To think ending the eviction ban just as the Indian variant is spreading is a very bad idea

[Tealightsandd]

Hundreds of thousands of families and vulnerable individuals could soon become homeless all around the same time. Just as the Indian Covid variant is starting to spread...

It's a potential public health issue - and a taxpayer one too. It will cost loads to house them all in expensive but cramped (ideal Covid spreading conditions) temporary accommodation.

Rent arrears can't just keep building and landlords need the rent paying. But mass evictions during a pandemic aren't the answer.

Lots of people have lost their jobs or are too ill with Long Covid to work. Many are struggling to pay their rent.

The solution is an increase to housing welfare benefits so that tenants can afford private rents.

Separately, rent arrears and severe anti social behaviour aside (which should be dealt with by the police as well as landlords), currently England allows no fault evictions. Tenants can and are evicted, despite being fully paid up on rent. Bad at any time. Potentially deadly during a pandemic.

@MrsTerryPratchett

we need a ban on all evictions

Even social issue ones? Because the irony is people pretend these are for the benefit of the landlord. I've worked in social housing a fair bit and they are almost always for the benefit of the terrified, exhausted neighbours. I've seen drug dealing, guns, hoarding with rats and mould, fire risks in apartment buildings with tenants tampering with the fire equipment, constant theft with threats so the neighbours don't want to complain, and a couple so bad I can't even describe them because they are unique and identifying.

If I had my way we'd have massively more affordable and supportive housing, plus proper in patient treatment like we had before it was all closed. Staffed places for people with behaviour which needs managed, and affordable ownership within the reach of anyone who wants it.

We can house everyone, we just choose not to. And I'm willing to bet poor housing and homelessness has killed more people by millions than COVID. And is easier and cheaper to fix.

This. Some people are such complete and total cunts they don't deserve to have a roof over their heads around other people, they really don't.

But oh, well, the eviction ban is ending. Doesn't matter about variants. We can't keep this up forever. Variants make no difference.

@Rosebel

We're being evicted in November (received our six months notice this month) and it's simply because the landlord wants to move back in No idea what we'll do. Private rent in our area is more expensive than having a mortgage but we don't have the deposit money. Have tried the council and despite having 3 children (one who is under a year and one with additional needs) we are always about number 100+on the list. Lots of people are in the same boat The answer is to stop landlords charging so much or even better only let people have one house. Rent is so stupidly high that it will reach a point where no one will be able to afford to rent.

I really feel for you. The same thing happened to us at the end of 2019 and we couldn’t find anywhere to move to and as we were claiming top up HB (while working), that was another barrier.

The housing list where we were was years long. One of my friends has been in temporary accommodation with three children (and yes, she works full time but London rents are ridiculous), for three years now with no end in sight.

In the end we had to leave everything, move 200 miles north to where the inlaws are and rents are cheaper, pulling one child out of A levels which as you can imagine was horrible.

Luckily Dh work agreed remote working or he would have had to have job hunted here where there is huge unemployment or tried to find another job in the SE that would let him work remotely.

I know The argument is that everyone should just move to where they can afford but then who would do the lower paid jobs in high rent areas?

If they need more social housing then why are they bringing down a whole estate where I live? literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of families turfed out of their area that hasnt had a penny put into it since probably the 80s. oh they did put in a streetlight though. Big beautiful houses were left to rot while mother's and their children are living in the hotel up the road. Sickening. So deeply sickening!

@ThreeFeetTall

I thought Teresa May announced that No fault evictions wouldn't be allowed anymore. What happened to that idea?

Scotland did it, the results are interesting - as in there is little change to eviction data but landlrods can get swifter results in court, amonsgt other results that aren't quite what was expected.

But that is because nobody reads the housing statistics as a whole . Prior to covid 90+% of all tenancies were ended by the tenant and the majority of the remaining 10% were ended by the landlord for non payment of rent or damage to the property.

CAB and Shelter have never directly addressed those figures, as far as I know, they perfer headlines such as Since 2011, the rise in the number of households evicted from a privately rented home has accounted for 78% of the rise in homelessness without giving actual numbers or explaining what they mean by "homelessness"

Prior to covid 90+% of all tenancies were ended by the tenant and the majority of the remaining 10% were ended by the landlord for non payment of rent or damage to the property.

I am part of the minority who have been evicted under s21 for having the temerity to ask for essential repairs. The argument "it is only a small proportion" is nonsense IMO - it simply isn't acceptable for that to happen to anyone. It also has knock-on effects. If a tenant knows they can / will be easily evicted they are less likely to ask for essential repairs to be done so landlords can get away with not fulfilling their legal responsibilities. If bad tenants know how hard it is to evict someone they can cause all kinds of damage to a property and stay in a house for months (if not years) without paying any rent.

