Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • cloo
    • By cloo 5th Jul 18, 3:34 PM
    • 1,076Posts
    • 1,063Thanks
    cloo
    Should S21 be given then boot - & what then for LLs?
    • #1
    • 5th Jul 18, 3:34 PM
    Should S21 be given then boot - & what then for LLs? 5th Jul 18 at 3:34 PM
    The London assembly has given its backing to a campaign to end ĎNo faultí eviction (S.21). Although itís widely portrayed in the media as being used to kick tenants out for no good reason (and doubtless it sometimes is), I presume itís most commonly used when LLs need/want the property back Ė to sell, to live in, to do renovations. Which is Ďno faultí on the tenantís part but itís not Ďwithout reasoní either, so Iím 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 theyíd want proof the LL is intending to inhabit the place/sell/refurbish to prove itís not a revenge eviction or other dodginess. But then what if a LL gives notice in good faith and finds they canít sell or their circumstances change and itís not the right time to sell Ė 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 Ė 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.
Page 1
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 5th Jul 18, 3:41 PM
    • 12,444 Posts
    • 17,689 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    • #2
    • 5th Jul 18, 3:41 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jul 18, 3:41 PM
    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_tenan cy_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.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 5th Jul 18, 3:43 PM
    • 1,890 Posts
    • 3,304 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    • #3
    • 5th Jul 18, 3:43 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jul 18, 3:43 PM
    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.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • cloo
    • By cloo 5th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    • 1,076 Posts
    • 1,063 Thanks
    cloo
    • #4
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    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.
    • saajan_12
    • By saajan_12 5th Jul 18, 4:25 PM
    • 1,311 Posts
    • 921 Thanks
    saajan_12
    • #5
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:25 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:25 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    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)
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 5th Jul 18, 4:54 PM
    • 1,890 Posts
    • 3,304 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    • #6
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:54 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jul 18, 4:54 PM
    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)
    Originally posted by saajan_12

    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.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 5th Jul 18, 8:37 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    • #7
    • 5th Jul 18, 8:37 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jul 18, 8:37 PM
    Who decides whether there has been a fault or not?
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 5th Jul 18, 8:55 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    • #8
    • 5th Jul 18, 8:55 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jul 18, 8:55 PM
    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.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 5th Jul 18, 9:07 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    • #9
    • 5th Jul 18, 9:07 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jul 18, 9:07 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by cloo

    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.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 5th Jul 18, 9:19 PM
    • 1,890 Posts
    • 3,304 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    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.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 5th Jul 18, 10:13 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391

    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.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 6th Jul 18, 7:21 AM
    • 16,831 Posts
    • 41,554 Thanks
    FBaby
    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!
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 12:09 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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!
    Originally posted by FBaby

    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.
    • ThePants999
    • By ThePants999 6th Jul 18, 12:40 PM
    • 1,206 Posts
    • 1,515 Thanks
    ThePants999
    Who decides whether there has been a fault or not?
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    Is that a trick question? The section 8 process is pretty well defined.
    • cloo
    • By cloo 6th Jul 18, 1:00 PM
    • 1,076 Posts
    • 1,063 Thanks
    cloo
    I don't think this government has an especial appetite to get rid of S21, though there is momentum building (no pun intended) behind moves to get rid of it. Which I do find annoying in the sense that I suspect that a lot of people's distaste for S21 comes about because of a media-spawned misperception that it is solely used to evict people without reason, rather than primarily being the route for LLs to get their property back when they require it.
    • sal_III
    • By sal_III 6th Jul 18, 1:01 PM
    • 345 Posts
    • 318 Thanks
    sal_III
    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!
    Originally posted by FBaby
    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.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 1:21 PM
    • 4,572 Posts
    • 6,593 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by sal_III

    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.
    Last edited by Cakeguts; 06-07-2018 at 1:27 PM.
    • sal_III
    • By sal_III 6th Jul 18, 1:45 PM
    • 345 Posts
    • 318 Thanks
    sal_III
    You fall into the category of people who have to rent and you should be given social housing.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    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.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 6th Jul 18, 1:57 PM
    • 2,675 Posts
    • 2,608 Thanks
    steampowered
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    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).
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 6th Jul 18, 1:59 PM
    • 1,890 Posts
    • 3,304 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    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!
    Originally posted by FBaby

    In theory the costs would be recoverable from the tenant - but in practice that wouldn't work. However, why isn't causing damage to the property grounds for a S8 eviction? Why couldn't it be? Legislation to abolish S21 could easily beef up S8 as required...
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,286Posts Today

6,271Users online

Martin's Twitter