To think tenants aren't aware of the effect the section 21 ban will have?

[Treacletoots]

Another win for tenants... No more no fault evictions. Or is it a case of be careful what you wish for?

An unintended consequence of this will likely be more section 8 notices if a landlord needs to remove a tenant. Section 8 notices usually are accompanied by a CCJ if they are successful and due to rent arrears. Currently most landlords use section 21 to save the hassle of court and the tenant doesnt get a CCJ.

Good landlords simply don't evict good tenants for no reason. It doesn't make sense. With the tenant fee bans it makes even less sense to remove tenants and then have to fork out again to refresh the property, re reference new tenants, advertise etc.

In 90%of cases tenancies are ended by the tenant and in only 2% are they revenge evictions. Landlords will be more worried than ever to let to higher risk tenants so may just sell up, losing houses from the rental market. Local authorities don't have enough housing to re home people and so this will likely cause more homeless.

Can nobody else see that banning section 21 will likely lead to more suffering, not less!

CuriousaboutSamphire
Nope - no new law yet. The proposal is up for consultation and the date for that has not been announced yet.

AL - the government haven't fleshed out the details yet. Some assumptions have been made, but there is more to be done, apparently.

I do think there should definitely be exemptions if LL want to live in the property or sell. This means more flexibility for people moving with work- both for landlords and tenants. I have let a property as a landlord and tenant cos I had to move for work. Many renters are looking for places on a shorter term basis and it makes more sense than leaving them empty.

I have been evicted for no good reason. The reason was that I was asking the landlord to do essential maintenance. This change in law would have meant that I could not have been evicted. I have never been in rent arrears.

So tenancies will be redundant, you just stay until you want to leave or the LL takes you to court.

Unless rent controls are brought in LL can just jack up the rent until the tenant defaults and you evict them. Or LL can 'pretend' they want to sell or move back in.

That is definitely going to be worse for the tenant. Instead of 2 months civilised 'no fault' notice to move on they will now have to go through court proceedings and be told to move on.

All that will change is the bureaucracy, stress and cost of it all. LL will always have many reasons to get rid of a tenant they don't like. Very acrimonious, what tenant will want to go to court to stay in a house owned by someone else who is doing everything they can to evict them. Its not going to end well is it.

Walkingdeadfangirl

Or it might mean building a good relationship with your tenant or landlord.

Boney, that sounds great until you need your property back and the tenants say no.

LL: "I need an extra £25 a month for rent this year"
Tenant: "Oh come on I thought we were friends, I am not paying that, take me to court"

or

LL "rent will increase by £25 a month for the next year"
Tenant "No"
LL "ok here is your 2 month notice"

Its a business relationship.

Walkingdeadfangirl

Its a business relationship.

you say that like we find it surprising. When it seems to most of us that its the landlords that need reminding.

The sorry situation that landlords can earn obscene amounts of money from renting their properties has led to this. Anything which gives tenants more protection is good. My last landlord was a "good landlord"; he still served us notice halfway through our second year as he wanted to sell. His prerogative; his reason for selling was purely cash motivated. He bought flat in 90s for 98k; sold it for £575k and we were paying £1550 a month to live there. A one bed flat. His mortgage must have been either gone or pennies.

There should be a cap on interest earned on letting out properties. Keeping rental prices lower enabling people to save and buy.

Tenants should know they can stay in a property for at least 2 years. If you want to claim back your property, sell it quickly or move back in yourself, then you shouldn't be a BTL landlord. Simple as that.

London, presumably, Another?

How much of the hatred for landlords is actually down to 'standard' way that rental estate agents act?

I've rented directly in the past from landlords. No problems! They seemed keen to keep good tenants that paid the rent.

Recently, I had to rent for a short period through an estate agent. Estate agent didn't care if I was satisfied or not. They were probably very happy when I gave notice to leave because they could charge the landlord another letting fee for the next tenant. Had plenty of means to pay the rent, but they were not interested and insisted on 6 months up front. Didn't put my deposit with an independent scheme, but said they paid for an insurance scheme that 'protected' me in case of dispute. Then refused to pay deposit back and kept urging me to claim on insurance even though there was no dispute and landlord was happy. When I queried having to use their building and contents insurance policy as I already had a policy, said I would be put on a blacklist and 'would never be able to rent again'.

I wasn't worried because I was buying a property and hope 'never to rent again'. But overall, a very unpleasant experience. And nothing to do with the landlord. Except that they chose this estate agent. I hope they were happier with them than I was....

I've not so far had a tenant over 2 years. Some move for work, others for needing a bigger house, one because her stbxh moved in his new gf and she was planning to move back. I wonder how well that went. The benefit of renting is that you can just flex, up and move when it suits you.

Really, the only way you have stability is by buying. Whether or not you can afford to do this is likely dependant on where you choose to live. Often people can afford a much bigger house renting than they could if buying. It's a lifestyle choice for a lot. I do appreciate not everyone though.

@Anothertempusername

Only LL's with large portfolios (without huge mortgages) or who have enough money to buy properties outright make "obscene amounts of money".

There seems to be an assumption on here that all landlords are loaded. Some LL's rent out a property out of necessity rather than to make money, some actually don't make any profit at all but due to various reasons have to rent out rather than sell.

