For those wondering why many want S21 banned.

BobT36

_Penny_Dreadful said:

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. 

Sure, but how are you going to prove AND enforce it, it once you're already out? 

If you kept a VERY close eye on Rightmove etc. (but for how long?) you might see it up for rent again and go aha! However what's to stop the landlord from then saying "oh sorry my sisters brother's son in law has now changed his mind / circumstances and is no longer coming, so I had to put it back up for rent". 

ThorOdinson

Murphybear said:

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.  

They can be good, but as soon as their own financial needs mean they want the tenant out...

CurlySue2017

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.

Well this is simply not true.

I've been a homeowner in the past but have been a tenant for well over 15 years now (and still am a tenant) and in that time, I've had 1 bad landlord - just 1.  I'm not saying there aren't bad landlords out there, of course there are but there are bad tenants too and I've come across more bad tenants than I have landlords that's for sure!

GDB2222

BobT36 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

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. 

Sure, but how are you going to prove AND enforce it, it once you're already out? 

If you kept a VERY close eye on Rightmove etc. (but for how long?) you might see it up for rent again and go aha! However what's to stop the landlord from then saying "oh sorry my sisters brother's son in law has now changed his mind / circumstances and is no longer coming, so I had to put it back up for rent". 

Bear in mind that property subject to the old regulated tenancies was generally only worth around half of VP value. That’s how Nicholas HighStreet made his millions. 

And that’s why rents have fallen so much in real terms since ASTs were created. 

If you want to make tenants completely secure, then you need to come up with a plan for helping them pay the vastly higher rents that will follow. 

_Penny_Dreadful

BobT36 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

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. 

Sure, but how are you going to prove AND enforce it, it once you're already out? 

If you kept a VERY close eye on Rightmove etc. (but for how long?) you might see it up for rent again and go aha! However what's to stop the landlord from then saying "oh sorry my sisters brother's son in law has now changed his mind / circumstances and is no longer coming, so I had to put it back up for rent". 

I know that to use ground 4 with a notice to leave in Scotland the landlord has to submit evidence to the FTT. The evidence could be an affidavit or a signed contract with an estate agent. I do know that wrongful termination orders have been issued in Scotland so it must be possible to prove when a landlord has told porkie pies to get the eviction order. 

These are questions you could be putting to your MP if you’re concerned about them. 

Chrysalis

Ok guys I have an update.

Some of it may or may not be interesting.

The S21 being issued with a 14 day deadline to renew as it turns out is happening to all of the tenants, one is actually leaving because of it.  So this isnt anything to do with personal reasons, and my theory as to reason seems to not be the case, and this does make some sense, because if the LL did really want him out as a personal itch, then why not just issue a straight S21 without playing games? 

The S13 issue is interesting as well, there is a clause saying the LL reserves the right to increase rent at the "end" of the agreement, this as I understand it does not fit in within the law and for whatever reason they are trying to avoid issuing a new S13.

Now the 14 day threat has been waived verbally on the basis of his history, although S21 still stands and I think will be left sitting there to prevent negotiation etc. right until its date, it expires day before new tenancy start date, so obviously they need to tread carefully, I think the S13 isnt being handled right but probably not worth pursuing, in the same conversation the 14 day threat was waived, they stated the reason for the aggressive behaviour is because of all the rent increases defaults have shot up, as well as people not responding to rent renewals, wasting time, so they doubling down on guarantors as the inflation busting rent increases are a business decision that will stay, and moving forward the 14 days to sign via S21 enforcement will be standard issue.

He could sign with minimal fuss, as the early exit is still fairly lenient should he decide to move.

I expect there is replies who think there is something I am not reporting, as if all landlords are well behaved moral human beings, but this is why I posted with a topic of for those wondering why some want S21 banned.  there is landlords out there that behave in a way they abuse S21.  I am not going to reply to these individual comments, as its sadly one of those things where I think people just plug their ears refusing to believe its a problem.

GDB2222

So, can I check what you think should happen? Do you think rents should not increase, for example? 

Chrysalis

Joining the dots.

Landlord is increasing rents large multiple of inflation, and market has started to reject it, with renewal issues and defaults.