As a tenant I would support removal of no fault evictions AND making it easier to evict bad tenants. The law should reward good landlords (my current one is excellent) and good tenants (like me!) whilst penalising both bad landlords and bad tenants.

I agree. And they do. Section 8 allows landlords to end a tenancy. The difference between that and Section 21 is landlords have to have a reason to evict (need to move in themselves, anti social behaviour, rent arrears)
OP, I don’t think you really understand how the system works. Most reasons for evictions are one that would fall under section 8. However, evicting someone under this section is more tedious and less likely to succeed, so LL are usually advised to do both.

Most landlords who evict do so for very legitimate reasons. Why would they otherwise.

I do have sympathy for tenants who were working and able to pay their full rent and have now lost their jobs and are finding that the LA allocation doesn’t cover the full rent. Understandable they can pay the full amount, but no excuses whatsoever not to pay at least what they receive as the element for housing they claim.

There is no justification for not paying some rent especially when most tax credits and UC claimants have benefited from extra funds all this time.

I really do feel really sorry for tenants who’ve paid and been good tenants because the LL wants to seek, but that’s a matter the gov should have thought through when they introduced hefty taxing on rental. Which person is happy to make a loss every month just to house strangers?

If the landlord needs to move in, it is often because they themselves have experienced difficult times.

Ultimately, the majority of those who will face eviction are tenants who just use covid as a good excuse not to pay their rent. No sympathy for them at all.

Even social issue ones? Because the irony is people pretend these are for the benefit of the landlord. I've worked in social housing a fair bit and they are almost always for the benefit of the terrified, exhausted neighbours. I've seen drug dealing, guns, hoarding with rats and mould, fire risks in apartment buildings with tenants tampering with the fire equipment, constant theft with threats so the neighbours don't want to complain.
It is absolutely terrible that a nasty few ruin entire areas.
Personally I think anyone who has antisocial behaviour should be housed in a barracks under guard.
My friend got a beautiful 3 bedroom house after 10 years in a brand new estate, the council put all sorts in the estate the DC can't play out.
Her home was broken into, her car got smashed up by neighbours fighting there's no divide of walls.
Lots of big protection dogs and all the antisocial ones are well known so best avoided.
She'll never get a transfer.

Whilst I am sympathetic to individuals isn’t it likely to be net movement? Either landlords will sell up and people will buy it to live in or they will find new tenants. If the government increase rent part of UC wouldn’t it just push up housing costs even more? If no one can afford to rent the landlords will drop the rent or sell up rather than have an empty house.

Does your “hundreds of thousands” quote come from 750,000 people being behind on rent in February ? After may 31st landlords still have to give 4 months notice so I don’t think it’s going to be the dramatic cliff edge you’re forecasting. I am a bit shocked to see how high that number is. For context it was 300,000 January 2020 so increase of 450,000 because of corona

Might finally be rid of the crack head next door. They haven’t paid full rent since March last year but the landlords hand have been tied. They have even put the house up for sale but she won’t leave and won’t pay clearly. The whole house is going to need to be ripped apart but hey she should be allowed to stay right because covid. Not that she’s followed any of those rules either funnily enough.

They’ve had several now offer to leave on the basis they wipe all arrears and pretend it never happened
Yes, I have a friend who had to go back to her home country a couple of months before the pandemic to look after a seriously unwell parent, and lets out her 1 bedroom flat. Her tenant hasn't paid a penny since the eviction ban came into force, and now offers to settle for 25% of rent. She still has to pay mortgage, as well as deal with her mum's extortionate healthcare costs - all from.savings, as her income source also significantly dried up. And as a cherry on top, the flat is valued at effectively nil now due to cladding issues. And she probably will take up the offer.

@Lollipopmum0183

Why do you think 6 months notice to leave is not enough?

Like it or not tenants do not own the property. Harsh as that may sound it is a fact. You do not know anything about the landlord and why they may choose, need or want to sell a property that THEY OWN.

We own a property that we rent out. It was not inherited. It was an investment. I work two minimum wage jobs. I am not a minted landlord. We have not received full rent from our non working, not covid related, tenant. They can afford to smoke and drink but not pay their rent?

Why is it my responsibility to make sure they have a place to live?

It’s the real world out there. Get a job and look after yourself. You are a grown up.

As a side note my son rents a property. He was furloughed last year. He never missed a rent payment to his landlord despite not receiving full wages.

