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?
cloo
Posts: 1,291 Forumite
The London assembly has given its backing to a campaign to end ‘No fault’ eviction (S.21). Although it’s widely portrayed in the media as being used to kick tenants out for no good reason (and doubtless it sometimes is), I presume it’s most commonly used when LLs need/want the property back – to sell, to live in, to do renovations. Which is ‘no fault’ on the tenant’s part but it’s not ‘without reason’ either, so I’m wondering if the government were to get rid of S21 (however unlikely under this administration), what would what provision would be made for LLs who need tenants out for their own legitimate reasons and how would they police such evictions?
Presumably they’d want proof the LL is intending to inhabit the place/sell/refurbish to prove it’s not a revenge eviction or other dodginess. But then what if a LL gives notice in good faith and finds they can’t sell or their circumstances change and it’s not the right time to sell – would they be punished as cheating if they try to let it again within a few months? Because presumably some LLs would use alleged sales/renovation as cover to get someone out, so you would have to guard against that. Just interested in what people think really – would and should it be made much harder potentially for LLs to regain possession of places they rent out? I haven't been a LL for years, but remain interested in the issues.
Presumably they’d want proof the LL is intending to inhabit the place/sell/refurbish to prove it’s not a revenge eviction or other dodginess. But then what if a LL gives notice in good faith and finds they can’t sell or their circumstances change and it’s not the right time to sell – would they be punished as cheating if they try to let it again within a few months? Because presumably some LLs would use alleged sales/renovation as cover to get someone out, so you would have to guard against that. Just interested in what people think really – would and should it be made much harder potentially for LLs to regain possession of places they rent out? I haven't been a LL for years, but remain interested in the issues.
0
Comments
-
If you want to find out what would happen look North. The new Private Rental Tenancy was introduced in Scotland 1st December 2017. Landlords need a ground to start the eviction process and the those grounds include the landlord wanting to sell or live in the property themselves.
https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/eviction/eviction_of_private_tenants/grounds_for_eviction_for_private_residential_tenancy_tenants
I think if the tenant can sue the landlord if they are evicted because the landlord wants to sell but then the landlord doesn't make a serious attempt to sell but you need to remember that our buying/selling process is more civilised.0 -
I think policing "good" reasons for such evictions would be hard, time consuming and expensive. I'd prefer to see the financial cost of moving home be transferred onto the LL - on the theory that if it isn't a good enough reason to evict someone from their home, they won't pay. That could be done by extending the notice period and reducing the rent during the notice period.0
-
Help with moving costs seems fair to me seeing as it's the LL who has the whip hand and gets the economic advantage from it, although that might have its own problems of policing.0
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »I think policing "good" reasons for such evictions would be hard, time consuming and expensive. I'd prefer to see the financial cost of moving home be transferred onto the LL - on the theory that if it isn't a good enough reason to evict someone from their home, they won't pay. That could be done by extending the notice period and reducing the rent during the notice period.
I agree policing the reason for eviction is almost impossible, too many individual cases to hear out and too easy to falsify the reason. Also S21s where there is tenant fault or a disagreement between tenant & LL but not enough for the fairly strict criteria of S8 (e.g. regularly late rent, breaches of the agreement).
Also agree financial cost of moving should be reduced for the tenant, but why extend notice period or reduce rent?
* Extend notice period - that can be worse for the tenant if they begin looking right away, and find something with quick move in. Why should they risk leaving it till later to start looking or pass up an early find? A longer notice period means longer rent overlap for the tenant.
* Reduce rent - why, since the tenant is receiving the full benefit of the property for that time. They don't have to leave at the end of the notice, but can wait until a court grants a possession order and bailiffs come. Why should the LL receive reduced rent when they don't necessarily get the property back within their timeline, and the tenant has full occupation for 6+months.
I think once LL serves notice, the tenant should be able to terminate any time with minimal notice e.g. 2 weeks with the rent being pro-rata'd. That way they have minimal overlap and don't have to keep paying rent for a long period until the tenancy is ended (by tenant or court only). If they don't find a new place, they do have a lot of time anyway (2 months notice + wait for court order + wait for bailiffs)0 -
I agree policing the reason for eviction is almost impossible, too many individual cases to hear out and too easy to falsify the reason. Also S21s where there is tenant fault or a disagreement between tenant & LL but not enough for the fairly strict criteria of S8 (e.g. regularly late rent, breaches of the agreement).
Also agree financial cost of moving should be reduced for the tenant, but why extend notice period or reduce rent?
* Extend notice period - that can be worse for the tenant if they begin looking right away, and find something with quick move in. Why should they risk leaving it till later to start looking or pass up an early find? A longer notice period means longer rent overlap for the tenant.
