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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
KissingInTheRain · 17/04/2019 21:54

Less availability of houses due to landlords selling up or those who don't being more in demand and can be more picky.

Releasing housing stock would be a very good thing in the long run. I’m not sure why selling up would reduce availability. It will reduce prices certainly, but that’s long overdue.

There’ll come a time, I’m sure, when multiple property divestment will be forced by legislation and not just be rental-market driven. BTL has been a disaster for everyone but those with the initial capital.

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 21:54

@harrysowl

It won't! Landlords are trying to say that on the whole this legislation won't benefit most tenants, just a small minority, but because its been sold to the press as a tenant win, they can't see the long term effects this will have...

OP posts:
ivykaty44 · 17/04/2019 21:56

Sarahandqua
Social housing you get the boiler fixed even if it’s a palaver

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 21:57

If tenants could afford to buy the houses in the first place they probably would have, so all the expectations of a housing price drop if landlords do sell, or that landlords are buying up all the houses, stopping renters from doing so, simply isn't factual.

There are houses to buy. People rent because they can't afford to buy where they want to live.

OP posts:
Shinesweetfreedom · 17/04/2019 22:03

Oh dear oh dear op,if landlords were not disliked enough you have to try and stick the boot in.

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 22:04

@ivykaty44 good question. I suspect landlords will either

Do up the properties, develop them and approach their investment as a capital return by trying to make as much profit when they sell. This approach was favoured before the housing crisis. When property prices fell, many investors switched their investment approach to a slower return rental yield by renting the property.

It's likely many will be developed into student housing which has far higher rental yields or if that's not an option, knock the place to the ground and build a block of flats.

OP posts:
SarahAndQuack · 17/04/2019 22:04

I don't think that's true treacle.

I rent, and I'm at the age (30s) where people are constantly trying to buy. I don't know anyone who hasn't considered moving in order to buy. It's normal. We moved over 150 miles to get into an area where we can even hope to buy, one day.

A drop of even 5% on a house price may seem very little, but it can be the difference that means you can be approved for a mortgage for a home in your area.

SarahAndQuack · 17/04/2019 22:06

ivykaty - yes, you should, true. I'm not disputing that?

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 22:06

@ivykaty44 likely they'll be hoovered up by pension funds, masquerading as student lets or perhaps developed and sold for a profit, as investors used to do before the housing crash.

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 22:09

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

What is being proposed is what was introduced in Scotland at the end of 2017.

It is most definitely not the case that if someone owed rent they would have a court decree against them.

The equivalent in Scotland was a section 33 notice. Landlords would almost always use a section 33 notice to get the house back. By the time a landlord had reached that pass most took the view it was pointless raising an action to recover rent arrears as they would not get them back.

A tenant could go to Shelter or the local authority with a section 33 notice and present as unintentionally homeless. If the pre- tenancy paperwork, the notice to quit and the section 33 notice were correctly served there is no valid defence to a section 33 notice so it might never go to court.

Again though... what if you needed the property back... say to sell ... and your tenant declined to leave after 6 months, but didn’t breech their contract (therefore can’t use Section 8, I don’t think?)?

What happens then?

I assume it will follow the new Scottish system. The landlord is entitled as of right to get the house back if he needs to sell it or move into it. It is a discretionary ground that a family member wants to live in it.

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 22:10

@sarahandquack I hear you. But I'm not sure that landlords are stopping people from.buying homes. Rentals are usually in a place where people don't typically buy.

OP posts:
ivykaty44 · 17/04/2019 22:12

I mentioned on another thread that there are 150 2 bed flats in my area, I live in an area that has two towns in the top most desirable places to live. Yet landlords are having to reduce there rents if they want to get tenants into them. There used to be queues for rentals but not atm

Landlords don’t want empty properties as it’s 100% council tax and after a year 150% so they are reducing the rental price

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 22:13

I've been a landlord of 2 flats for almost 20 years. I've never ended a tenancy. The tenants have come and gone in their own time.

