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
    • 1,105Posts
    • 1,114Thanks
    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 2
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 2:51 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    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.
    Originally posted by sal_III

    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.
    • benjus
    • By benjus 6th Jul 18, 3:06 PM
    • 5,197 Posts
    • 3,213 Thanks
    benjus
    Personally I generally support this (having been a tenant and landlord in the past, although currently I'm neither).

    I presume itís most commonly used when LLs need/want the property back Ė to sell, to live in, to do renovations.
    Originally posted by cloo
    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 warning
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 6th Jul 18, 4:42 PM
    • 16,939 Posts
    • 41,813 Thanks
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    • cloo
    • By cloo 6th Jul 18, 4:45 PM
    • 1,105 Posts
    • 1,114 Thanks
    cloo
    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.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 4:45 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by benjus

    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.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 6th Jul 18, 7:37 PM
    • 16,939 Posts
    • 41,813 Thanks
    FBaby
    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.
    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.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 11:13 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by FBaby

    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.
    • sal_III
    • By sal_III 6th Jul 18, 11:20 PM
    • 644 Posts
    • 657 Thanks
    sal_III
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    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.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 7th Jul 18, 12:43 AM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by sal_III

    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.
    • buggy_boy
    • By buggy_boy 7th Jul 18, 12:57 AM
    • 535 Posts
    • 393 Thanks
    buggy_boy
    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.
    • franklee
    • By franklee 7th Jul 18, 3:06 AM
    • 3,730 Posts
    • 4,017 Thanks
    franklee
    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.
    Originally posted by buggy_boy
    Plenty of reasons for a LL wanting to evict a good tenant e.g.

    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.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 7th Jul 18, 9:51 AM
    • 16,939 Posts
    • 41,813 Thanks
    FBaby
    The other issue is that this will mean much less supply available at any one time. All good when you get to stay for three years, but happen when you are given notice after 3 years and there's nothing available?
    • buggy_boy
    • By buggy_boy 7th Jul 18, 10:31 AM
    • 535 Posts
    • 393 Thanks
    buggy_boy
    Plenty of reasons for a LL wanting to evict a good tenant e.g.

    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.
    Originally posted by franklee
    Most of those are either sell or move back in, of what I have been hearing that would still be allowed... It makes little business sense to do a refurbishment while a tenant is in place...
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 7th Jul 18, 10:54 AM
    • 2,194 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    I would imagine that the glut of properties you forsee coming onto the market would reduce selling prices and increase rents. Some of those unable to buy would then be able to buy; and some of the current crop of professional landlords would take the opportunity to expand their business. Then things would settle down again.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 7th Jul 18, 11:09 PM
    • 4,856 Posts
    • 7,217 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I would imagine that the glut of properties you forsee coming onto the market would reduce selling prices and increase rents. Some of those unable to buy would then be able to buy; and some of the current crop of professional landlords would take the opportunity to expand their business. Then things would settle down again.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391

    In most of the country those people who want to buy can afford to do so. It is only the South East where prices are very high where there is a problem.



    However those people who don't want to save up for a deposit are going to suddenly find that there is nowhere for them to live. Those who are choosing to rent will have a smaller choice of properties.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 8th Jul 18, 7:53 AM
    • 2,194 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    In most of the country those people who want to buy can afford to do so. It is only the South East where prices are very high where there is a problem.



    However those people who don't want to save up for a deposit are going to suddenly find that there is nowhere for them to live. Those who are choosing to rent will have a smaller choice of properties.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    And someone else will buy those properties and rent them to those people... they're quite unlikely to just sit empty while other folk sleep outside.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • Querty
    • By Querty 8th Jul 18, 7:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    You know, if anyone has a problem with a potential type of landlord, such as having only one property, they can take steps to try and avoid that particular situation if they wish.

    As for s.21, in my limited experience it has been an absolute lifesaver, S.8 really does not do the job of enforcing all the tenant's responsibilities in the Tenancy Agreement, in fact nothing does and so your only resource is s.21. I can't believe that landlords of any size would regard s.8 as any kind of substitute for a s.21, perhaps the most telling will be if lenders go for it. I think the whole idea of getting rid of it is completely fanciful.
    Last edited by Querty; 08-07-2018 at 8:47 PM.
    • benjus
    • By benjus 8th Jul 18, 8:59 PM
    • 5,197 Posts
    • 3,213 Thanks
    benjus
    Plenty of reasons for a LL wanting to evict a good tenant e.g.

    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.
    Originally posted by franklee
    Nothing to stop a landlord selling a property with a tenant in situ. They may not get as much money as they would with vacant possession, but IMO that's a right they should be prepared to sacrifice when deciding to let the property out.

    S8 eviction notices already contain grounds for eviction for renovations or for the landlord to re-occupy.
    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 warning
    • Querty
    • By Querty 9th Jul 18, 5:57 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    Small landlords are not necessarily ubusinesslike but do suffer from problems of a small business in that problems are magnified as they are more vulnerable to things that a larger business can withstand. Like a little shop could be devastated by one very bad season or shoplifters.

    There are many accidental landlords around as well at the moment though who it is fair to say may not be professional at all but it is unfair to regard all small landlords like this and somehow put them in a completely different category to larger landlords. It shows rather a lack of understanding of them also as they face the same issues that matter to them as well.
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

4,650Posts Today

4,354Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin