Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

355 replies

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 18:35

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!

OP posts:
colditz · 17/04/2019 19:46

What it boils down to is this.

People do not usually have a choice about whether to rent or buy. If they're renting, it's usually because they have to.

People DO have a choice about whether or not to become a landlord. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody is actually forcing you to.

And yet, plenty of people choose to continue. It can't be as bad as landlords like to make out.

Livelovebehappy · 17/04/2019 19:49

bissett you see I don’t understand when you say ‘what if tenants refuse/don’t want to leave’. I’m a tenant currently and am totally aware that it is not my house and I moved into the property understanding that the house could be sold in the future, for a variety of reasons. None of us go into renting a property thinking it’s for life - it’s not.

Chouetted · 17/04/2019 19:53

Tenants sometimes do refuse if the other option is homelessness.

The root cause that needs solving is councils that refuse to help families who have left voluntarily after being served notice by their landlord.

Bisset · 17/04/2019 19:54

bissett you see I don’t understand when you say ‘what if tenants refuse/don’t want to leave’. I’m a tenant currently and am totally aware that it is not my house and I moved into the property understanding that the house could be sold in the future, for a variety of reasons. None of us go into renting a property thinking it’s for life - it’s not.

Ok... but not all tenants will have that view.

If section 21’s are banned, my understanding is you could simply decline to move out and... as long as you kept paying rent and didn’t trash the place... there would be nothing a landlord could do, legally to force you to move out.

I’m just trying to work out if I have that right...?

MsMarvellous · 17/04/2019 19:56

@Bisset as I mentioned in the rest of my post I'll be interested in seeing the replacement legislation. If a landlord needs to recover their property I assume there will be a mechanism for this but it will be fairer to the tenant.

If there is no mechanism I would be more concerned. But equally I could accept a lower price and sell tenanted. That would be my look out.

Original poster
Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 19:58

Not all landlords did so by choice. The UK rental housing market currently is made up of 33% accidental landlords. They either inherited the property, or found themselves after a break up with a property they couldn't sell, particularly after the housing crash.

Selling a house costs money, particularly if you've still got a mortgage to pay and it needs work to bring it up to the spec of the current housing market demands.

No, not always a choice.

But you choose whether or not to be a good or a shit landlord.

OP posts:
Bisset · 17/04/2019 19:58

Nothing been mentioned that I can see about replacement legislation, though MsMarvellous, just banning S21...

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 17/04/2019 19:59

I got evicted so my landlord could rent to students. He was completely open about it and got quite the little chubby on telling me how much money he was going to make once I'd gone.

Original poster
Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 20:02

I think people have also missed my original point. The consensus among the landlord community is that this won't make life better for tenants, it will have negative knock on implications.

If you could just halt the obligatory landlord bashing for one second, you'd see that I'm trying to say it's the tenants who will in the end, lose out.

The tenants fee ban will just be met with increased rents to cover the costs, who loses out? IMHO the fee ban should have directly targeted letting agents as they are the ones ripping both landlord and tenants off royally.

OP posts:
CuriousaboutSamphire · 17/04/2019 20:03

Bisset, they aren't banning all s21s, just no fault ones that are not based on legal reasons... Which have not yet been listed other than the reassurance that the quid pro quo is faster eviction of tenants behind on the rent.

But there will have to be in option for a landlord who wishes to sell up that doesn't restrictions them to only selling to other landlords. Such a restriction would be an open door for various corporations to buy up wholesale... Long term that would be disastrously. Hell short term it would be.

thecatneuterer · 17/04/2019 20:04

If this goes through and there is nothing in the small print to help HMOs or to at least give a 6 month trial period or some such, then I will have to give all 12 of my current tenants notice immediately.

I run HMOs in London, where demand for rooms in shared houses is very high indeed. However with house sharing there is often conflict - about cleaning/bill sharing/guests/noise, or just because one housemate is generally rude and inconsiderate. These are all things that would be very hard and probably impossible to get a Section 8 eviction for. At the moment, if one tenant causes problems for the others, I evict under Section 21. If I am no longer able to do this then I have no way to protect the good tenants and, as a worse case scenario, could end up with the one bad tenant having a whole house for the price of a room, as no one else would be happy to share with them, for ever more.

I simply can't run this risk and so will have to let the houses as whole house instead of room by room (which is also much more risky without S21, but not as catastrophically so).