KissingInTheRain · 17/04/2019 22:16

likely they'll be hoovered up by pension funds, masquerading as student lets or perhaps developed and sold for a profit, as investors used to do before the housing crash.

That’s very doubtful. Why would a pension fund buy houses on a false pretext? And what would they do with them?

Investment managers don’t tour around looking for houses to buy under bogus names. They might take holdings in property development companies, but those companies aren’t interested in domestic stock they can do little with.

As for smaller scale speculation, buying, improving and selling for profit is a feature of a rising market, not a falling one.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 22:17

Rentals are usually in a place where people don't typically buy

Depends on the location. One of mine is in a tenement where 7 out of 16 flats are let and the are owner- occupied. That probably reflects the area as a whole. It is an area which will have a large number of first time buyers. The other is in a street which is majority owner- occupied.

Treacletoots · 17/04/2019 22:21

@kissingintherain

Pension funds do invest in student accommodation. If you look behind the management companies for most of the top student accommodation providers in the UK, you will find it is managed by a fund manager, on behalf of a pension fund. Often not a UK fund.

That is a fact and one the universities are more than happy to support by sending students to their preferred provider, or biggest benefactor..

OP posts:
CSIblonde · 17/04/2019 22:25

Ah, that explains why my LL hasn't gone any further since I fecked up his no fault eviction last Dec (County Court agreed a date) . No rent arrears , I've been a model tenant for 5years. He just got pissed off by costs after Council crack down on private rental safety after Grenfell. He'd been given instructions as far back as 2015 to install fire doors & alarms etc & they finally gave him notice of prosecution warning after Grenfell. On 'eviction day' I put the catch down & told them politely to spend the £1200 to get High Court Bailiffs. ( They lost their request to get me to pay their costs at County Court too, Judge just laughed) .

Bisset
Where do you live? Rentals are never empty in London. There's 50 people at every viewing.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 22:26

Pension funds do invest in student accommodation. If you look behind the management companies for most of the top student accommodation providers in the UK, you will find it is managed by a fund manager, on behalf of a pension fund. Often not a UK fund

Pension funds invest in purpose built blocks of student flats. This type of accommodation is popping up in most university cities. They are blocks of 100s of flats where planning permission was given only for that particular use and they are fully factored and managed.

Pension funds do not invest in random flats or houses which might have been let to students.

SarahAndQuack · 17/04/2019 22:33

Rentals are usually in a place where people don't typically buy.

Really?! Where?

I've rented in Oxford and Cambridge, and more recently North Yorkshire. I've never lived in a street that wasn't part-rent and part-owned. My brothers both own homes, in different bits of greater London, and it's the same there.

I do know that in more rural and remote areas, there can be a starker divide, because housing is cheap; I also know that in studenty areas you get rental ghettos.

But are you sure it's the norm everywhere? Surely if so, if this change where to come in, LL would struggle to find buyers?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 17/04/2019 22:38

because its been sold to the press as a tenant win, they can't see the long term effects

As many of us have said there's good and bad on all sides, but such is the spite which some heap upon LLs that I'm not sure they're able to look objectively at the bigger picture; sadly, the attitude of "f**k you" seems to overcome all else

FWIW I originally thought the proposed changes sounded a good idea, but the more I read the more I'm starting to wonder - especially about the implications for financially vulnerable tenants

KissingInTheRain · 17/04/2019 22:44

I know it’s a forlorn hope, but I do wish we could get back to the way of thinking that houses and flats are for living in by their owners, not buying up as a rental or other investment.

Ineedamanipedi · 17/04/2019 22:45

bisset - why on earth shouldn't a landlord be able to evict a tenant with fair notice if they do decide to sell their property? Why should a tenant be able to just say "no, I'm going to stay here for as long as I like?" You're trying to find out if you're entitled to do that? Wow.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 22:58

Iknow it’s a forlorn hope, but I do wish we could get back to the way of thinking that houses and flats are for living in by their owners, not buying up as a rental or other investment

And which golden age are you referring to? Private rented housing has always been an investment and has always played a significant part of housing provision.

