For those wondering why many want S21 banned.

Chrysalis

Here is a situation I have come across today.

Tenant been tenant for 19 years 7 months.  No missed rent payments, no late rent payments, no pets, quiet, pretty much perfect tenant.

However during this time the landlord has insisted on a guarantor every single year, and last year they wanted the guarantor to also send photo ID which he refused, they already had signed form though so still legally had one.  The tenant couldn't arrange a new guarantor until start of this year and landlord harassed the new one constantly waiting for them to get their name on housing register (landlord requires to be home owner).  Because of good rent record landlord agreed to let it all go for another year without the photo ID.  Although was clearly not happy hence the harassment.

Over the past 9 years as is common place across the country, rent has been increasing annually considerably above inflation (usually double inflation), the property is maintained to legal minimum level and no more, so e.g. is damp, rotting window frames and so forth, but rent usually remained market rate, as market rate also rising rapidly in the area.  However this year the rent increase is about 35% and takes it above market rate, and is around 10 times inflation.

The tenancy agreement is accompanied by a S21 and a slip.  The slip says if its not signed alongside a signed guarantor within 14 days, the S21 will be actioned.  This is 3 months before the current tenancy agreement even ends, so not only are they being forceful but they want it done really quickly. 

It would seem from where I sit the landlord considers it less risky and more profitable to evict a 20 year tenant with a perfect record because of 1 year of a guarantor not providing photo ID, compared to the lottery of taking on a new tenant.  This is the first time in the 20 years there has been a demand for it to be returned within 14 days and a S21 issued to enforce it.  The rent increase amount also seems to suggest they prefer he moves out.

There is also no S13 notice for the 'renewal' increase.

El_Torro

You've just told us one version of the story, the landlord will have their own version. 

For whatever reason (I'm not saying it's right or justified) the landlord appears to want the current tenants out. Putting the rent above market rate seems to imply this. Ultimately it's the landlord's property and they should have the right to decide who lives there.

theartfullodger

Exactly what Thatcher wanted in her section 21 of her 1988 Housing Act. 

Read it if you doubt me

Chrysalis

El_Torro said:

You've just told us one version of the story, the landlord will have their own version. 

For whatever reason (I'm not saying it's right or justified) the landlord appears to want the current tenants out. Putting the rent above market rate seems to imply this. Ultimately it's the landlord's property and they should have the right to decide who lives there.

Are you trying to imply there is something not been told here?

You are welcome to say what it might be.

I gave the most likely reason which is they were not happy about the guarantor situation the previous year, in addition they had tried to get the tenant to pay the entire years rent up front last year or to get him to sign up to a company they affiliated with that charges a fee to become a guarantor.

I do agree its clear they want him out, the 14 days makes it easy to not comply with the strict instructions.  The rent also to make it unattractive.

El_Torro

Chrysalis said:

El_Torro said:

You've just told us one version of the story, the landlord will have their own version. 

For whatever reason (I'm not saying it's right or justified) the landlord appears to want the current tenants out. Putting the rent above market rate seems to imply this. Ultimately it's the landlord's property and they should have the right to decide who lives there.

Are you trying to imply there is something not been told here?

You are welcome to say what it might be.

No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that while the tenant believes they are a good tenant the landlord seems to think otherwise. There might be more to it than just the difficulty in meeting the landlord’s guarantor requirements. It seems odd to me that the landlord is pushing hard on this point despite having had rent paid for the last 19 years.

I don’t know the landlord or the tenant in this situation so I wouldn’t presume to guess why the landlord has a bee in their bonnet. 

Chrysalis

El_Torro said:

Chrysalis said:

El_Torro said:

You've just told us one version of the story, the landlord will have their own version. 

For whatever reason (I'm not saying it's right or justified) the landlord appears to want the current tenants out. Putting the rent above market rate seems to imply this. Ultimately it's the landlord's property and they should have the right to decide who lives there.

Are you trying to imply there is something not been told here?

You are welcome to say what it might be.

