For those wondering why many want S21 banned.

_Penny_Dreadful

GDB2222 said:

_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

A whole 200 pages?! Oh no. Maybe if more people read it they wouldn’t fear it so much. 

I must confess I skipped the Welsh in chapter 4 though. 

BarelySentientAI

_Penny_Dreadful said:

GDB2222 said:

_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

A whole 200 pages?! Oh no. Maybe if more people read it they wouldn’t fear it so much. 

I must confess I skipped the Welsh in chapter 4 though. 

Or think that it's going to fix everything and we will enter some kind of renter's utopia.

BobT36

All I saw is that they were fast tracking the evictions for selling and family moving in? 
So as I've asked before, what's to stop a landlord saying they want to sell up or sister's brother's son in law wants to live there, then "changing their mind" once the tenant is out? And then that's been "fast tracked" too, lol. 

Just sounds like for any landlord in the know, the tenant loses out.

GDB2222

BobT36 said:

All I saw is that they were fast tracking the evictions for selling and family moving in? 
So as I've asked before, what's to stop a landlord saying they want to sell up or sister's brother's son in law wants to live there, then "changing their mind" once the tenant is out? And then that's been "fast tracked" too, lol. 

Just sounds like for any landlord in the know, the tenant loses out.

Now is the time to lobby your MP, but you really ought to read the 200 pages of the bill first, because it’s a pretty obvious point and there might be something in the bill about it already.

ThorOdinson

Just remember that there are no good landlords. The best of them are never far from screwing the tenant over when it suits them. 

That's why this legislation is essential.

_Penny_Dreadful

BobT36 said:

All I saw is that they were fast tracking the evictions for selling and family moving in? 
So as I've asked before, what's to stop a landlord saying they want to sell up or sister's brother's son in law wants to live there, then "changing their mind" once the tenant is out? And then that's been "fast tracked" too, lol. 

Just sounds like for any landlord in the know, the tenant loses out.

This is covered in the proposed bill.  Landlords can be fined up to £30,000 by using a ground to evict that they had no business of using e.g. pretending they were going to sell the property. In practice I could see it working in a similar way to a wrongful termination order in Scotland but instead of the tenant getting the money it would be the local authority. 

You’re proving my point, if people took the time to read the proposed bill they would be in such a tizzy about it. @GDB2222 is right that now is the time to lobby your MP over any concerns you have about the bill but in order to do that you’d need to read it first. 

_Penny_Dreadful

BarelySentientAI said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

GDB2222 said:

_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

A whole 200 pages?! Oh no. Maybe if more people read it they wouldn’t fear it so much. 

I must confess I skipped the Welsh in chapter 4 though. 

Or think that it's going to fix everything and we will enter some kind of renter's utopia.

It won't be a renter's utopia, no, but it would help the tenant in the OP.  The landlord of that tenant is essentially saying, "sign this or else!"  Removing the Section 21 would remove the Sword of Damocles dangling over the tenant's head so that the tenant would be in a much stronger position to challenge an above-market-rate rent increase.  Landlords and letting agents only have themselves to blame if the Section 21 is removed.  Not that long ago Section 21s were being issued along with the first tenancy agreement, perhaps if they hadn't been so liberal at dishing them out the Section 21 would not be facing extinction now.

GDB2222

Rents are much lower now in comparison to house prices than they were before ASTs were introduced. Do you think that S21, for all its faults, has contributed to that decrease?

Murphybear

ThorOdinson said:

Just remember that there are no good landlords. The best of them are never far from screwing the tenant over when it suits them. 

That's why this legislation is essential.

Sorry but you are wrong.  I’ve worked in the business for years and have come across many good landlords.  

caprikid1

"Just remember that there are no good landlords. The best of them are never far from screwing the tenant over when it suits them. 

That's why this legislation is essential."

Just remember, we have a shortage of Rented property, we have ever increasing levels of tax and legislation on Landlords. A true removal of no fault evictions with have a noticeable effect on supply. It is basic supply and demand. This can only cause further rent increases, be careful what you wish for.....

Legislation to further hammer private landlords needs to be matched with investment in housing, this won't happen unfortunately.