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!

I think it will create a two tier system. If you're a "good tenant" - well paid job, good credit check, no kids, no pets you'll have your pick of properties for a reasonable price.

If you don't fit the above criteria you'll find yourself with a much lower choice of properties to rent for which will be basically inferior properties for an inflated rent, as landlords will only take the risk if they're going to get more money.

The number of people willing to rent to dss will dramatically fall and ironically may lead to more homelessness. I think this could be one of those policies that could be quite embarrassing in years to come.

I think all the policies and legislation that the government have come up with are really showing they don’t actually understand how renting works for both sides and have not thought through the results these policies bring.

Prime example is trying to sting landlords with removing the ability to put mortgage interest against their rental income to reduce the lls tax bill.

All that happened was rents rose and those without mortgages on their properties made more money and those with covered any fall in income by raising rents.

To help tenants and lls and possibly reduce the homeless crisis

I would forget all the latest legislation, which would probably reduce rents overall.

Shake up the UC system where the tenant has to move into a property first then apply for the housing benefit to be paid straight to the ll. Have it so the HB is paid straight to the ll on day 1 by the ll being able to apply for the HB before the tenant moves in.
(A lot of the lls I know would take dss if the HB was paid straight to them)

And get a proper name, photo and warn system going to warn people of lls who try to or rent substandard housing and tenants who move in and trash places or just leave a trail of unpaid rent behind.

And like an Airbnb rating you can review tenants who have also been great.

Those things would mean the bad lls would be squeezed out of business and tenants who mostly are great wouldn’t get penalised because of bad tenants which is what is happening atm.

There are probably other suggestions that could help but atm all the government seem to be doing is going along with all Landlords are bad so let’s drive them out of business then they will flood the market with cheap houses.

The flood of cheap housing hasn’t appeared because they are being turned into Airbnb or the places have been left empty.

@zsazsa I have no idea why you are asking me that question.

@Harold there is a lot more to it than agents fees. That is one of the problems.

I think shorter tenancies will become the norm. 6 months contracts etc it's the only way to mitigate against non paying tenants. Which will mean more instability for tenants unfortunately

If they follow the Scottish system tenancies will not be of any fixed duration.
If you remove section 21 (or section 33 as it was in Scotland) it follows that saying a tenancy is for 3 months or 3 years makes no sense because that would imply that at the end of 3 months of 3 years the lease ends. That defeats the purpose of the change.

The point of the changes is that the tenant can only be removed because of fault ( non payment of rent / antisocial behaviour) or the landlord is relying on one of permitted grounds - primarily the landlord wants to sell of move into the property. UK unless one or more of these situations applies the lease cannot be terminated by the landlord. A tenant under the Scottish system can serve notice at any point.

The new regime in Scotland has 2 unintended consequences for tenants.

1. If you are a joint tenant and you want to leave for any reason you can't get out of the tenancy unless your landlord and the other tenant agrees. Under the old system a joint tenant could end the tenancy after the first 6 months.

1. My tenants generally stayed around 3 years and I didn't increase the rent until they left. Scottish Government has however set up a very clear method allowing me to increase it annually and I will be using it.

givemesteel, that’s how it is anyway, though? Lots of no DSS, credit checks/employer references, no kids/pets... And the price difference between a dive of a poorly converted flat where you can hear next door sneeze through the wall and a two/three bed house is already huge, so...?

Oh, and “accidental landlords” give me a break, did you trip and fall into a letting contract?😂

No @LuvSmallDogs but we needed up in a situation where our additional flat would not sell. Still wouldn't. Nothing in the block our rental property is in has sold in the last 5 years. But they all rent out well. What would you have us do. Pay the second mortgage and council tax and keep the property empty, or be the best landlords we can to our amazing tenant.

Is there a chance that this is going to make it harder for tenants to get help with housing from the council if they need it? Some councils have policies that say they won't help if people are intentionally homeless, so will that mean that if people get a section 8 instead of a section 21, that the council will lose its obligation to help?

I have no idea, but I'm thinking of an example where a tenant is consistently a few days late in paying rent, although they always paid in full. Understandably, a ll may choose not to renew a contract with such a tenant and it's a simple case of section 21 at the end of the fixed term. But if a ll is forced to evict on the grounds of late payment, will the council still provide the same level of help or not? Or if a single woman rents a one bedroom flat but three years later has a partner and two babies living there, it would be reasonable for a ll to end the contract as the property is no longer suitable for the tenant.But now they have to evict a family and state that the tenant broke the contract.

Instead of providing a decent reference so that a tenant can easily find somewhere new, ll's are going to be encouraged to enforce strict contracts if they want to take any basic control of the property they are responsible for.

Oh, and “accidental landlords” give me a break, did you trip and fall into a letting contract?😂
Accidental in the sane way women who stopped taking the pill and then become pregnant calls it an accidental pregnancy because it wasn't planned.

Is there a chance that this is going to make it harder for tenants to get help with housing from the council if they need it? Some councils have policies that say they won't help if people are intentionally homeless, so will that mean that if people get a section 8 instead of a section 21, that the council will lose its obligation to help?

Yes. If the notice is given on a "no fault ground" (landlord wants/ needs to sell/ move back) the tenant is still unintentionally homeless.

If the notice is given because of rent arrears/anti- social behaviour the tenant is intentionally homeless.

There may be circumstances such as age, children, disability where the local authority still has to offer some assistance.

swingofthings, that’s not accidental pregnancy, unless the woman was raped or another BC method failed - not using BC is how I’ve been pregnant 4 times!

MsMarvellous, that’s not accidental. Unless every plan you make in response to your circumstances is also an accident? Do you also have accidental jobs, accidental loans, accidental cars?

