PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Should S21 be given then boot - & what then for LLs?
Options
Comments
-
Personally I generally support this (having been a tenant and landlord in the past, although currently I'm neither).I presume it’s most commonly used when LLs need/want the property back – to sell, to live in, to do renovations.
Section 8 notices already provide grounds for renovations or for the landlord to re-occupy (provided the tenant was aware of the possibility when the tenancy began). As far as selling the property goes, the landlord can sell to another landlord and the tenant stays put. No need to disrupt someone's life just to make a bit more money.This is what I can see happening. Tenant takes property at x rent. Loses job and claims housing benefit. Several years later the landlord needs to put the rent up in order to cover their increased costs. Tenant doesn't pay the increased rent even though the notice is legal. Landlord goes for S21 but can't evict because it isn't the fault of the tenant that they "can't afford" the rent increase and "greedy landlord" is trying to evict poor tenant because of the rent increase. It is the rent acts again by the back door.
It may not be the tenant's fault they can't afford the increased rent, but if the rent increase was legal then a fault has still been committed as far as the tenancy agreement is concerned. So a S8 Ground 8/10/11 notice.Family moves in with clause of no pets. 6 months later after 2nd inspection, the family has moved two huge dogs with puppies, which has been doing its business on the new carpet and walls. The kitchen is filthy, grease all over the brand new cooker/oven, doors scratched by the dogs etc... The house is already looking in a poor condition.
S8 Ground 12/13/14/15.
It seems to me that most of the objections on the thread are that the S8 procedure is too onerous and unpredictable, and landlords would rather rely on S21 because it's (relatively) quick and easy, and the outcome is assured if the process is followed correctly. Maybe the S8 process would have to be reexamined to make it more accessible if it become's the landlord's only recourse to evict a tenant, but the point is that the legal mechanisms are already in place, it's just a matter of making them work properly.
S21 notices have facilitated the boom in small-time landlords, often renting out a property that they once lived in. For example, I imagine that it will become much harder to get Consent to Let on a residential mortgage if S21 is abolished.
From a tenant's perspective, small-time landlords are an issue because:- They may have an emotional attachment to the property and struggle to treat it as a business in a detached way; they may be excessively demanding about how it is treated.
- There is a chance they will decide to move back into the property themselves or let it to a family member/friend (this happened to me twice).
- When they sell a property, they usually want to sell with vacant possession to maximize the sale value, and will often try to keep the tenant in place right until exchange of contracts.
I think it is much fairer on the tenant for them to have the right to stay in a property for as long as they like, as long as they stick to the rules.Let's settle this like gentlemen: armed with heavy sticks
On a rotating plate, with spikes like Flash Gordon
And you're Peter Duncan; I gave you fair warning0 -
And here lies part of the problem - that people are doing/treating this as business and for profit. Where the "merchandise" is people homes and simply can't be treated as any other business.
Which is it then? You've proven my point, society expect landlords to act as a business when it suits but act with the kindness of their heart when it doesn't.If they want to act like a business and make profit they have to abide by the rules. If they are not to your liking - sell out and quit the business.
The vast majority of LLs only owns one BTL property and many don't make any profit but for the increasing equity (for now). Would people be so outraged if they instead invested in their pension?As for the "nightmare dogs" scenario - pay for insurance maybe? You know like any other business.
Insurance for what? Complains from neighbours, horrible smell, carpets that are destroyed which BTL insurance certainly doesn't cover! As for costs recoverable from the tenants... haha! That's assuming you can trace them after they disappear, and that they have money to pay rather than getting sympathy from the court that agrees to a payment of £10 a month for countless years and having to go back to court when this stops after a couple of months.0 -
I find cakegut's analysis of why private rental was set up interesting, I'd never thought about it that way.
But I still think it was a bad thing to allow the market to evolve the way it has, resulting in so many renting from small-time investor LLs who will inevitably need to sell up at some time - but I also don't blame LLs for taking the opportunity. People often act as though LLs selling up are doing so to buy themselves a new Lamborghini, but I expect much more often it is to upsize, bail themselves out financially, help their kids buy a place, retire etc. Not that this is any comfort to tenants given notice, but just to say most LLs are small and are selling up because they need to, not to build themselves a swimming pool filled with Dom Perignon.
The flipside is that I agree it's easy for LLs to be detatched and forget someone has made their home in their 'investment'. It is all too easy, when moving a tenant on, to look at rental listings and go 'Ah, they'll be fine, look, there's loads of places around here!' and forget they'll face high deposits, moving costs, often massive competition, limitations of where they can move if they have kids at school or have pets and so on. So I'm not surprised tenants feel poorly treated a lot of the time.0 -
Personally I generally support this (having been a tenant and landlord in the past, although currently I'm neither).
Section 8 notices already provide grounds for renovations or for the landlord to re-occupy (provided the tenant was aware of the possibility when the tenancy began). As far as selling the property goes, the landlord can sell to another landlord and the tenant stays put. No need to disrupt someone's life just to make a bit more money.
It may not be the tenant's fault they can't afford the increased rent, but if the rent increase was legal then a fault has still been committed as far as the tenancy agreement is concerned. So a S8 Ground 8/10/11 notice.