Couldn't agree more! In all honesty if a landlord appears wealthy its likely they already were before they invested in the property.

After tax, repairs, and all the other stuff I just about break even so I'm definitely not drinking champagne on my tenant's rent money. It's all about a retirement fund since I likely won't have a great one otherwise.

I also agree with @woolleyheart

I honestly have no time for letting agents. How someone can charge obscene amounts of money for doing almost fuck all is beyond me. Hopefully with the upcoming tenants fee ban a few more Landlords will sack theirs and try doing it themselves. I'll bet it'll be better for all parties

@Anothertempusername you are making a huge amount of assumptions - and conflating totally different things - people that need to move back into their properties aren't "buy to let landlords" obviously, they are everyday homeowners who need their homes back. I'm sorry about your experience but you can't tar everyone with the same brush, and neither are landlords all making obscene amounts of money, I know people who have rented out their properties because say they've gone away to work for a couple of years and they've ended up out of pocket after costs and taxes.

@woollyheart You may be on to something there! I personally hated the agents I had managing my flat, they were just as dishonest and money grabbing to me, I am taking it to the property ombudsman (you should also do that, the way they treated you is completely illegal.

I am with you OP ... bad landlords don’t care about laws or people...
What councils should do is vet landlords and properties. But the irony is that half the appalling housing is where councils jam large families into converted office blocks and single rooms in so called hotels ...

Wish I could keep the same tenant for more than two years they move on for new jobs .... when I rented I used good agencies and left every where I lived in perfect condition.... and clean...

Most letting agents don't give a shit about the tenants, they are purely businesses out to make as much as they can from both the tenants and the landlords. At least when the cap on fees comes in agents won't be able to scam as much money off everyone.

Erm... The lost fees will legally be added to the rent. The longer you stay the more you will pay as the LL will only work out the additional cost over your first contract period.

As happened in Scotland!

@curious - why should people not rent out thei property if they’ve moved for work? Also why can landlords not sell? Even housing associations move their tenants if they are redeveloping, etc (although they have more security of tenure obv). If you removed the ability of homeowners to rent their property for the short term, it would decrease housing availability and economic mobility. I don’t see why we should either have an exception for landlords wanting to move back into their own property or shorter fixed term contracts for those who want them.

Some people on here are attacking all landlords... but the problems lie with both bad tenants and bad landlords.. and unregulated letting agents...
Don’t try and pull down the whole system because you have had a bad experience... we just need to deal with the wrong uns....
Tenants should vet LL’s and use reputable agencies ... their are heartbreaking stories on both sides it’s not a competition...

Woollyheart .....you should name and shame them ...once you have Got your money ... we are too soft on these crooks and it’s too easy to set up letting agencies ....

Another... then it should work both ways .. I gave tenants 3year contracts .. all moved on before hand ... because of changes in their lives ... I don’t dislike them for it or wish to insist they stay ... it is stressful getting new tenants ..I’d rather of had one long term ... but I’m not complaining like them I just get on with it...

I don't get the argument that no fees means increased rent. The people charging the fees (agents) and the people setting the rent (landlords) are different. A landlord doesn't lose money if there's no fees so why would they put the rent up? They're not the ones charging £200 to print a contract.

I think the main problem with renting is that for the LL it's a business, even 'accidental' LLs need to cover the cost of the mortgage or the cost of the house itself for insurance and repairs etc. Others need the mortgage paid off for their pension, others are in it to make a living month to month. From the LLs pov, it's decisions based on making the most they can from their asset.
For tenants it's a home, it's somewhere you should feel safe, somewhere you do the most personal things, somewhere you bring up children, somewhere you create children! Somewhere you're sick, somewhere tradgedy strikes and where happiness is. It's a home. So when things go wrong, if the LL needs to sell, or move back in, it does feel very personal to the tenant, how can it not?
The LLs in the vast majority of cases don't see it that way, they see it as a business 'now is the right time to sell' for example.
I've seen 'it's not personal' said to tenants being evicted on here, but considering the function of a home, and the results for the tenant, how could it not be personal? The results remove one of the main things in your life. And when this happens over and over again, you do lose faith, you don't invest emotionally in the house you're renting because you fear all the upheaval again in 6 months.
Don't they say moving house is one of the most stressful things to do in your life? After death and divorce? I've moved 8 times in 15 years, all but 2 were the choice of the LL, and one of those 2 was because of anti social behaviour in the area that I wasn't warned about before I moved me and DD (7 at the time) in. I'm incredibly lucky to have social housing now, and a long term tenancy. I still don't have 'nice' stuff though, moving every couple of years apart from being expensive, means you don't invest in anything because it's just something else to move. I have relaxed enough to do some serious work in the garden this year, still too scared to spend anything more than a few quid though.
Another thing I think would help would be when you move a way to transfer deposit. So LL 1 is happy to return your full deposit, but not until the day you leave, obviously you need to pay LL2 a deposit before you move in, some sort of transfer scheme may work, where LL one inspects the property near the end, says yes to release the deposit, you've already signed to the next property with deposit pending, the deposit is then transferred in name from LL to LL. It obviously needs to be a bit more thought through than that, but in reality as a tenant, you always need a deposit on hand to get your next place, because the one you used for your current place is obviously tied up until after you move out.