Because every house you apply for chose someone else who is not on UC. They’re not allowed to discriminate against this, so all the estate agents ask if you’re employed full time. So if you’re a carer and can’t be you miss out on every property. The housing association list to even get on takes months and then you have to keep bidding even though every time it goes to someone else. 6 months flies by and then you’re homeless.

Actually we once had a landlord, owned one ‘investment’ property, left us with a house riddled with mould due to rising damp. When we got the council involved, because he refused to fix it, he threatened to evict us, even though actually he couldn’t as he hadn’t dealt with our deposit in the right way. He should never have been allowed to be a landlord. It shouldn’t be possible for someone to buy one house rent it out, do the bare minimum, if that, to repair it and then watch the money rolling in. They should only do it if they want to be a proper, fair decent landlord, with a property/properties that are well maintained, not in it for the best return they can get on their investment, with no care about the lives they are destroying in the process.

Are we sure that the eviction ban is not going to be extended, announced last minute?

I'm quite torn on this issue. On one hand there are terrible landlords, ranging from those who are running HMOs little better than slums to those who couldn't give a shit what their tenants get up to or what effect they have on others, as long as they're receiving their rent. I would fully support a licencing system whereby landlords need a licence in order to let out a property and it can be lost for being a bad landlord.

On the other hand, I have seen at close quarters how some tenants absolutely play the system. No rent paid with just a shrug of the shoulders and a "Not my fault" when they've always got money for booze, fags and weed (not that I think that anyone on limited income should be living on gruel and water, but things like rent, bills etc aren't optional). Eviction orders ignored with locks changed, houses trashed when they do eventually leave. They are a minority but that means very little when it's affecting you.

And caught in the middle are the decent landlords - the professional ones and the accidental ones; the latter where they've ended up with an empty house because a parent is in care or because they've temporarily moved away. They're the ones who will be more cautious in who they rent to, or don't bother letting properties out at all because it's safer to leave it empty, which doesn't help anyone.

I agree that there needs to be far more help for those who are in need - ideally in the form of more social housing as there used to be - but the flip side is that it bad tenants should face as severe a sanction as bad landlords. Frankly some deserve to be evicted, unpalatable as that may seem.

@newnortherner111

Are we sure that the eviction ban is not going to be extended, announced last minute?

My understanding is it’s going from 6 months notice to 4 months notice after may then down to 2 months notice in October.

@vivainsomnia

I agree. And they do. Section 8 allows landlords to end a tenancy. The difference between that and Section 21 is landlords have to have a reason to evict (need to move in themselves, anti social behaviour, rent arrears) OP, I don’t think you really understand how the system works. Most reasons for evictions are one that would fall under section 8. However, evicting someone under this section is more tedious and less likely to succeed, so LL are usually advised to do both.

Most landlords who evict do so for very legitimate reasons. Why would they otherwise.

I do have sympathy for tenants who were working and able to pay their full rent and have now lost their jobs and are finding that the LA allocation doesn’t cover the full rent. Understandable they can pay the full amount, but no excuses whatsoever not to pay at least what they receive as the element for housing they claim.

There is no justification for not paying some rent especially when most tax credits and UC claimants have benefited from extra funds all this time.

I really do feel really sorry for tenants who’ve paid and been good tenants because the LL wants to seek, but that’s a matter the gov should have thought through when they introduced hefty taxing on rental. Which person is happy to make a loss every month just to house strangers?

If the landlord needs to move in, it is often because they themselves have experienced difficult times.

Ultimately, the majority of those who will face eviction are tenants who just use covid as a good excuse not to pay their rent. No sympathy for them at all.

THIS!!!!!

As a landlord I would happily accept legislation giving more security for tenants in general in exchange for a quick and simple process for evicting problem tenants (anti social/criminal behaviour, damage to property, non payment of rent etc) . I'd also welcome councils enforcing the law regarding the condition of rental property - there is just no reason that people should get away with renting out substandard property ever.

@BarbarianMum

As a landlord I would happily accept legislation giving more security for tenants in general in exchange for a quick and simple process for evicting problem tenants (anti social/criminal behaviour, damage to property, non payment of rent etc) . I'd also welcome councils enforcing the law regarding the condition of rental property - there is just no reason that people should get away with renting out substandard property ever.

Agree.

It's thought to be up to 50-60% more transmissible

No it’s not. It’s thought to be marginally more transmissable as the most likely case. The fifty percent is worst case.

@Bluntness100

It's thought to be up to 50-60% more transmissible

No it’s not. It’s thought to be marginally more transmissable as the most likely case. The fifty percent is worst case.