I imagine some will say 'great, that means more family homes'. But what will happen to all the young, single people in big cities who can't afford more than a room?

And yes, as has been said on other threads about this, this will cause LLs to be even more picky than they are currently as the risks of getting the wrong tenants are immense.

Zampa · 17/04/2019 20:05

"Landlords will still be able to end tenancies where they have legitimate reasons to do so."

Said Teresa May, when launching the consultation.

If the new process end up anything like ending a business tenancy, the Landlord will need to specify the grounds for ending the tenancy, within the new form notice. That could be a "fault" issue like non-payment of rent or disrepair or a "no-fault" issue like a sale, occupation by the Landlord or redevelopment.

We'll have to wait and see.

GlitterNails · 17/04/2019 20:06

I wish so much there were secure tenancies. I’m disabled and have to rent as on a low income but council don’t have enough properties. I live in fear of being given notice as bungalows are like gold dust plus I have cats who mean the absolute world to me.

All I want in life is a secure home that meets my needs. I wish to god they could only turf me out if I did something wrong.

Renting isn’t a choice to most and the stress and cost of a move would be awful, and finding a suitable property would be hell. And I know some would just say get rid of the cats but when you are housebound much of the time the joy and company they give is immense.

I’m a good tenant - always pay, do repairs and have improved the properties but it just hangs over me all the time.

CripsSandwiches · 17/04/2019 20:08

I'd be more than happy if lots of landlords decided to sell up and we ended up with more social housing.

Bisset · 17/04/2019 20:10

I'd be more than happy if lots of landlords decided to sell up and we ended up with more social housing.

The latter doesn’t automatically follow the former though, does it? Confused

CuriousaboutSamphire · 17/04/2019 20:10

Huh? You think the government, local or central, will buy the houses landlords sell?

It's much more likely that large corporations, more pension companies will buy them.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 17/04/2019 20:12

Until relatively recently (1988 I think) landlords were only able to evict on grounds of breach (arrears/damage/criminal activity/nuisance) necessary sale, owner occupation, other family member occupation and bankruptcy. I'm guessing this is a return to that. About time too. Also, it's funny watching landlords shit themselves. "But I would never evict on dodgy grounds!" Nothing to worry about then is there. Carry on getting your tenant to fund your pension.

KissingInTheRain · 17/04/2019 20:13

I'd be more than happy if lots of landlords decided to sell up and we ended up with more social housing.

Spot on.

I was saying this on a thread recently. Lordy, the vitriol from some landlords. (Not all, to be fair.)

CripsSandwiches · 17/04/2019 20:13

The latter doesn’t automatically follow the former though, does it?

I didn't say it did. I said that would be my preferred outcome.

NotMyPuppy · 17/04/2019 20:15

f someone owes rent they're going to end up with a CCJ irrespective of what means of eviction is used

This isn’t true. You can’t get rent arrears through the section 21 process. A landlord could issue separate proceedings to recover the rent arrears but most don’t bother because the section 21 gets the tenant out.

Oliversmumsarmy · 17/04/2019 20:16

I think a lot of the recent legislation to “punish” landlords and give tenants more rights has only resulted in putting the cost if renting up.

All this will do is dry up the rental market making it even more expensive to rent.

I have noticed that a lot of places that would have normally been rental properties are now Airbnb.
Done right they probably bring in more money overall that renting long term to an individual person or family

XXcstatic · 17/04/2019 20:18

Bad choice of forum OP - no one on MN ever admits to being a landlord or an adulterer. Which is odd, given the prevalence of both in the general population Grin

Hazlenutpie · 17/04/2019 20:21

There soon won’t be anyone who actually wants to be a landlord.

Meandwinealone · 17/04/2019 20:23

I hope they start cracking down on air bnb too
It’s shocking

Bisset · 17/04/2019 20:23

I didn't say it did. I said that would be my preferred outcome.

Right. This is where I get consumed though..

What the government is proposing will result in the former happening but not the latter. ?

So, less houses for tenants (who, after all, if they wanted to/were in a position to buy would have, surely - and no, I don’t believe some landlords offloading properties will affect prices that much that tenants desperate to buy will suddenly be able to when they weren’t before)

So, more demand for rental properties.

So, rental prices rising?

And landlords being able to be even more choosy?