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'm concerned as I have in the past rented out my home and may have to again, because work has taken me away. But it is my only home, I'm not a landlord who has invested in a property to make money from.

I'm all for tenants being protected from bad landlords but I'll be honest I'm worried about the impact on occasional landlords like myself who need to move back into their own properties. A six month notice period would be completely undoable for me and potentially lead to me losing my work/livelihood if I needed to move back to my city and couldn't. Previously I had a tenancy agreement of a certain length when they could not be given notice and then after that was up it was two months. Which the tenants were very happy to make use of when they needed to move for work reasons. Not saying I'm against this review, but I'm worried, yes.

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.

When was this?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710183/LT_102.xls

I do see it from both sides. I live in a rental, been here 10 years and have a great relationship with my landlords. I love this house and take care of it. Our landlords don’t ‘inspect’ us as they live miles away. This house was inherited by them, and if they do come round they generally come to visit us and coo over any new decorating I’ve done.

I also own a house now, we bought in from our inheritance to retire to. It’s much smaller than the house we live in now as we anticipate not having our hoards of kids living with us by then!

We rent it out. Our tenant won’t be having their tenancy renewed. He’s in arrears and is constantly upsetting the neighbours with the shouting and police visits due to the fighting with the girlfriend. I would like to know what constitutes ‘good reason’ to remove a tenant. Clearly for us the arrears are enough. But what else counts?

If it’s too complex we’ll not re-let it. I think it’s a shame, since we are open to DSS tenants and pets. We also rent it at slightly lower rents to allow housing benefit allowances to cover it.

My DH isn’t in the best of health and we might need to retire earlier than expected, and we have kids who might fall on hard times. I want to be able to ensure we can claim our own property at the end of a tenancy agreement and not have to make a ‘worthy’ case to get my own house back.

I think we’ll just put it to Air B n B.

Lass and Ivy

Home ownership was 10% in 1900, 27% by the outbreak of WWII, 45% by 1964 and 67% by 1991.

The whole ethos of the last 100+ years has been to allow the rented sector (particularly the private rented sector) to shrink as ownership grew. Thatcher accelerated it at the expense of council housing, sure, but it was a much longer trend than people suppose.

It’s true that private landlords have always been a part of the housing mix, and the historical trend is for better, more stable rentals - because of statutory intervention. (Still not nearly good enough though.)

Multiple home ownership by smalltime casual landlords for rental income is a relatively recent phenomenon.

scaryteacher
Yes I agree the Belgian system is not something to wish for. Unscrupulous lls definitely do expect to make money out of the inventory over there in a way that U.K. tenants cannot begin to comprehend. The inventory for the last place we rented there was over 70 pages of very detailed text and written by two lawyers, who spent 4 hours scrutinising the property. We were stiffed out of very little money only because I went through the inventory with a fine toothed come on arrival and added my comments and details of every scratch and mark on every door, floor and wall etc. They put some damage in and left other damage out. No rhyme or reason.

The same is true of on costs in other European countries too. Dh and I changed the kitchen in one house we rented because the existing one stank. We also changed 3 manky bedroom carpets. I also decorated two houses from top to bottom. Couldn’t see anyone doing that over here in private rented accommodation.

Mummy We move in October, and luckily, as this house is very old (built in 1774), the floors and walls have been discounted, as the inventory guy said they couldn't be counted. Hopefully we will not get charged too much!!

The Belgian system is also particularly bad for those wanting a short term let - think students, short term workers, those on one or two year contracts with the tenant obliged to pay exit fees to the landlord if they leave before a full three years have elapsed.

agree that those who keep hankering after ‘rentals like they have in europe’ should be careful what they wish for. Yes, longer term rentals are the norm, but there’s a whole load of costs which come with it. A relative of mine lived in Germany for a three years while working there and it’s not uncommon for tenants to take their kitchen units with them when they move out, so the first thing she had to do was pay to get a kitchen fitted. Along with a whole host of other costs. I expect what some posters mean is they’d like to cherry pick the bits of European rentals that they like and not have the bits they don’t!

Personally I think the new regulations are great for both sides, renters and LL. my eldest ds is renting, and my other dc is likely to be after university. Very few young people can afford to buy early in their career now.
So it protects them from having tenancies ended on a whim, and also acts as a motivator to be a good tenant, because it’ll be easier to evict tenants who don’t pay on time or are anti social etc.
Win win really. LL don’t end tenancies for the sake of it- it’s in their interests to not have a break between tenants. And it will weed out any ‘revenge’ end of tenancies, but as it documented, this is a small percentage of unscrupulous LL, who decent
LL would be glad to see the back of anyway

So as I say, good for both sides

Some of the comments here are laughable though... Bisset in particular comes across as very envious!

