Do you think removal of S21 "no fault" evictions will make life for renters better or worse?

[Treacletoots]

The rental market is a shit show, we know that. A drop in available properties, rising interest rates etc all leading to increased rents whilst tenants also believe landlords are all deviants who will evict them for complaining about issues.

But.. do we genuinely believe removing the ability for landlords to issue a section 21 "no fault/explanation" evictions will help?

If landlords can no longer regain their property without blame or hassle on either side, for whatever reason, I.e. non payment of rent, anti social behaviour, because they want to sell it etc will they stay in the market?

In the last 2 years rental housing availability has dropped 30% because landlords are leaving the sector. What happens to prices when there is more demand than supply?

What do we think will happen if the government do announce a ban on S21, I estimate half of the remaining landlords will sell up, after all being a landlord is voluntary and most could currently get a better return by putting their money in the bank.

Just wondered whether people have considered the real life outcomes of landlords en mass saying "I've had enough"

Things need to improve, but I genuinely don't think this is the solution everyone needs.

I think this will make things worse. If landlords can't get their property back they will pull out of the rental market or perhaps go to holiday lets or Air bnb.

@Spanielsarepainless I suspect so. Landlords are already using air bnb to get around the insane tax regulations that mean they're the only business who can't claim finance costs. Rishi has however suggested a crack down on this too, only option remaining is to sell..

I think it will make it a lot worse, my friend let’s out her Mothers house, it was her inheritance and the tenant she has had for about 8 years is leaving soon as they gave notice so she is going to do short term holiday let’s. As soon as I saw the change that people could have pets as tenants I thought it would put some landlords off as well.

I can’t remember where I read it but some banks are buying up houses and getting in to the rental market big time. I rented 3 houses when young before I bought. It was ages ago but all communication was direct with the landlords. Two of them had just one house each and the other had about 10 and they were all great, dealing with them directly made it all easier. I think it’s going to get substantially worse.

@AuntiePhoenixClaw hmm I also agree with you. I suspect the government is trying to ensure that property is only owned by those who can afford it outright or by businesses, like you say who give 0 shits about the tenants. The tax changes only affected those with a mortgage, meaning more and more smaller landlords were forced out.

The media has done a pretty good job of villainising the smaller landlords but like you point out, that's simply not the case, for most of them IMHO.

@AuntiePhoenixClaw people can’t have pets, the government have just updated the model tenancy agreement to allow pets as default, landlords can take that out of the agreement if they want to.

I've only ever known accidental landlords when they've had to move because of life circumstances, both got absolutely screwed by non payment of rent and destruction of there property when they were eventually removed. I really can see the end of accidental or individual property landlords.

'Their' property

Maybe landlords will start doing fixed term tenancies and people will have to move every year or something.

IIRC landlords can still get possession back if they are selling up or need to move back in, but I wouldn't be surprised if they gets harder nonetheless.

I think small LLs was always a poor basis for a rental market, but the problem is the govt is making it harder for them to operate but there isn't actually a replacement at scale. I think institutional landlords are a much better idea, most of all in avoiding the bane of having to move time and again when your LL needs to sell up, but 'build to rent' is a tiny fraction of the market and eye wateringly expensive. There needs to be truly affordable build to rent as well.

Properties do not disappear just because they are no longer owned by a landlord. In the longer term this will bring house prices down and allow more young people to buy property of their own. There will be short term pain for tenants while this happens but this is an effect of decades of failing to address the housing crisis. Offering families basic security of tenure is something that should be mandated in any civilized society.

I was going to buy a smaller bungalow, I was going to do it up and keep it for when/ if I needed to downsize if I was single ( DH is older and not terrifically well). I thought I would rent it out to someone like me in the interim.

Having read about the restrictions (and the behaviour and expectations of many tenants) I’m not going to. I’ll just have to deal with my property as and when. Seems a shame, two people could have benefitted.

If it means expanding the rental market with corporate landlords it will be a good thing. It’s completely wrong that you can be evicted from your home on the whim of an amateur landlord. I’d rather rent from a corporate landlord that understands what their obligations are and fulfills them.

If landlords can no longer regain their property without blame or hassle on either side, for whatever reason, I.e. non payment of rent, anti social behaviour, because they want to sell it etc will they stay in the market?

Isn’t the intention to clamp down on no fault evictions? Surely a tenant not paying rent or antisocial behaviour is not ‘no fault’. And that should be accounted for if there’s a change in the law.

FWIW the endgame with this current Tory administration is probably that big business / banks will control more of the UK housing stock. They don’t care about smaller investors.

It’s going to make it worse. My last two landlords were really decent people, both looked after their properties, both reactive to issues and never increased the rent. Wouldn’t blame them at all if they sold up because of this.