Sick of this fake victim language surrounding the privileged party in the LL/tenant relationship.

that’s not accidental pregnancy, unless the woman was raped or another BC method failed

Yet many women call it so and is accepted language here.

Whether you call a landlord who inherited a property with their sibling they end renting because the other sibling refuses to sell, accident or not doesn't really matter.

'accident' when referring to LLs only means 'didn't plan and gone out to buy a property with the intention of becoming a LL'. Its just a bit shorter!

swingofthings, you accept whatever language you like, and I will accept what language I like and speak up about what I believe to be wrong, as I do with all things I fine to be unacceptable.

And it is wrong for the privileged LLs to use wishy-washy victim-speak for choosing to enter a regulated industry for their benefit. Who gets to choose whether their tenant has kids/pets/smokes? LLs. Who chooses to use bastard LAs? LLs. Who can still boot tenants for decent reasons with this new rule? LLs.

This is just like “the squeezed middle” being used to beat benefit claimants around the head with, oh dear, there are “accidental LLs” being victimised by regs to make it harder for them to render scum homeless!!!

Sick of this fake victim language surrounding the privileged party in the LL/tenant relationship.

This I think is true, it casts the LL as a victim, when they're not. Unintentional landlord would be a better description imo, no you may not have intended to ever be an LL but there are choices, you're making the one that best benefits you in the circumstances you're in. You're not being an LL to provide a living, nor to provide a home to someone who needs it, you're doing it because it's the best course of action for your own circumstances.

Sick of this fake victim language surrounding the privileged party in the LL/tenant relationship.

Agree. At the root of this is the automatic assumption that housing is no different to any other possession and that you can do what you like with it. I understand why landlords think this way, because of the way things stand at the moment, but IMO it’s the source of most of the problems.

That’s what I think the law should change. If you want to hire out goods you own and claim them back when it suits you, fine. But not housing. People just shouldn’t have that opportunity except under very carefully controlled conditions, which would exclude the right for the landlord to move in or to sell on the open market.

In Belgium, one of those countries where so many think the renting rules are great, allows notice to be given on all leases for the l/l to move back in or sell. We had to move as the l/l was moving back from Versailles....we had the exit check at 0830 in the morning...still had the tenancy for two days and had paid the rent for those days (€2600 per month, so €85 per day), and the l/l had their removal lorry sitting there as we left to move back in.

I would assume the tenant will be made to give landlords 5/6 months also?

@LuvSmallDogs

And it is wrong for the privileged LLs to use wishy-washy victim-speak for choosing to enter a regulated industry for their benefit.

Re the above as has already been said, not all landlords benefit from renting their property out. Some have a property in negative equity and so can't afford to sell, the rent may cover the mortgage but then if there any void periods or major repairs the LL may struggle financially.

You say landlords make a choice to rent property out, do tenants not make a choice to rent?

You say landlords make a choice to rent property out, do tenants not make a choice to rent?

No, and that's the issue. I can't buy, I cannot earn enough to buy, never mind save a deposit. And yes I tried to get a mortgage. Got turned down, even though at that time I had a decent deposit. And at that time I was in a salaried ft position as a bar manager, never missed a rent payment, paying more in rent than I would have with the mortgage. They deemed me too high risk because of my lack of security of income - no sickness pay etc. Fair enough, but also didn't qualify for council social housing. My choices were private rent or live under a bridge.

You say landlords make a choice to rent property out, do tenants not make a choice to rent?

I think this says it all about the reflexes of so many private landlords.

Housing is not a normal take it or leave it transaction. We all need a place to live.

@brilliantidiot I find it quite frankly disgusting that a bank will not lend you a mortgage in those circumstances.

When I bought our first home in the 90s banks would lend anyone up to 5 times their income and then just plied you with payment protection insurances in case you didn't or couldn't pay, in most cases too they would have never paid out in any event.

Now look at PPI. Look what happened when too many people borrowed too much and the insurance that was supposed to protect people didn't.

The banks are the majority reason of why we've got to this now. Risk averse after their own shocking behaviour and now regular folks just trying to buy a home are penalised.

Thing is though @Treacletoots, they were right. My health let me down a year or so later and with no sickness benefits with the job, life became very hard indeed. I can see the sense in their logic, as hard as it was to swallow at the time. Though it did stick a little that I managed to pay rent higher than the mortgage would have been. But I guess you can't asses a person's moral code can you? My priority was the rent, and would have been the mortgage - how could I prove that was the case to a lender though? In the same way that I can't prove that to an LL I suppose. All I had were the references from previous LLs.
But that's by the by, the point is that people need to rent for so many reasons, it's the only choice for some, and tenants and LLs come at this from totally opposing corners. As a tenant I've always come off worse in every scenario I've rented, because I'm the one had to move, change school for DD, arrange everything and pay out another bond for the next place, always thinking I wonder if it's worth unpacking?
I don't know what the answer is, I really don't, on a bigger scale, I just know that for me, social housing has been a God send because I have a home at last, not a lodging without knowing when I'll next be moving again.

I am a LL and have 6 btl properties and have never had to evict anyone. I have only once had to negotiate not to repay all of deposit when tenants broke a large glass fronted wardrobe. I am lucky that I have had tenants who pay their rent every month, do not damage the property and are nice people. I feel quite relaxed about it as I make sure I reference properly and than keep on good terms with tenants by ensuring any repairs are completed immediately and show flexibility and good will and I receive the same back. Good LL tend to attract good tenants. I no longer advertise and have a small waiting list. I used to be a renter and so remember what renting was like and this ensures tenants are treated properly. I inherited some money and bought properties that I will give to my children one day, but will rent them out until they grow up and want to move into them.

Brilliantidiot - try Santander - lent me 90% from day 1 in new job and my credit record was abismal