More tenants who dont pay their rent receiving ccjs and debt as a result of lls having to use section 8 instead of a 21 which allowed a no fault and no expectation to pay your debt, and onwards won't be able to rent elsewhere because a ccj will fail all reference checks.

Most tenants pay their rent and wouldn't dream of not paying so this won't effect them. On the flip side it is actually of benefit to landlords as known non-payers will then fail your credit checks and you will know not to rent to them. No matter how scrupulous your credit checks are they can only tell you public information which is CCJs and bankruptcy. It will crack down on the people who have no intention of paying and who know that the problem wont follow them in future.

Unless it's accompanied by rent controls, surely any unscrupulous landlord would just jack up the rent to a level the tenants couldn't afford, then they'd leave of their own accord?

Or get into arrears, then they could evicted.

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.

Not at all. But it appeared from the reports I read that tenants would be able to do that if they so chose.

At the moment, as I understand it, landlords who want to sell use S21

I was trying to find out what they’ll do if S21 is banned.

Lots of posters were saying ‘they assume something will be put in place’ but I hadn’t seen any mention of that in the press until a link was provided which says it will be added to Section 8

We’ll see...

I would support a system that allows for long-term tenant security (where the rent is paid and the property looked after) so they can't be evicted. Landlords intent on evicting can just pretend they're selling/moving in if they want rid for any reason. This seems unfair.

I'd also support a system that allowed much swifter evictions for tenants that were in arrears and/or received antisocial complaints and/or malicious damage to the property.

Private landlords should be licenced, and have to do a course something along the lines of knowing tenant rights, and their own responsibilities. I'm amazed àt the amount of landlords even on these threads that have no idea about rental law and legislation.

Good landlords might not but there are a lot of shit landlords

True. I used to think I was biased because of my job (housing and homelessness support worker), but even amongst friends/family who rent I've heard some dreadful stories.

DP was renting when we got together. His landlord proudly told us that he was evicting one tenant because she had a black boyfriend and he didn't "want that sort round here". He served notice on another tenant when he found out that the guy had MH issues and had lost his job, and was claiming housing benefit. He'd found this out because he'd let himself into his flat without permission and snooped through his post. He let himself into DP's flat one day when I was there, and was really embarrassed when I asked him what he wanted.

A friend's landlord told her that as her husband was a builder, he could fix the leaky roof, a colleague's landlord used her garden to store building materials for use in the upstairs flat, another friend found out she was paying the electricity for the business premises downstairs because they shared the same supply and meter... I could write a book about some of the stories I've heard.

The client stories are even worse, and include violence, sexual assault and harrassment.

Lots of posters were saying ‘they assume something will be put in place’ but I hadn’t seen any mention of that in the press until a link was provided which says it will be added to Section 8 Yes, because the government hasn't finalsied the details, so, yes, "We'll see" is really all we have. That and the assumption that it will be much like the Scottish system, with some daft differences, as per usual!

I would support a system that allows for long-term tenant security (where the rent is paid and the property looked after) so they can't be evicted So you would force someone to maintain a property that they don't want to, can no longer afford? Then again, if you pre-suppose that all landlords lie when they say they are selling etc then that may seem a reaosnable solution!

But it still doesn't change the simple, measurable fact that this will have absolutely zero effect for most tenants. It is not the right approach, is very London centric, as Shelter have (reluctantly) shown, almost all of the stats supporting the ban came from London, and is very much an opportunity missed, for landlords and tenants alike!

Courses for landlords, licensing etc have been available / in place for many years. It seems very reasonable to expect all landlords to have basic knowledge of the laws. But as the industry really is effectively unregulated for the most part (trust me, all the associations, registrations and assurances fade to insignificance when you read the trade press) this would need a proper overhaul, not just some tinkering at the very edges.

I am currently looking for a new tenancy. Why? Because my landlord of 12 years has finished paying off the mortgage with my money and is now going to cash in.
So me and my 2 children can now just fuck off and find somewhere else to live. For 12 years I have paid the rent on time. I have called them to do repairs only twice. I have never made a complaint and no one has ever complained about me.
But hey ho.
They are the ones who need protecting

I've been a landlord for almost 20 years, mainly HMOs. I've probably had over 100 tenants during that time. Most tenants have happy tenancies, but over the years, I have issued about 8 S21s and 2 S8s. As I have become better at choosing tenants, the number of S21s I have issued has reduced.

