  Osborne then made it worse by adding S24.

This renters reform is probably the first legislative change in England that is actually a good one.  It will make it a little harder to increase rent on the basis of S13 tribunals will now actually have meaningful power, it will make it so landlords cant evict because a tenant has reported a problem which will cost money to fix.

It will also make it easier to evict anti social tenants.

It could possibly reduce supply, which of course increases rents.  Which brings me up to my next point, I do think the private rental market is not fixable without adding social housing stock, interestingly a fair amount of LLs also agree with this point now.

There is an incompatibility between a private owner needing to make profit on a house investment vs the social need of secure long term affordable housing.  The private rental market should probably just be there for people who dont mind moving frequently and for the top end of the market.  The lower end of the market who just wants somewhere affordable to live long term, needs social housing or house ownership.

Yellowsub2000

I think it would be very hard to sell a house with a tenant in, especially now with all the changes, very difficult to find a buyer.

on the other hand if you are a cash buyer there will be some amazing bargains about if you are looking for a mega cheap property with tenant in and you don’t mind not being able to get them out or raise the tents. There will be a lot of motivated sellers will to let go for very low prices as so many LLs want out

Murphybear

MultiFuelBurner said:

We like long term tenants and only raise the rents minimally. Some that have been with us for 3-5 years are paying up to £100 per month under market rate because they are long term tenants.

If this gives long term tenants more security it doesn't bother us.

You are one of the good landlords. I’ve met hundreds of landlords over the years and most were good.  I’ve met thousands of tenants and most of them were good.  

I think the problems the government has is trying to find a balanced system where neither the landlords nor the tenants unduly suffer.  

I think the government has made it too difficult for landlords over the past few years and has made being a landlord a poor option.  They don’t seem to understand that more private landlords are needed not fewer.  

It is far too easy for tenants to stop paying the rent.   We need a way to get tenants like this out far more quickly, making the landlords wait for so long to evict tenants that they suffer a large financial loss.  

I think the government should go back to paying housing benefit direct to the landlord.  This might encourage more of them to take tenants with benefits.  

Chrysalis

Murphybear said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

We like long term tenants and only raise the rents minimally. Some that have been with us for 3-5 years are paying up to £100 per month under market rate because they are long term tenants.

If this gives long term tenants more security it doesn't bother us.

You are one of the good landlords. I’ve met hundreds of landlords over the years and most were good.  I’ve met thousands of tenants and most of them were good.  

I think the problems the government has is trying to find a balanced system where neither the landlords nor the tenants unduly suffer.  

I think the government has made it too difficult for landlords over the past few years and has made being a landlord a poor option.  They don’t seem to understand that more private landlords are needed not fewer.  

It is far too easy for tenants to stop paying the rent.   We need a way to get tenants like this out far more quickly, making the landlords wait for so long to evict tenants that they suffer a large financial loss.  

I think the government should go back to paying housing benefit direct to the landlord.  This might encourage more of them to take tenants with benefits.  

One big problem with housing benefits right now is in many areas, the LHA rates are below typical rents, so even with it being paid direct to LLs one would still need to get the rest from a tenant.  Of course also that HB is paid in arrears.

Sunak did allow LHA rates to increase during the furlough period which reduced the gap, but I think its frozen again now.

There is a LL who lives next to my parents (was annoyed when they didnt tell me about him), he charges below market rate rents, never advertises (all word of mouth) and has his own waiting list of tenants.

Murphybear

daveyjp said:

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.

Two of the best tenants I came across were 2 disabled sharers.  They were friends not a couple.  Most of their rent came from housing benefit.  They were lovely and the landlord liked them.  They were in the house for 20 years before I met them.  In that time the rent hadn’t changed much and the tenants had put in a new kitchen and bathroom.  As far as I know they are still there.  

Murphybear

[Deleted User] said:

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.

If that were to happen what would the outcome be?  My best guess is that no-one would be a landlord any more.  How would you feel if someone demanded that you sell them your house at a discount?  This would end up the same way that social housing has ie not enough to go round.  We need to keep rental properties in the system.  

Bonniepurple

Section62 said:

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.

I totally agree.  I think that there will end up being almost a tier system- people who want to rent for 6/12 months and then move, either location or buying, those who want to rent medium term and those who want to rent instead of buying.  The latter will end up living in the private equivalent of social housing and will want the security of a long term contract.  Individuals won’t be able to guarantee that, so it will end up being companies.

The major issue that this won’t tackle is the lack of affordable, suitable housing.  Right to Buy has decimated social housing.  The Local Housing Allowance rates and the rules surrounding housing (bedroom tax for social housing, benefits cap, LHA being well below what market rents are) mean that the poorest are set up to fail.  

BikingBud

Murphybear said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

We like long term tenants and only raise the rents minimally. Some that have been with us for 3-5 years are paying up to £100 per month under market rate because they are long term tenants.

If this gives long term tenants more security it doesn't bother us.

You are one of the good landlords. I’ve met hundreds of landlords over the years and most were good.  I’ve met thousands of tenants and most of them were good.  

I think the problems the government has is trying to find a balanced system where neither the landlords nor the tenants unduly suffer.  

I think the government has made it too difficult for landlords over the past few years and has made being a landlord a poor option.  They don’t seem to understand that more private landlords are needed not fewer.  

It is far too easy for tenants to stop paying the rent.   We need a way to get tenants like this out far more quickly, making the landlords wait for so long to evict tenants that they suffer a large financial loss.  

I think the government should go back to paying housing benefit direct to the landlord.  This might encourage more of them to take tenants with benefits.  

I disagree, what is needed is security of tenure for people to live in safe, energy efficient, well maintained housing in exchange for fair rents.

There are a number of different models and mixes that could meet that need but do not assume it can only come from private landlords.

Chrysalis said:

The problem is housing is already broken, some have started to come round to it and thinking its only recently got broken, but its been broken for a while, the roots of the problem been thatcher's decisions.  

Whilst I don't disagree that this was the catalyst, let us not forget that there have been many opportunities since to address that policy and correct the situation, but successive politicians of all different cloths have enabled the situation. The nouveaux riche and their champagne socialism were all very happy to allow it to continue. 

Too many VIs, all with their stubby, grubby little fingers in the cookie jar, how big is Bliar's family property empire now?