No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that while the tenant believes they are a good tenant the landlord seems to think otherwise. There might be more to it than just the difficulty in meeting the landlord’s guarantor requirements. It seems odd to me that the landlord is pushing hard on this point despite having had rent paid for the last 19 years.

I don’t know the landlord or the tenant in this situation so I wouldn’t presume to guess why the landlord has a bee in their bonnet. 

The new guarantor queried this, she asked them why they were been so obsessive over it, and she asked them straight up has he been paying his rent and they said he has been perfect, the reason they gave was a vague its "company policy" as they have had other tenants defaulting.

The situation went on for a good few months, which has probably annoyed them as they just want documents signed and returned quickly.

Hoenir

Chrysalis said:

the reason they gave was a vague its "company policy" as they have had other tenants defaulting.

A business doesn't have to justify it's business policies. Tenants previously paying rent on time. Provides zero guarantees as to their future conduct. Once bitten twice shy as the saying goes. Nothing personal in the decision. Bad debts are the bane of every business. When push comes to shove people naturally look after their own intertests first. 

Section62

Chrysalis said:

El_Torro said:

The new guarantor queried this, she asked them why they were been so obsessive over it, and she asked them straight up has he been paying his rent and they said he has been perfect, the reason they gave was a vague its "company policy" as they have had other tenants defaulting.

The situation went on for a good few months, which has probably annoyed them as they just want documents signed and returned quickly.

I'd think the guarantor accusing the landlord of being "obsessive" isn't going to make the landlord keen to have them as a guarantor, and by association the tenant as a tenant any longer.

Flugelhorn

TBH I reckon if you want to HELP  as a guarantor then you do all that you can to do just that. I am guarantor and in getting accepted I sent all the paperwork - the minions in the office didn't understand a pension p60 and pension statement - they thought the monthly payment was the annual payment - I was tempted to explain in words of one syllable but thought better of it and did as was needed. 
I rarely tolerate fools but sometimes it is worth it 

tetrarch

It's a new guarantor who the LL doesn't know from Adam

Personally, the unwillingness of this person NOT wanting to identify themselves would be a red flag if it were me

Regards

Tet

GDB2222

Chrysalis said:

Here is a situation I have come across today.

Tenant been tenant for 19 years 7 months.  No missed rent payments, no late rent payments, no pets, quiet, pretty much perfect tenant.

However during this time the landlord has insisted on a guarantor every single year, and last year they wanted the guarantor to also send photo ID which he refused, they already had signed form though so still legally had one.  The tenant couldn't arrange a new guarantor until start of this year and landlord harassed the new one constantly waiting for them to get their name on housing register (landlord requires to be home owner).  Because of good rent record landlord agreed to let it all go for another year without the photo ID.  Although was clearly not happy hence the harassment.

Over the past 9 years as is common place across the country, rent has been increasing annually considerably above inflation (usually double inflation), the property is maintained to legal minimum level and no more, so e.g. is damp, rotting window frames and so forth, but rent usually remained market rate, as market rate also rising rapidly in the area.  However this year the rent increase is about 35% and takes it above market rate, and is around 10 times inflation.

The tenancy agreement is accompanied by a S21 and a slip.  The slip says if its not signed alongside a signed guarantor within 14 days, the S21 will be actioned.  This is 3 months before the current tenancy agreement even ends, so not only are they being forceful but they want it done really quickly. 

It would seem from where I sit the landlord considers it less risky and more profitable to evict a 20 year tenant with a perfect record because of 1 year of a guarantor not providing photo ID, compared to the lottery of taking on a new tenant.  This is the first time in the 20 years there has been a demand for it to be returned within 14 days and a S21 issued to enforce it.  The rent increase amount also seems to suggest they prefer he moves out.

There is also no S13 notice for the 'renewal' increase.

That final comment about s13 is incorrect. The tenant is being invited to sign a new contract, and s13 doesn’t apply.

I agree that the landlord is being very unfriendly to someone he has known for nearly 20 years!  Either the landlord is a sociopath or there’s more going on than the op is willing to admit.