Owner- occupied property in the UK reached a high of 70% in the noughties. It has fallen to mid 60%. Pre WWII and growth of social and council housing private renting was the norm for many.

The great boom in owner- occupied property was due to Mrs Thatcher's right to buy.

cellibabies · 17/04/2019 23:02

We were served a section 21 because we complained about the leaking roof (amongst numerous other issues with the flat). The landlord had no qualms letting it to my then partner and I, knowing we had a newborn baby (coincidentally she had a baby almost the same age) and all the issues there were. She refused to do anything about it and said we were lucky to be paying such low rent (we're in the south east so most rents are obscene and ours certainly wasn't 'low'!), then sent us the section 21 without any warning. It was a horrible horrible time and I still can't understand how anyone could do that to another parent, or another human being for that matter. I feel vindicated at least that these spiteful no-fault evictions will now be against the law. I'm rarely vindictive but I do hope karma bites her in the arse. The right to a decent home is so fundamental.

scaryteacher · 17/04/2019 23:21

Crisps 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.

On the contrary, the Belgian system would get howls of protest here because although the l/l pays the cadastral, the tenant pays for everything else. Thus, you pay about €300 for your share of the inventory check when you occupy. The deposit has just gone up to 3 months, and you cannot get it back unless the l/l agrees; it sits in an account doing nothing. The tenant has to pay for buildings insurance, boiler servicing, water softener servicing, the gardener, the chimney sweep. Everything that I pay for as a l/l in the UK, I pay for as a tenant in Belgium.

You then pay your share of the leaving inventory and there isn't anything quite as rapacious as a Belgian l/l. No inkling of wear and tear. Even though a property may have been tenanted for years, it is expected to be returned in pristine condition. If they can screw you over for it, they do, so a scratch on the floor can mean replacing the whole floor, regardless of how old it is. There were marks on a wall at the last place, made by the tenant before us, and they were trying it on for €500 for half a day painting. Witnessing the steam coming out of my husband's ears, and the fact he could do the entire wall for far less and in less time, they decided to let that one go. After we had agreed 'damages' and everything was signed, they tried to touch us for another €750 for damage to an external plinth, caused by the previous tenant, and clearly visible in the incoming inventory photos before we moved in. They accused us of chatting so the inventory guy forgot to look at the outside of the property. No bloody apology for saying we were dishonest either, or for their error in not making sure of their facts before they accused us of damaging their house.

The inventory guy said on going round that he could see he wouldn't be making much money from us, as it was cleaned to a high standard, but still wanted money for the shower door, which I had cleaned repeatedly, but if I had used more force, would have shattered, and it was opaque wavy glass, which made getting the calc off very hard.

There is little flexibility in the system. As a PP said, if you leave within 3 years you are on the hook for extra rent, even with the 9 year contract. We are leaving just into our third year (having had to leave the last place as the l/l wanted to reoccupy), so will have to pay 1 months extra rent to compensate. Had we been on a 3 year contract we would have been liable for all the rent had we left before the third year was up.

You also forget to mention the automatic rise in rent each year, according to the price index. Most l/ls apply this. The current one doesn't as the house is part of his family estate.

Be very careful what you wish for, before putting forth the Belgian system as an ideal one, because it isn't. The last l/l wanting his house back cost us €10k in moving costs, (as we had to rent both properties for a month, deposit on new house, everything had to be serviced before we left, irrespective of the fact it had been done within the past year, and costs for the moving company, even though we did most of it ourselves and with the help of friends, about €700 in inventory costs for leaving and moving in) and to clean to a standard higher than a military march out took time.

Swipe left for the next trending thread