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!

@FiddlesticksAkimbo but when it is the landlord's long term and only residence, it is their home. People rent out for all sorts of different reasons and not just to "make money when it suits them" @Readoui. If you have to move for work, which sometimes people are pretty much forced to, then you still have to cover your mortgage and pay for rent elsewhere. And FYI, ALL tenancies are fixed term for a period and then go on to rolling, so these landlords who know they will be moving back aren't doing anything wrong (and also often after mortgage costs/tax/often very high maintenance costs especially if through an agent not making much money at all, in some cases not anything).

I agree with landlords not being able to evict someone for no reason, but actually most people here are thinking about professional landlords and not those that may just be homeowners with no other option. We are not all the same and I think that's why some landlords are getting a bit annoyed here. I was great to my tenants despite them needing literally everything done for them (they even wanted me to pay to deal with the mice problem that they had attracted, despite me never having had mice before) and left the place in a right state when they left (early, breaking contract, leaving me in the lurch).

You can't only have professional landlords, because that would rule out a huge amount of rental stock, and anyway it's often the professional ones that are more mercenary whereas people who are just renting their home out are usually just covering costs.

My landlord threatened a section 21 when my boiler broke down again. She's now selling it and keeping me and the estate agents in the dark and won't even pick up the phone to neither myself or the estate agent. I have no idea what to do or what will happen. But no more section 21 being dangled in my face is a good thing for me I can finally stop worrying about being made to move in with only 8 weeks notice and I can finally get the last few things fixed in this house lol its only been 2 years of lights hanging and plugs not working or my shower going funny all the time but now I can get on at her to fix them now I know she carnt just kick me out for wanting a fixed house

I think shorter tenancies will become the norm. 6 months contracts etc it's the only way to mitigate against non paying tenants. Which will mean more instability for tenants unfortunately.

Our landlord evicted us because SHE was in arrears. She had a failing business here and in Spain and started to harrass us to stop paying the estate agent who controlled our contract. When we were told by the estate agent if we did that we would be blacklisted we had to say no to the landlord who them evicted us in 3 weeks. We spent a time as homeless until we paid a huge sum of money to be where we are now. Not our fault. Not our issue but we paid and the system allowed it. We haven't missed a payment in 12 years. That didn't count for shit as the landlord ruled. I'm glad for this it will give me my wide and kids some security against shit landlords.

A landlord can evict you for no reason at all. It's their house? I've been told to leave a house 3 times, 2 times cos the landlord wanted to move back in himself, and once cos the landlady wanted to sell. Pain in the ass but it's their property so it's up to them surely. Obviously I was given the correct amount of notice but still.

Wife not wide auto correct eh lol.

That's what's wrong. Ppl here saying boohoo for the landlord but they are renting to you. Your paying their mortgage you deserve protection and rights from crap landlords who cant walk and breath at the same time

Section 21 is usually the polite way of removing a tenant that is generally very difficult to deal with or downright obnoxious. Without a section 21 some of the tenant landlord relations will go on to to be vitriolic, with total breakdown in communication and subsequent deterioration in the quality of the property. and eventually involving a section 8 and court proceedings. Section 21 is also ideal to remove a tenant that is a ‘’serial mould sufferer”, by which I mean wherever they live they will encounter mould where no other tenant in the previous 10 years has had it, by which I mean they are the sort of tenant that is incapable of understanding the importance of ventilation. Some tenants simply don’t care about the way they treat a house or how they relate to other people and a section 21 can deal with them quickly and efficiently. Landlords are not psychological therapists or there to parent their tenants. Yes I put this bluntly, because I think landlords in general tend to be easy targets for politicians and the victims of people that suffer from high degrees of envy. I am not a landlord and have always been a tenant, in 25 years I have moved three times, only once after being served a section 21.

It's pity that 4herecis not more honesty from the start of the tenancy on both accounts because the reality is that not all tenants want long term tenancies and not all landlords are looking to evict, sale, move back after 6 months and many a tuslly do want good tenants who are willing to stay indefinitely.

Hi leonasa

but when it is the landlord's long term and only residence, it is their home.

I think herein lies the problem! Clearly it can't be two people's homes at once. If the landlord wants it to be their home, but wants to derive an income from it, then they need to find another legal mechanism by which to do so, rather than the tenancy system, which is about making it someone else's home. Airbnb perhaps? That might not work so well for the landlord. But frankly that's their problem. I don't think the current system is at all fair on tenants.

(Incidentally, I'm a landlord.)

