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!

DP used to work in Housing.

Anybody who received a Section 21 had to refuse to leave and be physically removed from the property before they were able to accept an application for homelessness. Couldn't even set it up on the computer prior to that day. If they left before that point, even if they were in the offices knowing that the LL was in the process of changing the locks, they were deemed Intentionally Homeless and were not entitled to help - at most, a woman with babies would be offered a B&B 250 miles away. If she had older children, they were instructed to tell her to leave them with family or friends and, if she had teenagers or a husband, they were told to say that there was no obligation to house them even overnight, so they weren't allowed to go with her. And, then, if there wasn't proof that she had been physically ejected from the property (because, say, she was at the council begging for help whilst her DH was at the house for the eviction), she'd be sent a letter at the B&B telling her she was Intentionally Homeless and to get out.

One of the multitude of reasons why DP eventually told the council to stick their shitty changes to his job (which was originally about Helping People Who Needed It) up their arses.

SarahAndQuack I agree with you. Doubtless most landlords are of the MN variety ie excellent and charging under market value. However there is nothing that requires a landlord to behave well, legally, when it comes to the decision to issue notice. Householders who rent shouldn't have to rely on people being "nice" for their security.

The recent legislation had lessened supply and demand has gone up and the homeless numbers have shot up

It's interesting that we are moving to no fault divorces in order to try and improve the process but now the government wants landlords to find fault with their tenants if they want their property back. That'll help relations!!

The Rent Acts didn’t do much for the property market. This will just mean that fewer people want to let their properties, and could mean a rise in things like air b’n’b. What it won’t do, is help people and families who need somewhere secure to stay. It’s not providing the affordable housing that is actually needed.

There should be a happy medium until that situation is resolved. Perhaps increasing the landlord’s notice period to 6 months from 2, or capping rents for landlords who want to retain a S21 or something would be better.

Section 8 allows landlords to evict the tenant for many reasons

tenancyagreement.com/info/Section_8_Notices.asp

These include landlords wanting the propertyback for themselves, wanting to sell the property and wanting to redevelop it. So for many landlords this proposed change will make no difference.

Anyway it's been recognised as an area of policy concern by a -Tory, of all things! - government twitchy about the societal effects of insecure housing.

The consensus among the landlord community is that this won't make life better for tenants, it will have negative knock on implications.

Good job tenants have labdlords around to let them know whats good for them eh?

@CripsSandwiches there are more people looking for an affordable place to rent (which mine are) than properties. And if it came between a choice of the property being empty for a couple of months until someone who fits the criteria comes along, or putting in a tenant who could cause issues and could potentially not be evicted, costing me long-term, then I know what I would go for. I have catered for void periods in my business plan.

I worked a few years ago with landlords, dealing with evictions and rent arrears.

There are good and bad to both sides. I didn't have the stomach for it in the end.

Accidental landlords were the biggest arseholes of them all. They didnt have the funds or knowledge to deal with issues. They wanted 'their' house back. Letting agents were just as bad. The best landlords were those with a portfolio they managed themselves. They wanted longterm tenants, were genuine when it came to maintaining their properties and were usually professional.

I think what would benefit tenants most of all would be to insist all landlords have a decent bank to be able to maintain their properties and an understanding of their rights and responsibilities.

With regards to abolishing the S21 no fault eviction, I think it will benefit tenants long term. Hopefully the accidental landlords and those with 1 or 2 properties 'for a pension' will decide the market is too risky, and more landlords who have an actual clue what they are doing will buy those properties. Or housing associations will aquire them, or first time buyers.

Anyone really except bloody accidental landlords. Who seem to think being an accidental landlord absolves them of responsibility.

Treacletoots

Won’t that just mean that the tenancy will end when the contract is up.

I personally don’t have an issue with this as a landlord. As long as I can still evict for non payment of rent or anti social behaviour or if I want to live in the property or sell it, that’s fine by me.

@kissingintherain

Why? Why should a landlord be forced to rent their house to someone who can't prove their income, may have trashed their last place or simply might stop paying at any point. Landlords are NOT a public service. They may be propping up the housing sector thanks to fails in the social sector but if it were your house, would you appreciate being told you had to let anyone, just anyone move in, with no more than. 5 weeks rent deposit, at your own cost for referencing and then if they stopped paying rent you'd have over 5 months to pay the mortgage before they were finally evicted through our joke of a system. Then you found out they turned your house into a cannabis farm and will cost you 8k to fix. That 5 weeks deposit looking good now?

Then your tax bill arrives.

Get a job then.

@oliversmumsarmy depends on the contract.. But most fixed tenancies roll over into periodic tenancies which can be ended by 1 month notice from the tenant.

We have a job. Most landlords do... So you think it's fair we pay for such badly behaved tenants. How is that fair, or reasonable?

Olivershunsarmy are you an accidental landlord of the type rightly conplained about above? No, the tenancy won't end. Fgs.

What on earth does employment status have to do with being a landlord ?

Just thinking that most people who want to have money earn it rather than whinging about how difficult it is to get by not earning it.

I personally don’t have an issue with this as a landlord. As long as I can still evict for non payment of rent or anti social behaviour or if I want to live in the property or sell it, that’s fine by me.

I still can’t see how you get the property back if you want to sell and the tenant decides not to leave (in the event S21 is banned)

The link provided on S8 doesn’t seem to cover it (unless I’m missing something)

I think most people would jump at passive income tbh. Haven’t seen any whinging 🤷‍♀️

Passive income. Well at least you have a sense of humour...

Treacle

It’s a bit ‘policy’ for this pragmatic thread, but my view is that private rentals should be regulated to mimic public sector provision.

I don’t believe owning more than one property and letting out to others should be a casual investment opportunity. Housing is too serious and rights-based for that.

Private rental should be undertaken by closely controlled landlords who are in it as a proper business and could only sell out to other regulated landlords, social providers or incumbent tenants.

(As I’m at pains to say in these discussions, for the most part I’m a free market capitalist, but not when it comes to housing provision. That needs very strong regulation.)

Long time landlord here, managing HMOs similar to @thecatneuterer. I always want to keep a good tenant, because it is so difficult finding another good tenant.

However you can be as careful as you can, but still let in "bad" tenants. Bad tenants cost you a lot of money by being so anti-social that good tenants leave, particularly if they have poor hygiene or play their music too loud.

Really bad tenants know that they can get away with at least 5 months of not paying rent before the courts will evict them.

Does anyone on this forum have suggestions as to how decent landlords should evict such tenants if S21 is no longer an option?