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 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.

Only because "the landlord community" is getting together to think of ways around this; getting together to think of how shitty they can be towards tenants without no fault evictions. If the landlord community decided to be decent human beings, and be thankful somebody else is paying off their mortgage, we might get somewhere.

confused

I would never evict on dodgy grounds? This doesn't make sense.

I personally wouldn't evict without a bloody good reason because its a hell of a hassle finding new tenants.

There seems to be a perception that no tenants trash houses or stop paying rent. There are good and bad on both sides.

Personally I'd love my tenant to buy the house, but despite earning enough they choose not to, they prefer the flexibility. That's their choice.

be thankful somebody else is paying off their mortgage,

Most BTL mortgages are interest only so they’re not being paid off (most of the time)???

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

Say what now?” 😂😂🙄🙄

@Bisset

the number of properties available will remain the same and the number of families requiring property will remain the same. If landlords give up property in droves as is being suggested there'll be a glut of property on the market - prices will fall and more people will be able to buy. The properties they were previously renting will become available.

Good landlords simply don't evict good tenants for no reason.

Well, what is a 'good' landlord? I would agree, a good landlord wouldn't.

But the current system means landlords may ask good tenants to leave for reasons such as that the tenant complained a bit too often about the boiler breaking, or the tenant had a baby, or the landlord sees that other houses in the area have been approved for HMO licences and he thinks he could make better money doing that.

I have rented from landlords who were thoroughly polite people. I could see they thought they were considerate, 'good' landlords. And on the whole, they were. But, as the current law stands, there's nothing to push landlords to think 'hmm, if I ask this perfectly nice tenant, who has done nothing wrong, antisocial, or damaging, to leave my property, is that a bit off?'

I do not think it is fair or right to expect landlords to be 'nicer' than the law prescribes. You'd just end up with kindly people losing out. But, equally, there needs to be something to prompt landlords into not doing things like serving a section 21 to a tenant who has done nothing wrong, just because they can and it might be financially easier.

All sorts of businesses have safeguards built into them. Being a landlord isn't any different. I don't know if this particular proposal will work, but it's not objectively stupid.

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

Why?

In Europe there is much tighter legislation around renting - look at 3-6-9 contracts in Belgium for example. It's incredibly difficult (and expensive to evict tenants). It works incredibly well for renters (and there are plenty of landlords too). It's a much more stable system for long term renters and encourages renters to lay down roots and value the property they're living in.

My old landlord was quite reasonable, she doesn't sell the house until a tenancy comes to an end and then gave notice that she was going to sell it next time it was up for renewal and give the tenant first refusal to buy. She also agreed an open viewing day on a date to suit us so we didn't have lots of people traipsing through our home. She also always agreed to sell if a tenant asked to buy the property they were in.

the number of properties available will remain the same and the number of families requiring property will remain the same. If landlords give up property in droves as is being suggested there'll be a glut of property on the market - prices will fall and more people will be able to buy. The properties they were previously renting will become available.

So, let’s say prices drop 10% as a result of landlords selling off.

Current average house price =£227k

You think the requirement of approx £2k less deposit and a bit less stamp duty is suddenly going to mean a shed load of renters decide to buy?

I have a rental property and the tenant knows it’s hers as long as she wants it and pays her rent, literally she can stay there for life at the same rent I’ve got no qualms whatsoever. The last tenants I had before her, broke the tenancy 3 months early and are trying to take me to court to get their deposit back and no doubt moaning I’m dreadful.

Airbnb drains the rental market.

That’s why lots of cities have legislated against it or begun more vigorously to enforce sub-letting prohibitions.

I think lots of tenants are underestimating how much it will affect them. Landlords will have to cover themselves. I am a landlord of 2 properties, and my current tenants are somebody I took a chance on that thankfully turned out well- young, had a couple of credit issues, but seemed nice. We've had the odd month of late payment with job issues, but nothing serious. In the future, they will be rented to tenants with pristine credit checks, who have been in a permanent work contract for years- no temporary contracts or 0 hours, multiple previous housing references, and I will be requiring a guarantor with a certain level of income from EVERYONE. You may not be able to predict the future behaviour, but this will minimise risks. What percentage of current renters do you think fit that criteria currently?