S8 Ground 12/13/14/15.
It seems to me that most of the objections on the thread are that the S8 procedure is too onerous and unpredictable, and landlords would rather rely on S21 because it's (relatively) quick and easy, and the outcome is assured if the process is followed correctly. Maybe the S8 process would have to be reexamined to make it more accessible if it become's the landlord's only recourse to evict a tenant, but the point is that the legal mechanisms are already in place, it's just a matter of making them work properly.
S21 notices have facilitated the boom in small-time landlords, often renting out a property that they once lived in. For example, I imagine that it will become much harder to get Consent to Let on a residential mortgage if S21 is abolished.
From a tenant's perspective, small-time landlords are an issue because:- They may have an emotional attachment to the property and struggle to treat it as a business in a detached way; they may be excessively demanding about how it is treated.
- There is a chance they will decide to move back into the property themselves or let it to a family member/friend (this happened to me twice).
- When they sell a property, they usually want to sell with vacant possession to maximize the sale value, and will often try to keep the tenant in place right until exchange of contracts.
I think it is much fairer on the tenant for them to have the right to stay in a property for as long as they like, as long as they stick to the rules.
I am a landlord and the first two of your points don't apply to me. I don't have any emotional attachment to any of the rental properties and I am not going to want to move into one. I have not lived in any of them. This applies to lots and lots of landlords with more than one property.
The last one I have no control over. I don't want to sell them. I will sell them if I find that I can't evict problem tenants who know that they can get away with whatever they want to do because the landlord cannot evict them. I have no control over what laws are passed. If I die while still owning them I have no control over what happens to them when they are part of my estate.
This is the usual sledgehammer to crack a nut. The tenants who are quite happy and living in properties that they are happy with and not in danger of being evicted so that the landlord can move back in don't complain. The very very small minority who do get evicted so that the landlord can sell or move back in do complain. The end result will be a massive reduction in the properties available to rent because all of the short term ones will disappear from the rental market. So anyone who does want a 6 months rental will be chasing the same properties as the people who want a longer let. There doesn't seem to be a contingency plan for what will happen to the people who can't any longer find a private rental property.0 -
But that's not the reality, that's the annoying part. More than 90% of landlords only have one property for rental. This whole idea that the country is full of investor LLs earning a fortune is just a fallacy.But I still think it was a bad thing to allow the market to evolve the way it has, resulting in so many renting from small-time investor LLs who will inevitably need to sell up at some time - but I also don't blame LLs for taking the opportunity.0 -
But that's not the reality, that's the annoying part. More than 90% of landlords only have one property for rental. This whole idea that the country is full of investor LLs earning a fortune is just a fallacy.
People should be worried about this because the chances are that many of these single properties will be removed from the rental market if it becomes too much of a problem for people to let them. That will reduce the number of properties available to let.0 -
Probably true for the properties that are fully owned, which is not the case with the majority of them. As long as there is mortgage to pay on them, they will be either let out or sold.People should be worried about this because the chances are that many of these single properties will be removed from the rental market if it becomes too much of a problem for people to let them. That will reduce the number of properties available to let.0 -
Probably true for the properties that are fully owned, which is not the case with the majority of them. As long as there is mortgage to pay on them, they will be either let out or sold.
So where are the people who can't afford to buy going to rent if the number of private rental properties available drastically reduces? This whole thing has not been thought through. It doesn't benefit anyone apart from the politicians suggesting it and they probably are not renting in a situation where they can't afford to buy.0 -
So thankfully I have only ever had to start eviction preceding's once and the tenants wanted to leave anyway so it was mutually acceptable. The reason for the eviction was the tenants were making the neighbours lives a living hell, screaming the road down with their blazing arguments on a nearly daily basis, with police attendance a regular occurrence...
My problem was to evict not using S21 I would have to prove they were a nuisance, you can do this via the council but a lot of councils including mine do not class arguments even if it is screaming the road down as a statutory nuisance. I could have tried to gather as much evidence I could, then paid lots of money to go to court but there would be no guarantee I would get the property back...
I don't have a problem with removing Section 21 however they need to give landlords more tools to evict bad tenants and quicker.
S21 is termed a no fault eviction however it is used where tenants are at fault as the only guaranteed way of removing a bad tenant... Why on earth would a landlord randomly chuck out a perfectly good tenant? it makes no business sense and is media and political football vilifying landlords.0 -
Plenty of reasons for a LL wanting to evict a good tenant e.g.Why on earth would a landlord randomly chuck out a perfectly good tenant? it makes no business sense and is media and political football vilifying landlords.
LL wants the property for their own family to live in.
LL returning from living away and wants to move back in.
LL not wanting to do repairs. e.g. would rather sell then install a new boiler.
LL is retiring and doesn't want the hassle of letting.
LL doesn't find letting economically viable.
LL doesn't like the new tax regime.
LL getting divorced and needs to sell and split assets.
LL was only letting as couldn't sell when wanting to move so really wanted to sell.
LL wants to sell for many other reasons such as needing the money invested in the property to use elsewhere.
LL wants to do a full refurbishment or other building works so wants the property empty.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards