For those wondering why many want S21 banned.

[Deleted User]

_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. 

Its just business really. Across a large number of tenants some will unexpectedly fall into arrears. A guarantor may step in thereby avoiding 1000s in arrears. 

Kirkmain

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.

You never know that the landlord might be going through. Maybe they or their close friend or family member had been diagnosed with a cancer, and treatment is available but not conisidered "cost affective" enough to be availble on the NHS. they therefore need to evict a tenant from their asset so they can sell up, cash in their asset and pay for said treatment. I am often shocked by how many local news articles announcing that someone has cancer are thinly veiled adverts to their gofundme to raise money for private treatment. But a landlord has means through assets, they should be free to release these assets to pay for treatment. This is why S21 must continue to exist

subjecttocontract

If the Government ban the use of S21's then many private landlords will choose to stop being landlords. This will reduce the number of rental properties available to tenants and result in tenants finding it even harder to find a suitable property. 

GDB2222

subjecttocontract said:

If the Government ban the use of S21's then many private landlords will choose to stop being landlords. This will reduce the number of rental properties available to tenants and result in tenants finding it even harder to find a suitable property. 

Before ASTs were allowed, it was very difficult for private uk tenants to find somewhere to rent, because of the risk of ending up with a sitting tenant.

On the other hand, these properties won’t simply disappear because the landlord doesn’t want to be in the letting business any longer. And there’s a limit to how many people will buy. So, I don’t think that the letting market will vanish overnight. 

_Penny_Dreadful

GDB2222 said:

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. 

The ICO can fine the landlord up to £4000 for failing to register. 

GDB2222

_Penny_Dreadful said:

GDB2222 said:

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. 

The ICO can fine the landlord up to £4000 for failing to register. 

I'm sure that you are correct, but in practice they don’t worry about that stuff. You can find a list of enforcement actions that they have taken here. 

https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/?facet_type=&facet_sector=&facet_date=&date_from=&date_to=

We could have an interesting discussion about whether they should be stricter.

Some of the enforcement action they have taken has concerned people making stupid mistakes with mass emails, using the to or cc fields instead of bcc. The YMCA were fined a few £k for publishing the email addresses of people with HIV that way. 

artyboy

MattMattMattUK said:

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.

Yep, this. If it's a company with a tenanted property portfolio, part of how they make their money is to have a standardized approach taken across tenancies. There will no doubt be an agreed level of risk tolerance, which will not (easily or at all) be exceeded.

At a micro level, this might look like bad business. At a macro level, it may just be easier for the company to get a more standardized/compliant tenant that fits their risk parameters and operating model.

Unfortunately were this all gets more difficult is that whilst these may be legitimate decisions from a legal and business standpoint, they have a human impact. 

You could perhaps draw a bit of a parallel with banks deciding they don't want to do business any more with small societies and charities, despite them having been customers for decades. A big part of the reason there is the amount of responsibility placed on the banks by ever more consumer friendly regulations. Not entirely unlike how onerous it can be to be a landlord these days.

Sometimes you are just no longer viable as a customer to a business... landlords and banks are by and large not social enterprises, and if we as a country want that to be different, there has to be more positive incentive for them to behave that way. More stick and they will just throw the towel in completely.

subjecttocontract

GDB2222 said:

subjecttocontract said:

If the Government ban the use of S21's then many private landlords will choose to stop being landlords. This will reduce the number of rental properties available to tenants and result in tenants finding it even harder to find a suitable property. 

Before ASTs were allowed, it was very difficult for private uk tenants to find somewhere to rent, because of the risk of ending up with a sitting tenant.

On the other hand, these properties won’t simply disappear because the landlord doesn’t want to be in the letting business any longer. And there’s a limit to how many people will buy. So, I don’t think that the letting market will vanish overnight. 

I'm not suggesting that the removal of S21's will result in an immediate reduction in private landlords. The reduction in landlords and private rented accommodation will happen over perhaps a few years but ultimately there will be fewer rentals available. It's easy to see how those previously rented properties will be absorbed into the sales market, especially in areas of the country that already have a shortage of property. 

The point I'm making is.....be carefully of what you wish for. Every decision has a trade off and banning S21's is very likely to result in tenants finding it more difficult to get suitable accomodation.

Landlords have already been hit hard over the past few years with changes to mortgage interest expenses and capital gains tax allowances. Removing S21's maybe the final straw that persuades landlords to leave the business.

_Penny_Dreadful

Kirkmain 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.

You never know that the landlord might be going through. Maybe they or their close friend or family member had been diagnosed with a cancer, and treatment is available but not conisidered "cost affective" enough to be availble on the NHS. they therefore need to evict a tenant from their asset so they can sell up, cash in their asset and pay for said treatment. I am often shocked by how many local news articles announcing that someone has cancer are thinly veiled adverts to their gofundme to raise money for private treatment. But a landlord has means through assets, they should be free to release these assets to pay for treatment. This is why S21 must continue to exist

Have you read the proposed Renters Reform Bill in any detail? The proposed ground 1A for Section 8 would allow a landlord to go to court for a possession order in the event they need to sell the property. Furthermore, there is less to trip a landlord up with a Section 8 than a Section 21 so no, the Section 21 does not have to continue to exist. 

GDB2222

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Kirkmain 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.

You never know that the landlord might be going through. Maybe they or their close friend or family member had been diagnosed with a cancer, and treatment is available but not conisidered "cost affective" enough to be availble on the NHS. they therefore need to evict a tenant from their asset so they can sell up, cash in their asset and pay for said treatment. I am often shocked by how many local news articles announcing that someone has cancer are thinly veiled adverts to their gofundme to raise money for private treatment. But a landlord has means through assets, they should be free to release these assets to pay for treatment. This is why S21 must continue to exist

Have you read the proposed Renters Reform Bill in any detail? The proposed ground 1A for Section 8 would allow a landlord to go to court for a possession order in the event they need to sell the property. Furthermore, there is less to trip a landlord up with a Section 8 than a Section 21 so no, the Section 21 does not have to continue to exist. 

Has anyone read it? It’s 200 pages long! 

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3462