He has decided he doesnt want to follow S13 legal process, so he has done what he thinks is enough to avoid it by changing tenancies from 10 months of AST and 2 months of rolling to flat 12 months, and adding a clause that says he has the right to increase rent "after tenancy ends".  Its my view this isnt legal process a S13 should be required, but I am not a legal expert.

He is issuing S21 as general process now when issuing tenancy renewals, the threat of requiring signed return within 14 days or court process will be activated, this obviously will also prevent anyone questioning the lack of S13, negotiating etc.

@GDB2222 in a world of no S21 what would happen instead, is tenant could reject the rent increase as legal process wasnt followed, the LL would be unable to evict for that reason as tenant hasnt breached contract, then S13 gets issued in attempt to raise rent legally, tenant would have right to dispute the rent as part of S13, if disputed successfully LL would be obliged to honour the decision, disagreeing is not legal grounds for eviction, however on the flip side if the dispute decision sides with the LL, the tenant has a choice of agreeing or giving notice.  I hope that answers your question.  The LL also wouldnt be able to threaten eviction because something isnt signed within 2 weeks.  This is assuming I have interpreted S13 regulations correctly.

My interpretation of S13 is if you want to increase rent "during" a tenancy, providing its in the contract you can do that.  I have not found anything documented that states a S13 is not needed if the rent increase is after a tenancy ends.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/costs_of_renting/rents_and_rent_increases/statutory_rules_for_rent_increases_for_assured_tenants#title-0

https://england.landlordsguild.com/article/section-13-rent-rises-what-landlords-need-to-know/

GDB2222

We are moving towards what you want, but I think it will have the effect of pushing rents up. 

The choice is to agree a new rent by negotiation or follow the S13 process. The LL is trying to negotiate…

_Penny_Dreadful

Chrysalis said:

Ok guys I have an update.

Some of it may or may not be interesting.

The S21 being issued with a 14 day deadline to renew as it turns out is happening to all of the tenants, one is actually leaving because of it.  So this isnt anything to do with personal reasons, and my theory as to reason seems to not be the case, and this does make some sense, because if the LL did really want him out as a personal itch, then why not just issue a straight S21 without playing games? 

The S13 issue is interesting as well, there is a clause saying the LL reserves the right to increase rent at the "end" of the agreement, this as I understand it does not fit in within the law and for whatever reason they are trying to avoid issuing a new S13.

Now the 14 day threat has been waived verbally on the basis of his history, although S21 still stands and I think will be left sitting there to prevent negotiation etc. right until its date, it expires day before new tenancy start date, so obviously they need to tread carefully, I think the S13 isnt being handled right but probably not worth pursuing, in the same conversation the 14 day threat was waived, they stated the reason for the aggressive behaviour is because of all the rent increases defaults have shot up, as well as people not responding to rent renewals, wasting time, so they doubling down on guarantors as the inflation busting rent increases are a business decision that will stay, and moving forward the 14 days to sign via S21 enforcement will be standard issue.

He could sign with minimal fuss, as the early exit is still fairly lenient should he decide to move.

I expect there is replies who think there is something I am not reporting, as if all landlords are well behaved moral human beings, but this is why I posted with a topic of for those wondering why some want S21 banned.  there is landlords out there that behave in a way they abuse S21.  I am not going to reply to these individual comments, as it’s sadly one of those things where I think people just plug their ears refusing to believe it’s a problem.

I’m not sure you’re quite grasping how rents can be increased. A new fixed term contract is a perfectly legal and valid way of increasing the rent. A Section 13 is just one mechanism, it doesn’t have to be used so I’m not sure why you are so fixated on it. There is a good sticky at the top of the board about AST which includes a section on rent increase you may wish to consider reading it. 

Let’s say this tenancy became periodic and the landlord chooses to use a Section 13 notice to increase the rent. How do you see this playing out differently? If the tenant decides not to start paying the new rent then the landlord can still issue a Section 21 or now that the tenant is falling into arrears the Section 8 becomes a possibility. 

Rent increases don’t necessarily follow inflation. Supply and demand in the local vicinity drives the rental market. Previously you said the proposed rent increase is above market rates, now it’s an inflation busting increase so which is it?