A S21 notice allows a landlord to do things in a "nice" way. "Sorry this is not working out for either of us, I'm sure you understand."

A S8 notice is a formal court process, the burden of proof is on the landlord and as such you probably need a solicitor. You have to wait until certain criteria are met, for example rent has to be 8 weeks in arrears, you need evidence and proof of that criteria, and then you have to apply for the court hearing and typically wait a further 6-8 weeks for the hearing date. During that waiting time, any chance of resolving things amicably with the tenant disappears and they normally pay no more rent and furthermore they trash the property. Even when the court hearing takes place, they will plead that they have nowhere to go and then be given a further month to vacate. Bad tenants know the routine and can use the system to their advantage to get up to 5 months in a property completely rent free.

Having learnt what a poor process S8 is, I resolved to issue 6 months tenancies from then on and to use S21 for those that don't work out after six months. The last one I asked to leave was a couple of years ago when a tenant verbally threatened an employee.

So, in the future, are landlords really going to have to go to court for each and every misdemeanour by tenants? The court system will be overloaded and waiting times will surely increase.

hazell42 that is really sad to hear. I had a similar situation once, and I let the tenant off the last two month's rent so that she could save for a new deposit.

S8 is more difficult for LLs (good thing, you might say) for the reasons by gives above.

I'm another LL, two properties, one in London, one in a rough bit of Kent. Former (my previous home) is rented to two students who would not stand a chance if they needed to go through a formal referencing process. They pay under market rent - they moved in three years ago and what started as a £100 under-charge p/m is now £200 p/m or more. The second place is rented to a single mum with a CCJ to her name, and two dogs (she asked if she could have one, I agreed, an inspection turned up the second). Her rent doesn't go up either. I'm not Mother Teresa of Kent but I think I treat people fairly and am mindful that a "small" increase can screw her over. I'm not delighted that I agreed to a [small dog breed] and now something larger and hairier has appeared, but I won't be asking her to re-home it - that feels cruel. But (point of this essay) if either of these places become vacant? I will be much more selective about who moves in, for obvious reasons. No "gut feel", no taking a chance on someone who has a CCJ because they claim their ex screwed them over years before.

Anecdotally since S24 was implemented (re tax treatment of rental income) house prices and rental prices in the latter place have gone up. I get a phone call every month or so from a local estate agent asking if I have anything available for rent.

It's all anecdote, but there you go - that's how the s21 ban will likely play out for me. And if it happens on a larger scale councils will need to stump up big deposits for "hard to house" tenants, or continue shipping them out to poor locations. You won't see the effects immediately though.

YABU.

Bad tenants know the routine and can use the system to their advantage to get up to 5 months in a property completely rent free

Agreed. But vetting your tenants at the application stage really helped weed out the riskier ones.

I suppose it comes down to whose needs are trumped - the landlord and their investment or the tenant and their right to stay in the house?

I don't think the system works to protect either. It can be abused on both sides. Bad tenants can play the system to live rent free, bad landlords can evict and uproot good tenants.

Either way, the new amendment announced by the government offers no actual significant change whatsoever.

It's a politically motivated piece of legislative media.

The provision of decent housing is up there with medical provision, water and power.

Why is there so much surprise and disappointment from some landlords that there are real downsides and big risks associated with trying to profit from The most basic and important human need - decent housing.

It's bad enough that such a large proportion of our population have no choice but to be housed as part of another random individual's long term financial gain plan. For the housing shortage to fuel inflated rent prices. But to then see some of these landlords openly getting all cat's bum faced at 'complex' regulations and the pitfalls of less than perfect tenants .... ?? I have nothing polite to say

KissingInTheRain said it well - '' ... 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.)

trying to profit from The most basic and important human need

Food is a basic and important need. As is water and warmth - these things are subject to a business market with profits, I don't distinguish housing from this thinking.

But you can go to Aldi for your food. No one is reliant on Mrs. Smiths stall down the road for her foul over inflated priced pies. (which is my comparison to a lot of rental properties)

trying to profit from The most basic and important human need

Home owners selling for profit
Builders selling for profit
Developers selling for profit

Basically anyone with a house or the constituent parts of one selling for profit.

Your Mrs Smith is one person, 1 recipe for shit pies. Landlords are numerous people with various houses in many locations.

And if you can’t afford Aldi?