Should S21 be given then boot - & what then for LLs?

FBaby wrote: »

What happens if I spend £10K to redecorate/refurbished the property to a nice standard with the expectation that this should last at least 5 years to justify a return.

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.

Yet the law will say that I wouldn't be able to give notice to that tenant for another 2 1/2 years, by which time, I'll probably need to spend another £10k refurbishment?

What really gets to me is how LL are supposed to consider themselves running a business with all the requirements to follow legislation attached to it. Yet what business person with any sense would keep a customer that made them lose money through their own actions?

The government wants its cake and eat it, consider LL as business people when it suits them but social landlords. Landlords are really treated like scum in this country!

The no pets clause is not enforcable is it? So completely wrecking a house with large dogs upsetting the neighbours with the constant barking and dog mess in the back garden is not going to be accepted as a fault. Poor neighbours. Homeowners need to know about this business with the no fault S21 because they are going to be living next to these neighbours from hell for year and years and years because the landlord can't evict them because legally there is no fault.

sal_III wrote: »

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.

For every nightmare tenant there is at least one slum LL.

How am I supposed to quietly enjoy and plan my life as a tenant when the LL can kick me out with 2 month notice 1 month before the start of the school year, just after I have accepted the offer from the primary school for my 4 y.o.? True story happening now, not an imaginary nightmare dog scenario.

As someone who has been renting for 15 years I harbour little sympathy for LLs. And no sympathy whatsoever for BTL LLs especially the ones with multiple mortgaged properties. Frankly I find it disgusting that the Gov and banks allow for this sort of profiteering. If you have the cash and want to invest it - by all means buy a property and rent it out.

You fall into the category of people who have to rent and you should be given social housing. Private renting has never been intended to be a replacement for social housing but that is what it has become. The original intention was to make is possible for people to relocate and rent before buying not to obtain a permanent rented home. This is not the fault of the private landlords if they can't meet the criteria that you want. This is entirely the fault of the social housing providers in that they are not building enough social housing to meet the demand of people who want permanent rented homes.



The shortage of social housing is causing the housing need to be pushed onto private landlords which is not what was intended. Rather than blaming private landlord you need to put blame on the people who have caused this state of affairs the people responsible for providing social housing.



Private landlords cannot be expected to provide social housing. The reason why private landlords are classed as running a business is because private renting was supposed to be available rather so that people didn't have to live in B&Bs when they relocated. It was to make it possible for people to move around the country after work not to provide permanent rented homes. The short tenancies fitted this criteria of people moving to another part of the country for a short time.



The situation with private renting is this. If you want to have a home that you can live in for a long time you need to find private landlord from the local council who the council use to provide accommodation because those landlords will not evict on a whim. If you try to privately rent a nice house in a very nice area you have to expect a short tenancy because those houses are often owned by people who have moved to work somewhere else or who are trying to sell. You are not going to get a lifetime private rental of a house in a nice area. Those houses are there for short term rentals only regardless of what it says on the agent advertising. It is up to you as a tenant to do your research and find a property that suits what you want to do. You can't blame the private landlords for not doing a service that they have never intended to do.


Lots of people make the mistake of thinking that private landlords set out to provide permanent homes. This is not the case. Permanent rented homes come from social housing not private landlords. This is why the 6 month tenancy was introduced and why social housing has more security of tenure. Private renting was set up to provide short term accommodation not people's homes. Rented homes are the job of the social housing providers because apart from anything else councils and housing associations don't die. Private rentals eventually are going to become part of someone's estate.

Cakeguts wrote: »

Rather than blaming private landlord you need to put blame on the people who have caused this state of affairs the people responsible for providing social housing.

It is not a question of blame. Nor is it a cause of 'people responsible for providing social housing'.

The simple fact is that, when people use property as an investment vehicle rather than as a means of getting a roof over their head, that increases the price of property for people who just want a place to live.

Unless you are suggesting that the government tries to control this phenomenon by vastly increasing taxes on property, that is an inevitable consequence of economic forces. Particularly as we live in a world in which the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the relative importance of wealth over income is increasing.

Your view of the world is extremely socialist - i.e. that the government, rather than the free market, should be the primary provider and operator of housing - at least in respect of a significant portion of the population. That may well be a defensible view but let's be clear that this is a socialist viewpoint. The free market position would be for the market to provide housing (albeit with certain members of the population subsidised to be able to afford housing through the welfare system).

sal_III wrote: »

No I don't, my income has always been way above the thresholds. Not sure what in my post made you believe I do. And my experience is not limited to the UK.

I rented instead of buying by choice as that is what suited me thus far.

Since I now have 2 kids and the eldest is starting school It no longer suits me to be at the mercy of LLs, hence I bought a place and moving to it soon. But I'm fortunate enough to have good income and savings, where plenty of others are stuck to paying rent, not by choice, but because they are unable to save for a deposit.

Bottom line is LLs can't both have their cake and eat it. 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.

As for the "nightmare dogs" scenario - pay for insurance maybe? You know like any other business.

The nightmare dogs thing though may not be just the landlord's problem. You can't expect all the neighbours to take out insurance against them. We had a nightmare dogs situation next door to one of our rental properties. Our tenants complained that the owner occupier next door didn't clear up the dog mess on their own garden leading to smells and flies in the summer. What happened eventually was that the local environmental health team told them to clear it up as it was a health hazard so they did and then let it get bad again. Then they sold up and moved thank goodness.



The problems in private rentals is that it isn't all the same. There are rogue landlords and there are very good landlords. There are landlords who treat their tenants like customers and try to make their stay in their properties as good as possible for the tenants. There are also landlords whose business model is tenants claiming housing benefit and there are landlords letting in premier areas at high rents. In the middle there are people who become a landlord without really knowing what they are doing or caring about their tenants. People who move away for 6 months let their property and don't tell the tenant that they will only be able to have a short term let. On the other hand there are people who only want a 6 month tenancy because after that they will be moving back home.



There are landlords who own houses that they have never lived in. The houses were bought to provide rented accommodation at what ever level their business operates in.



As I said before if you want a long term private rental you need to find a landlord that has several properties not someone who only has one. With only one there is a risk that they will want it back with several the landlord is not looking to have vacant properties.