But that's what they said? That it's up to 50-60% more transmissible in comparison, but can be lower.

But that's what they said? That it's up to 50-60% more transmissible in comparison, but can be lower.

That’s not what they said. They said it might be but that it was more likely it was only marginally more transmissable.

@ChloeCrocodile I am part of the minority who have been evicted under s21 for having the temerity to ask for essential repairs. The argument "it is only a small proportion" is nonsense IMO - it simply isn't acceptable for that to happen to anyone.

Which is illegal, revenge eviction, and do nothing to change the stats I quoted.

What is needed is a better system overall. Quicker legal process for both landlord and tenants; better quality control etc. But looking at it from only one perpsective isn't going to help anyone.

See what the landlords across MN say every time a thread like this comes up! See above for examples...

@BarbarianMum

As a landlord I would happily accept legislation giving more security for tenants in general in exchange for a quick and simple process for evicting problem tenants (anti social/criminal behaviour, damage to property, non payment of rent etc) . I'd also welcome councils enforcing the law regarding the condition of rental property - there is just no reason that people should get away with renting out substandard property ever.

Completely agree and this would really help with landlords accepting housing benefit tenants. So many refuse on the basis that if they turn out to be a problem, they will be encouraged to stay in the property until the baliffs take them out - meaning it’ll cost a fortune. This makes it hard for those on benefits to find accommodation

So many refuse on the basis that if they turn out to be a problem, they will be encouraged to stay in the property until the baliffs take them out - meaning it’ll cost a fortune.

It seems an absolutely bonkers situation that the councils won't house people until their landlords have had them evicted through the courts. They won't accept being served notice as proof of homelessness and they tell evictees that if they go willingly at the end of their notice period they're deemed to have made themselves homeless and therefore aren't eligible for council support. I mean, what is the fucking point of that? All the costs and clogging up the courts, not to mention the trauma for those just wanting a roof over their heads, and for what - kicking the can down the road for a few weeks?

We're being evicted in November (received our six months notice this month) and it's simply because the landlord wants to move back in
No idea what we'll do

Your LL isn't being unreasonable to move back into their own house OP. Many LL’s rent their only owned property out because they suddenly have to relocate for work...etc they are much more entitled to live in their property than you are. When you rent a property you aren’t entitled to stay there as long as you like. You rent on a contract, it’s only ever a temporary home for you.

Private rent in our area is more expensive than having a mortgage but we don't have the deposit money. Have tried the council and despite having 3 children (one who is under a year and one with additional needs) we are always about number 100+on the list

I’m afraid you simply aren’t entitled to live in an area you can’t afford. Sure you can list an endless string of reasons ‘jobs/family/kids/health issues...etc’ but it doesn’t change a thing! It’s the same for everyone renters and owners alike, many home owners (myself included) have had to compromise on area in order to actually afford property.

Lots of people are in the same boat
The answer is to stop landlords charging so much

A lot of buy to let mortgages stipulate you have to rent the property out at a specific amount for example 1.5x your mortgage amount. Others may be renting their only owned property whilst they rent elsewhere so need to maximise rental income. For many LL’s there’s a massive risk involved with renting in this economy/market and risking being stuck with tenants who don’t pay but can’t be evicted which is also hiking up prices. Being a LL isn’t fun or a charitable endeavour so will only ever be done by private people for either their own necessity or profit.

or even better only let people have one house

I think this would be a fab idea for all the professional couples currently sat on a small deposit with a decent income and would actually be able to buy the property’s made available. It would slightly reduce prices or at least increase property’s coming to market.

Wouldn’t help all those struggling families on low income/UC with several kids, no deposit and nothing left at the end of the month though would it? How would they get a deposit or mortgage and what happens to them once a young couple with no dependants and middle income has bought the house they live in from their LL?

Forcing LL’s to sell multiple properties won’t make those properties free or achievable for many and then there will be nothing on the rental market so those struggling will be entirely dependant on the council who will still be massively oversubscribed

Rent is so stupidly high that it will reach a point where no one will be able to afford to rent

Maybe but from what I’m seeing there’s basically nothing available to rent in our entire county and what does come up is taken immediately.

I'm a landlord and if my tenants had stopped paying rent, I'd be lining up to evict them. I have a mortgage that needs to be paid on that property.

That said, I don't care where the rent comes from, if it comes from social welfare housing benefit or from the tenants themselves, I don't mind.
But if the rent isn't getting paid, I'll evict as soon as I can. I'm not running a charity and I am not in a position to subsidise my tenants, even if they have fallen on hard times.

But hopefully social welfare/taxpayer will step in and save the day so on that basis, YANBU.