All good points but OP is incorrect - there will still be grounds to remove tenants if you want to sell up, move relatives into your property or if there are anti-social behaviour issues or ongoing rent arrears.

Plus now interest rates on savings accounts are getting around 3%, so selling let property and investing the capital makes more sense than the increasingly diminishing returns from letting and the endless hassle.

There's a number of MN posters who think LL are the scum of the earth so I can only assume they'll be thrilled when they have gone.🙄🙄

I think it’ll make it harder as there will be less property to rent. Higher prices etc. I own so no skin in the game but I rented for 14 years generally nice flats from good landlords fine for a 20 something professional with no children.

The problem is the lack of investment in social housing so those people who would of gotten council flats years ago are forced to the private sector paying large rents via housing benefit/ universal credit.

It makes no sense in the long term.

I say this in every thread- you WILL be able to evict tenants who don't pay the rent, cause ASB etc. this is relatively simple. Yes it is more 'hassle' than S21 but not that much.
The courts are very slow at the moment but if that was sorted out then not sure why landlords so averse to fault based grounds.

Renting is shit because there has been no investment in social housing. That is a bigger issue than S21 tbh.

All the new laws relating to this are counterproductive.

If every landlord sold up tomorrow, it wouldn't make a dent in house prices for FTB's. Think of it like this, the average rented property can provid a home to 5 families over a decade, an owner occupied one averages about 2 families per decade. There will still be three people chasing up every property even after all those ex-rentals are snapped up.

Fifteen years ago, before all this "Rent Act" bollocks, I paid £375 for a two up mid-terrace a few mins walk from Cardiff City Centre. The house was a bit rundown, no insulation, dodgy bannister and filthy couch. I could have paid less and rented a proper sketchy place if I wanted to save myself a few quid, Or I could have splashed out and bankrupted myself renting a posh flat in the Marina. My point is I had choice. I could leave one place and get another in the same day, no estate agent fees, no credit checks, just call a few numbers in the buy and sell and go view the place, first come, first serve. Yes, nobody ever got their deposit back, but that was just a "cost" of the convenience of cheap, no contract rentals.

Today, I imagine that same two up would cost around £1200 P/M.

What's the point of all this regulation if it means there are no rentals available?

Let's be real, landlords provide a service, tennants would be homeless without somewhere to rent. Making it difficult/impossible to provide that service isn't helping anyone.

Have all these new laws made it easier or cheaper for tennants to find a home?

No.

Has all this regulation made life harder and more expensive for tennants?

Yes.

Why so many people seem to support overbearing regulation and criticise landlords is beyond me.

Given the choice of my grotty two up for £400 P/M or prostrating myself in front of my local EA, with a file full of bank statements, credit checks, references, and a letter from God, I know which one I'd choose.

Exactly that.

Agree @ThreeFeetTall - we desperately need social housing so people on low incomes have stable homes. There are so many social benefits to it, but governments always balk at the high upfront costs. There need to be mechanisms that allow local authorities to get around high land prices to homes can be built on a large scale.

Landlords who turn to Air BnB or similar because of tenant expectations etc are probably in for a bit of a shock because the attitude is completely different towards renting a home than renting for a holiday - people expect much more and they expect it much faster, and don't deliver and reviews will put potential bookers off.

There's no "But a homeowner would have to wait for a tradesman!" Excuses accepted if toilets or boilers break, you are expected to get it sorted and refund money and you'll probably get an at least honest review, if not a bad one.
If the place isn't kept in good condition and clean that'll be reflected in people asking for refunds, reviewing everywhere they can and losing future bookings.

It's seen as the LL providing a paid for service to a customer, rather than the LL doing the customer a favour like renting long term is.

I agree that the crux of the issue is lack of affordable social housing, it should be viewed as a fundamental right but it's a way for people to make money (as are so many things) and unsurprisingly, when decent standards are imposed on people who just want to make money, they don't want to do it any more. I can't say I blame them if they got into it believing it was a good way to make a few quid with low input, and not for altruistic reasons, but I also don't think that it's unreasonable to introduce fair, consistent and reliable standards for people renting either.

We had a couple of rentals (inheritances) and have just sold one and have given notice to evict the other with a view to sell.

It’s just a huge amount of hassle now (in Wales, at least). There’s now a minimum 6 month notice period, which will come in addition to any time it takes to evict via the courts and additional expectations are coming in terms of the EPC ratings which mean it’s no longer viable or worth the effort.

We need a total overhaul of the renting sector. Landlords need to be licensed, and they should lose their licence if they cannot run the business correctly. Because that is what it is, and it comes with all the risks such as bad tenants.