AIBU to worry about Section 21 ending causing mass evictions?

Of course it’s going to happen, it’s being made more and more difficult for the small landlord and it was easily seen this would happen, who would want to be a small landlord now

and those renting won’t be able to afford to buy either, so due to Government changes people are shafted

just as they will be with the new day one employment stuff, that will stop small business taking on new staff and growing

so

What? It’s hardly their fault the landlords are now mass evicting people is it. If they’re good landlords, they’ll be ticking along nicely. No one is making anyone chuck their tenants out.

Is he selling up?

This is exactly right, landlords who spuriously evict tenants will be stopped, but anyone with a genuine reason, it will be much the same.

This really, and many insurers cover the shortfall in the policy, mine does.

A big landlord in our village has served notice on all 8 of his properties, goodness knows where the tenants will live. If you’re on housing benefits and a single person there’s nothing available within a 15 mile radius (a friend’s son is desperately searching for, may end up in a house share but unable to keep his elderly small dog)

If you depend on the income from one property then you shouldn’t be in the landlord business.

The entire system will free up all section 21 court dates that have no purpose as a first point

Second, with the current system of abusing section 21, it already has 3 months minimum with no income, and in reality longer due to clogged system of section 21 and other steps, for those who really have tenants not paying

But with all the nonsense stripped away and only real cases, things will go faster overall not slower. Might be similar to now for some.

But you have three months for the court date with no income.

More landlord propaganda.

Pretending the discretionary grounds don't exist to whine.

Ground 10 which can be used with any amount of arrears at all if the court is happy it is reasonable. And ground 11 for persistent appears, and this can be done even if they have none at all at the time you go to court but definitely if they are doing what you claim and prove it - which is easy if they are actually doing it.

Mmm, I'm a landlord and I'm not planning to get out of the rental market (or evict anyone) just yet. Going forward (not this year but possibly next) the rent I charge may need to rise a bit to cover any additional costs /increased taxes but Im not as terrified of the renters reform bill as many seem to be. In 20 years I've only ever had to evict one tenant and I'd be able to do that under the new legislation (they were a right anti social nuisance). It would probably cost more to do it now but its all in the business model (hence ? higher rents)

Landlord and tenant is a devolved matter and Scotland abolished S 21s some years ago. I've noticed several people in this thread referring to the UK: The abolition of S 21s being discussed as about to be implemented is in England only.
The new Renters' Rights Act (mostly) applies in England - but for a couple of exceptions, for example clauses about discrimination against certain categories of applicants for tenancies, such as those on state benefits. .

If I was your tenant I’d have rather paid an extra £200 than be evicted

I would add that emotionally it’s hard when a tenant trashed your place - as bad as if you’ve been burgled in your own house. And then they do a runner owing rent and you have no chance of getting it back or payment for the damages they have done.

It’s just a sad state of affairs that many longterm tenants (and mostly families as these are the rentals hard to find particularly in popular areas) have shut up and put up for so long, knowing full well that raising maintenance issues would probably mean they’d be in a far worse position looking for alternative accomodation far from schools jobs etc, only to be turfed out when their landlord is forced to realise that having someone else pay their mortgage comes with obligations to uphold a decent and fair standard of living involving some investment on their part.

Long term renter, not heard from current landlord fingers crossed....Anecdotes here are many accidental private landlords (moved in with husbsnd etc) and they were likely to sell up at some point.

Legal or tax changes inevitably trigger a "flood" but ultimately UK needs a better system more HA and council homes etc . Politics. Speak to your mp .

Have their landlords been offered more money to use it as an hmo? It’s so wrong isn’t it. Demonising landlords will cause them to sell up.

No they really are going after small scale ownership. It’s not even benefiting anyone. Growth at zero and unemployment, particularly youth unemployment is up.

This is exactly what will happen. No landlord wants to be left with a dodgy tenant.

I’m not sure it’s fair to FORCE landlords to se with tenants in situ though. If you did this why would anyone invest any money in any form of business in the UK, when the government is prone to making laws at the drop of a hat which massively damage your investment. You would invest elsewhere.

Family farms - the IHT agricultural land exemption was the biggest known way of unscrupulous people avoiding IHT. Labour HAD to take action. Shame they did it in such a cack handed fashion that actual farmers suffered. Of the £40bn tax evaded last year, £26bn was small businesses. HMRC’s eyes need to be on them. And when it comes to landlords, these policies seem to have been driven by MPs who have no ability to think through the consequences of their actions whatsoever. Target landlords with vast levels of regulations and they’re going to leave the market and renters are going to suffer. It’s not rocket science!

Long term stability for decades and beyond, at the expense of limited issues for a few months

Many renters including loads of children are being made homeless in the coming months. They'll be stuck in temporary accommodation for ages.

Major issues and long term instability.

There's not enough social housing and that was known by everybody so I've no idea why anyone is celebrating the changes.

The only thing I can think of that could've avoided the upcoming homeless surge would've been if the new laws had been effective immediately. Or even if everything wasn't effective immediately, at the very least effective immediately that any landlords wanting to sell before the new laws, had to sell with existing tenants in situ.

From what I just googled (not an expert, do your own research):

No cash up front anymore. So tenants with CCJs etc will not be able to offer up front to mitigate their higher risk profile.

Tenants do not have to accept any rent increases and can always refer the increase to a tribunal for review (there’s a small cost to do this, I think, and financial assistance if tenant can’t pay). While waiting for a review, the rent remains the same. The review can find the rent should stay the same or even be lowered. The tenant can do it every year/increase.

It’s currently an average of 27 weeks for a landlord to regain possession of a property. I skim read this https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/how-will-you-evict-a-tenant-when-the-righters-rights-act-is-in-force and it doesn’t make clear to
me how that new process would make it easier or faster. Happy to hear otherwise though.

You can see how just these changes might make landlords cagey, especially if they’re getting older and thinking of an easier life.

I don’t get why anyone would willingly do this to themselves.

Having walked past their massive office many times, I often wonder if they really need to be in such a prime location as it must cost a lot to run.

originfurniture.com/projects/shelter-hq/

The only reason it's hard to 'qualify' for social housing is the desperate shortage. It was always supposed to be an option for all.