For those wondering why many want S21 banned.

Section62

GDB2222 said:

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.

Relationships can change though - you can be married to someone for 20 years and then find you can't live with them anymore.  Fortunately the law is making it easier to deal with things in a non-confrontational manner when a marriage breaks down.  I can see an argument against making it tougher/impossible to break a tenant/landlord relationship when that starts breaking down.

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

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.

The title of the topic supposes that folk need to understand why section 21 should go.

 However, the responses hint at why it should stay: the landlord is not required to be the tenants friend. The guarantor seems to be reluctant to identify themselves. A red flag. As someone said "once bitten twice shy" when it comes to supposedly reliable tenants and the presumption they will never fall into arrears. And, as you say, s13 does not apply, do the landlord isn't abusing the tenant in terms of paperwork.

ReadySteadyPop

Hoenir said:

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. 

Thing is they are pushing out a good payer as the To Let signs are going up on flats and businesses all over the country, good luck finding regular rent payments guaranteed by someone else in a recession, best thing the tenant can do is move out and let them get on with it, sounds like this landlord might be out of business soon.

MattMattMattUK

As you say this is a company I doubt that there is "a landlord" making decisions as such. The policy may be that their rent insurance requires photo ID from the guarantor, especially as many guarantor agreements are not enforceable due to flaws with the paperwork (witnessed correctly, guarantor not correctly identified etc.). In the absence of photo ID so the insurance is applicable the tenant may not be a level of risk that they are willing to accept, they may also view the tenant as "difficult" for not getting this sorted and may think that they can get more money for the property, hence the increase in rent demand.

For what it is worth I do think that S21 should be phased out or restricted more than it currently is, however there also needs to be greater protections for landlords. It is a very slow and costly process to get rid of problem tenants, one would be lucky to get rid of them in less than a year and if can unfortunately take two or more years. People may be much more sympathetic to the abolition of S21 if problem tenants could be got rid of in a few months and all costs of doing so (including unpaid rent, damage, legal fees etc.) were fully recoverable.

HobgoblinBT

My thoughts on the guarantor providing a copy of their driving licence is to give some surety to the landlord.  The driving licence confirms the guarantor’s name, address and signature. I can’t see the reason to not agree to this as it is a small step compared to agreeing to be a guarantor.  Otherwise the landlord is relying on things being as they have been told, rather than checking the facts.  I am not fully up to date on AML regulations but it makes sense to identify parties to an agreement that you enter into.   

 

I wonder if the guarantor would kick off even more if asked to provide a statement of income, assets and liabilities to support the guarantee given that they could be required to pay £’000s in the event of the tenant defaulting.   

 

If the tenant is not happy they are free to not renew and leave at the end of the tenancy as the landlord appears to want.

Mr.Generous

The whole thing sounds like a bad deal for the tenant. poorly maintained house, over market rate rent, demanding landlord. Move to a better home for less cash.

_Penny_Dreadful

[Deleted User] said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

The title of the topic supposes that folk need to understand why section 21 should go.

 However, the responses hint at why it should stay: the landlord is not required to be the tenants friend. The guarantor seems to be reluctant to identify themselves. A red flag. As someone said "once bitten twice shy" when it comes to supposedly reliable tenants and the presumption they will never fall into arrears. And, as you say, s13 does not apply, do the landlord isn't abusing the tenant in terms of paperwork.

It doesn’t appear this landlord has been bitten once by this tenant at all. As a landlord myself I think requesting a guarantor for 20+ years is excessive. If after almost 2 decades you haven’t worked out what kind of tenant you have on your hands then there’s something lacking. 

_Penny_Dreadful

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.

As a Scottish landlord I’m less concerned about the removal of the Section 21, even though I have 2 rentals in England, because the PRT introduced 1st December 2017 does not have an equivalent to the SAT’s Section 33. I’m waiting to see what changes to the Section 8 would accompany the demise of the Section 21.  Besides, quite a lot of landlords seem to issue invalid Section 21 notices due to a paperwork !!!!!! up of their own doing. The tenant from your post can check if the Section 21 is valid using the link below. 

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/section-21-flowchart/

If the property has damp, rotting window frames, etc then it does not sound as if it is being maintained to the legal minimum at all. The tenant could, after reporting the issues to the landlord in writing, escalate matters to the local authority if the landlord refuses to fix them or drags his heels over fixing them. That would have given the tenant some protection from a Section 21. 

Since the property is poorly maintained, the rent being requested is above market rates and the landlord sounds like an !!!!!! why doesn’t the tenant vote with his feet and move? I know moving has costs and is a pain in the bum but there comes a point when it’s more sensible to move than continuing paying over the odds for a substandard service. 

There’s no need for a Section 13 to increase the rent. That notice is used to increase the rent of a periodic tenancy which this is not. Using a new fixed term agreement is a perfectly valid way of increasing the rent. The tenant could try calling the landlord’s bluff by not signing a new tenancy agreement, not accepting the new proposed rent and not moving out of the property by the end of the Section 21 notice period as he doesn’t need to do any of those things. 

I wonder if the landlord has been executing all these guarantees as deeds and if he’s registered with the ICO as a data controller since he is deciding what personal data to collect. 

GDB2222

That last point about the ICO is fairly moot. The worst the ICO will do is make the landlord register. There won’t be any sanctions. 

BarelySentientAI

_Penny_Dreadful said:

[Deleted User] said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

The title of the topic supposes that folk need to understand why section 21 should go.

 However, the responses hint at why it should stay: the landlord is not required to be the tenants friend. The guarantor seems to be reluctant to identify themselves. A red flag. As someone said "once bitten twice shy" when it comes to supposedly reliable tenants and the presumption they will never fall into arrears. And, as you say, s13 does not apply, do the landlord isn't abusing the tenant in terms of paperwork.

It doesn’t appear this landlord has been bitten once by this tenant at all. As a landlord myself I think requesting a guarantor for 20+ years is excessive. If after almost 2 decades you haven’t worked out what kind of tenant you have on your hands then there’s something lacking. 

Because past performance is no guarantee of future behaviour?

Because the landlord has decided that it's simpler just to apply exactly the same standards to every tenant in every property, rather than tailored solutions?

Either would be perfectly valid.