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!

Cbatothinkofaname

Indeed!! I was staggered to discover that rental properties in Germany generally come with no kitchen as people take them with them!! Was a bit of a shock! And rents are substantially higher in Europe. Notice periods work both ways so yes you can get a year long tenancy but the cost to the tenant of ending early was horrendous. When I lived in both Germany and Holland, LL also have the right to unannounced visits.

For all the vitriol on here about ‘accidental landlords’ all I know, including myself, as doing it because of either work moving us around or because particularly my women friends have moved in with bf but do not want to step off the housing market because we may not be able to get back in again.

Housing is a scarce resource. It always will be. We cannot make more land. There will always be a practical limit on housing.

Food is not a scarce resource now, but it has been. When food was scarce it was rationed. This was within living memory.

The comparison with food supports arguments for more control of housing provision.

advantage.zpg.co.uk/insights/reports/rental-affordability-in-great-britain?utm_source=lettingagenttoday&utm_medium=trade-email&utm_campaign=thought-leadership

Interesting report from Zoopla

Highlights:

Rental affordability at a national level is currently in line with the 10 year average of 30% net earnings spend on rent

Rents are set to continue to rise in line with earnings (c3% per annum) over the next few years

Demand for rented housing will remain strongest in London and the South East where barriers to homeownership are the greatest

Rents in the northerns regions of England are the most affordable for a decade

The occupancy level of rented housing is an important factor for rental growth, affordability analysis and drawing conclusions over the outlook for rental growth

I have been renting for the last 8 years only 2 different properties but always with fixed term contracts for either one or two years. The agents always attempt to increase increase the rent by at least 20% at the end of one fixed term when negotiating the next one. Contracts do not become 'rolling'. If you are not willing to take out another fixed term contract at an increased rent you have to move out. Fixed term contracts make the timing logistics of buying almost impossible.

They do not decorate internally or externally during the term of the tenancy and argue that they would 'expect' tenants to redecorate at their own expense if they rent the same house for several years. They ask what increase you can afford arguing that they could rent it out to new tenants for around 40% more each month and are therefore doing you a favour 'only' increasing by 10%.

Conversely I rented for 20+ years as an adult. 2 houses, 2 agents. 4 rent increases and external decoration/maintenance was always undertaken. Internal was offered but not foisted upon us as we didn't think ist was needed.

And both went to periodic / rolling contracts at the end of the initial AST purely because we didn't sign the new contract and the landlords were happy to continue without.

We can all swap anecdotes forever. But even Shelter's own stats don't show that anything like a majority of landlords or tenants act unreasonably. Less than 10% of all tenancies have real problems.

That is why this change is so ridiculous. So much more could have been done to directly and postively affect that 10%

Housing is a scarce resource. It always will be. We cannot make more land. There will always be a practical limit on housing.

Land availability is not what is preventing house building in this country. There is plenty of land available but developers don't want to either pay remediation costs or abide by restrictive planning consents without government handouts to keep the gravy train rolling.

Restriction of supply is always in the interest of those that own land and property. This is capitalism.

Surely the wildly different real experiences of both tenants and landlords indicates a need for nationally binding, clear legislation regarding rights and responsibilities rather than so much being left to chance and a competition between goodwill and greed dependent on the individual landlord.

There is some truth in that, but it is an inescapable fact that a great deal of land is not suitable for residential development and, generally, that the UK is a very densely populated place. Of even vaguely comparably sized European countries, the UK is the most densely populated.

A better measure is England alone. England is behind only the tiny European places like Gib, the Vatican and San Marino (though much less crowded than them).

I do agree that other factors matter very much as well though.

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.

This would have denied us access to our own home, when we were moving back after a period working away. That's not exactly fair either.

Surely the wildly different real experiences of both tenants and landlords indicates a need for nationally binding, clear legislation regarding rights and responsibilities rather than so much being left to chance and a competition between goodwill and greed dependent on the individual landlord. They already exist. There are some loopholes, caused by the poor behaviour of both sides. More clarity is definitely needed, it is a bloody minefield.

Sadly this new legislation won't provide that! It will make some changes, but won't address the root causes of the 10% of tenancies that go horribly wrong!