One house I lived in the LL wanted to sell and only got tenants in as in interim measure, which would have been fine, if he'd told me that from the start. I was looking for a long term home for me and my kids so if I'd known he was looking to sell I wouldn't have rented it. I only knew he'd put the house on the market when the estate agents rang ME to book a viewing . I said "Um, no, I live here. It's not for sale." And I had to learn from them that it was!! They even sent 2 men unannounced to view the property, me, an autistic single mum with 2 young girls having to deal with 2 unexpected men on my doorstep unannounced. I was beyond furious. Then I got a section 21, which was invalid so I ignored it, which infuriated him. I did not leave that house till I had another one lined up and I made damn sure it was immaculate so I got every penny of my bond back. I also had a very well behaved dog which he claimed he didn't know about and wouldn't have let to me if he knew I had a dog. So I provided him with a copy of the email I'd sent to the letting agent beforehand stating I had a dog and their reply stating it was fine. Altogether an unpleasant experience. Luckily he was an exception and most of my LLs have been fine. And now I finally own my own house, thank goodness.

PS I agree with you about what the law is. I think we're talking about what it ought to be.

I agree @FiddlesticksAkimbo - it can't be your 'home' as a landlord and a rental property.

Short term lets should be made explicit so that the tenant is fully aware they'll be moving out after 3 or 6 months.

Why should a family move in and pay your mortgage only for you to evict them when it suits you? Totally unfair.

The stories of bad landlords exploiting tenants, in my experience, outweigh the stories of bad tenants exploiting the system.

If a landlord is messed about, the largest loss they're looking at is financial. And if you can't afford the eviction and rent loss of a rogue tenant, you shouldn't be a landlord.

If a tenant is unfairly evicted, that's their home taken away from them. Uprooted at any time with only 2 months' notice. Having to find somewhere else to live, absorbing the cost of moving; I can't imagine that stress.

I thought the point of AST’s was that the tenancy had an end date and could be broken by either party.

user1457017537, you're right, that is the point of them. The proposal is to change the law.

@latteaday123 thanks for the vote of confidence! I've got thick skin and thought it was the right thing to do, I genuinely believe tenants will be worse off as a result of this knee jerk political idea.

I know on here that landlords are all under Lords with horns and so on... But what I've seen after the obligatory landlord bashing is genuine debate from across the UK and world in fact.

If TM had done a bit more research and asked more than just Londoners what the rental issues were they may have been able to suggest something that works for both tenants and landlords by protecting each from the 10% who would cause them trouble.

So are they doing away with AST’s then. Or is it when the tenant won’t vacate after the period of the tenancy.

Also, I frequently spot the statement that tenants hate landlords because they resent paying off someone else's mortgage.

In actual fact in the UK 51% of rental properties are owned outright...

Also, I frequently spot the statement that tenants hate landlords because they resent paying off someone else's mortgage.

In actual fact in the UK 51% of rental properties are owned outright...

And I would imagine the vast majority of the remainder are BTL mortgages, ie interest only. So no... the tenant isn’t paying off the mortgage.

Depends on if the LL is trying to make a rental income. I have a BTL which is repayment but only 60%. Unless you have tons of houses and. No mortgages it's quite hard to make a profit, unlike what people think. Pension pot it is!

Hi user1457017537

So are they doing away with AST’s then. Or is it when the tenant won’t vacate after the period of the tenancy.

My understanding is that they are doing away with evictions without reason (often referred to as section 21 evictions).

Once the shorthold period is up the tenancy becomes a "statutory periodic tenancy". Under the new proposals a tenant would only be able to be evicted from this point on for a reason. The legitimate reasons will be up for discussion. They are likely to include non-payment of rent, and the landlord wishing to sell.

Absolute bollocks OP. We were given a section 21 last year because my partner is black. The landlord (control freak) used to do regular inspections and renewed the tenancy happily until he came one day and met my partner and kids for the first time. Took one look at him and then left without saying a word. Section 21 followed. They then advertised the flat at exactly the same rent and aimed it at families, so we knew exactly why we were evicted! Never missed a payment etc before anyone suggests anything else. This law will stop landlords doing this kind of thing. It was so upsetting and disruptive.

Fiddlesticks thank you for clarifying for me!

The OP is right in that this will be a ‘be careful of what you wish for’ measure against landlords with unintended consequences.

Those who think that the market will be flooded with cheap flats and houses have forgotten that many people could now afford to pay a mortgage but the affordability criteria are preventing them from doing so now and the rules would still present a problem even at a cheaper price.

Nearby me in High Wycombe two bed flat prices have slumped from £250/£270,000 plus to significantly less than £200,000 over the last year and nobody is buying them.

They’ll need to come down in price further then.