* Reduce rent - why, since the tenant is receiving the full benefit of the property for that time. They don't have to leave at the end of the notice, but can wait until a court grants a possession order and bailiffs come. Why should the LL receive reduced rent when they don't necessarily get the property back within their timeline, and the tenant has full occupation for 6+months.
I think once LL serves notice, the tenant should be able to terminate any time with minimal notice e.g. 2 weeks with the rent being pro-rata'd. That way they have minimal overlap and don't have to keep paying rent for a long period until the tenancy is ended (by tenant or court only). If they don't find a new place, they do have a lot of time anyway (2 months notice + wait for court order + wait for bailiffs)
My thinking on the reduced rent was that that would stand in lieu of actually calculating the moving costs. So the tenant can stay for a little while and save up the extra before moving. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, I was just trying to think of the simplest
I think you're right that once notice has been given by the LL the tenant should have the flexibility to move out whenever suits them. It's never going to be fun to leave your home on someone else's timetable, but we can make it a bit less painful!
I do think any such proposal would need to be paired with strengthening S8 so landlords did have recourse against tenants if need be.0 -
Who decides whether there has been a fault or not?0
-
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 will cause long drawn out arguments where a tenant has more right to a property than the person who owns and used to live in but has rented while working abroad. People will no longer be able to offer short tenancies of their own homes in case they can't get them back. It is an absolute minefield.
It will reduce a lot of available rental property. A lot of the good quality properties will disappear and homes will be left empty again when people are working away.
Professional landlords ONLY evict if there is a fault they don't evict good tenants. So this eviction thing only applies to a few properties in London where the rents have been rising and properties being let out while someone works away. Another sledgehammer to crack a nut.
As soon anything like this comes up I feel that it is a way of forcing private landlords to provide social housing. Private landlords should not be needing to provide social housing that is the job of the social housing providers.
We are going to get into that position again where the only properties available to rent are going to be the ones in places where no one wants to buy.0 -
Help with moving costs seems fair to me seeing as it's the LL who has the whip hand and gets the economic advantage from it, although that might have its own problems of policing.
You see this comment makes no sense to me. I am a landlord with several properties. The last thing I want to do is evict any of my tenants. There is no economic advantage to me to have a vacant property. I want my tenants to stay for as long as possible. Eviction only happens if the tenant does something that they are not supposed to do. The last one of these was the tenant moved out and moved another family member in who was not on the tenancy agreement and who couldn't afford the rent. That will lead to an eviction and the tenant is at fault.
It isn't the landlords who have several properties that are doing these short terms ending in eviction it is the people who are letting their own home while they work away or someone wanting to sell a house who do this. So in order to stop people from evicting tenants from their own homes so that they can move back in they bring in a no fault S21. So how are you then supposed to move back into your home that you have let. In a stroke it will reduce the number of homes available for letting and will increase the number of vacant properties.0 -
You see this comment makes no sense to me. I am a landlord with several properties. The last thing I want to do is evict any of my tenants. There is no economic advantage to me to have a vacant property. I want my tenants to stay for as long as possible. Eviction only happens if the tenant does something that they are not supposed to do. The last one of these was the tenant moved out and moved another family member in who was not on the tenancy agreement and who couldn't afford the rent. That will lead to an eviction and the tenant is at fault.
It isn't the landlords who have several properties that are doing these short terms ending in eviction it is the people who are letting their own home while they work away or someone wanting to sell a house who do this. So in order to stop people from evicting tenants from their own homes so that they can move back in they bring in a no fault S21. So how are you then supposed to move back into your home that you have let. In a stroke it will reduce the number of homes available for letting and will increase the number of vacant properties.
That was my idea - the point was to retain a no fault eviction process but make it less problematic for tenants. Agreed that landlords with a more professional outlook don't just evict tenants for fun, but there is the problem that not all landlords have that outlook - as you freely admit, some are only intended as fairly short term. And they're not always going to be upfront about that. So the moving costs would then be a cost of business for the landlord, like gas safety etc etc, rather than a burden on the unlucky tenant who is not at fault but still has to fork out.0 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »That was my idea - the point was to retain a no fault eviction process but make it less problematic for tenants. Agreed that landlords with a more professional outlook don't just evict tenants for fun, but there is the problem that not all landlords have that outlook - as you freely admit, some are only intended as fairly short term. And they're not always going to be upfront about that. So the moving costs would then be a cost of business for the landlord, like gas safety etc etc, rather than a burden on the unlucky tenant who is not at fault but still has to fork out.
In practice though it is the short term landlords who evict after short terms. The business landlords don't do that. Most tenancies are ended by the tenant for them. So all that will happen is that the people who want to let for a short time will stop doing it and leave their properties empty because they will be unable to get them back if they let them.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