And renting will never be trouble free as the dispute over deposit return is always fraught with personal angst. I know this, it is my day job to write the reports! The number of times I get stressed calls from LL or T complaining that I haven't allowed for the special status of an item or happening! I can't tell them all to fuck off and grow up, can I?

ivykatie44

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

You do know that a lot of what people refer to as social housing is actually privately owned houses that are leased to the local council.

Anything that stops landlords buying places to rent out will have an impact on the amount of social housing available.

Purely from a Lls POV. Isn’t the loophole to rent out the place as a holiday let once per year then rent out on an AST. Then move the tenant out after the contract is up for a couple of weeks to rent out as a holiday let then return to renting on a AST.

My worry is more for the people who will never be able to buy no matter how many houses now come on the market at low low prices. The ones with no choice but to rent. Single parents. Young adults. Low earners. Bad credit. People with pets. People with small children. Anyone who is seen as a "potential risk" really. Where are they all suppose to live when landlords wont rent to them?

I’m a single parent I’ve never had any issues renting when I’ve wanred to and as I said earlier the lady I rent my house to is a single mum but with a baby and an older child. No issues with her whatsoever the one that wasn’t going to be rented to by me was the one who turned up with three babies aged 1,2 and 3 and thought she could cram them all into a three bed terrace with no garden ... I don’t know what goes through people’s minds when they think that life choice is ever a good one

@Treacletoots (fully agree with your point and with you all the way-, I'm really cross that landlords don't get the protection they need).......but I can't for the life of me understand why you would put a post like this on here!!!! You are only going to be bet with a barrage of people telling you how dreadful landlords are!

Ha! We used to get a S21 notice every 3 months. For no reason other than the landlord wanted to keep his options open. And he was a bloody Magistrate!

Landlord here, never had to use it. Never had to evict anyone. Always vetted well and never had issues. But I had friends that were evicted simply because their landlord would make more money if they rented to someone else. This happens a lot in London. It's not even classified as an eviction because the landlords let's them know they will need the property back by the end of the contract and the tenants leave on their own accord.

Revenge eviction are illegal, if you can prove it, then you can sue the landlord.

Inlivirpool I don't see the issue with a famille of 4 living in a 3 bed house. Children don't need a garden. Lots of families live in apartaments. Maybe would be nice to have a garden but definitely not a necessity specially for babies

This would have denied us access to our own home, when we were moving back after a period working away.

I'd say that it will force landlords to accept that the place is not their home - it's their tenants' home. That single adjustment in mentality would make a huge difference in many cases.

This would have denied us access to our own home, when we were moving back after a period working away. That's not exactly fair either.

Did your tenants know your plans to move back into the property when they took the tenancy? Why not offer a fixed term AST so everyone knew where they stood?

Kicking them out because it suited you is very immoral and unfair. This is why being a landlord should be limited to those taking it on board as a professional business, not any Tom, Dick or Harry wanting to make money from their own home while it suits them.

I suspect landlords will simply start using licence agreements instead.

My sil had to report her landlord to the council due to mould in her flat. Apparently he came out put some paint on it then evicted her. Hopefully this will prevent revenge evictions such as that.

I know of 3 families, completely different areas of the UK that have all been 'moved on' several times. Each time, incurring huge moving bills, unsettling children, stressing out marriages etc. It's absolutely terrible - bring it on

We relocated to a new area, rented and were evicted by s.21 after six month period expired. It was re rented to new tenants on same rent a few months later.

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.
I wouldn't count on the evicting process to be quicker or easier. However much renters might like to think that the government has passed this law to protect their rights, it has nothing to do with it. The gov doesn't care about tenants nor landlords, what it cares is the unmanageable pressure of having to rehouse evicted tenants. So really, it is a case of passing the buck onto landlords.

The outcome is great for good tenants but hell for landlords of bad ones, ie. those who were evicted because of lack of care for the property or anti social behaviour. Sadly they are many such tenants. I expect the whole intention of reducing pressure on local council as landlords of such tenants will resort to selling the property rather than keeping a problem tenant longer.