Isn’t this legislation just going to cost the tenant more.

Don’t know if it has changed but don’t you rent for 12 months at a time with a break at 6 months where either party can give notice at any point up to the 12 months. Then the contract is up.

Usually this just keeps rolling until one or other gives notice.

Won’t this just mean that when the 12 months is up that the tenant will have to pay for another contract? Otherwise they will have to move.

You think the requirement of approx £2k less deposit and a bit less stamp duty is suddenly going to mean a shed load of renters decide to buy?

Yes of course it will because there are a certain proportion of renters who are very close to being able to buy and a 10% reduction will push the property they want into the affordable range. It will also encourage new investors to take up the property as rentals. Do you seriously think that due to this new legislation we're suddenly going to have all these properties completely empty?

In Europe there is much tighter legislation around renting - look at 3-6-9 contracts in Belgium for example. It's incredibly difficult (and expensive to evict tenants). It works incredibly well for renters (and there are plenty of landlords too). It's a much more stable system for long term renters and encourages renters to lay down roots and value the property they're living in.

That’s interesting. I’ll have to look into it

It just seems to me, at the moment, the government are doing everything they can to ensure amateur landlords ( i,e, those with only 1 property as opposed to portfolios) sell up, without putting provision in to ensure rental stock stays available.

Seems counterproductive to me.

This is why the private rental market needs wholesale change. Landlords should have obligations that would deny them the right to pick and choose in that way.

@KnobJockey

But supply and demand will still exist. Not all properties can be filled by people with a perfect credit history. Landlords aren't going to leave property completely vacant.

*Airbnb drains the rental market.

That’s why lots of cities have legislated against it or begun more vigorously to enforce sub-letting prohibitions*

But the legislation doesn’t exactly promote rental properties.
If a landlord actually owns the property then they are not sub letting.

Myself and one of the flatmates Was issued a section 21 after making complaints to letting agents in regard to new flatmate selling drugs, all night parties going on for fats. Kicking off the foot to the empty room. Police being called because of noise. (We had been there 5 years with no complaints from neighbours). They also disclosed highly sensitive personal information of mine to the problem tenant resulting in myself no longer feeling safe in the property.

We both moved out together we rent direct from the landlord and other than the burst pipe under our bath (no one fault) he hasn’t had any issues with us.

My concern would be that landlords will just increase rents to unaffordable levels to get tenants out. Especially those with low incomes and kids and then the local council will try to avoid housing them and class as intentionally homeless for not paying the rent.

I'm a landlord, the only time I've ever ended a tenancy I used a section 21. The reason being that the tenants who I'd thought were just a couple actually had four adults and three children living long term, in a one bedroom, tiny flat. The time came that the place needed new carpets and redecorating and as landlords have to pay for normal wear and tear, I was reluctant to spend the money to redecorate when it's obvious that seven people in an overcrowded flat are going to cause significantly more wear and tear than a single or working couple.

I can only imagine that if I'd had to officially blame them for their notice to leave then it would have made it harder for them to have found somewhere else to live. And I'd have a reason to chase them for damages instead of doing it as easily and painlessly as possible.

Overall though, I think it will stop large, multi property landlords making people leave their homes so that they can re let and make more money, and that has to be a good thing.

Yes of course it will because there are a certain proportion of renters who are very close to being able to buy and a 10% reduction will push the property they want into the affordable range.

Hmm, sceptical (although in London where 10% = massive difference, I take the point)

It will also encourage new investors to take up the property as rentals.

I don’t agree with this, given BTL mortgages are issued based on a function of property value and yield so for professional investors, a relatively small dip in prices makes little odds.

Do you seriously think that due to this new legislation we're suddenly going to have all these properties completely empty?

I think a lot of things will happen but I don’t think suddenly a load of renters are going to miraculously be able to buy when the6 couldn’t before.

@oliversmumsarmy probably not no. Your tenancy should roll on to a periodic tenancy after the fixed period. You only have to sign a new contract if it is offered and you want to because it benefits you.

After June as well, you should not ever be asked to pay a fee to renew the contract.

Bloody keyboard. Sorry for spelling errors.