Thousands of renters could be evicted in June (including the key workers being clapped for every Thursday night!)

[HeIenaDove]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/08/renters-evicted-june-tories-pledge-coronavirus-landlords?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0nPQ-wVVrlowha9KgZIlrX2VeoYVXKTAN7pJkp2QfFtrFP3_yCGzp93to

Thousands of renters could be evicted in June. Will the government protect them?
David Renton
The coronavirus-related freeze on evictions is ending – and the new ‘pre-action protocol’ relies on the kindness of landlords

When the lockdown ends what will happen to tenants? Almost nine million households, more than a third of all families in Britain, rent from a private landlord, a council or a housing association.

Because of coronavirus, many are now in financial need. Nearly two million claims for universal credit have been made since lockdown measures were announced in the UK. Welfare claimants are entitled to payments equivalent to housing benefit. But, as a result of changes made to benefits over the last decade (like the bedroom tax and restrictions to local housing allowance), it is increasingly rare for housing benefit to pay all of a tenant’s rent.

Others, although ineligible for universal credit, are also in difficulty: because they have received a redundancy cheque that will soon be spent, or their self-employed grant hasn’t arrived yet. Then there are furloughed workers, paid now, but waiting for news of redundancies from their employer.

Right now, all possession hearings – the main step in evicting a tenant – are “stayed”. This is the legal equivalent of putting food in a freezer. The cases are still there, ready to be thawed out at any moment.

Where a tenant is behind with their rent, landlords can issue them with a notice instructing them to leave, but (for the moment) the tenant can ignore it. On 25 June the housing courts will reopen for business. Judges will have to determine thousands of stayed pre-coronavirus cases, and the even greater number of new claims for possession arising from the lockdown

Ministers have grasped that hundreds of thousands of homes are at risk. Earlier this week the housing minister, Robert Jenrick, announced that the government was working closely with judges to draft a “pre-action protocol” for when the stay is lifted.

He told MPs that the protocol will “enable tenants to have an added degree of protection, because instead of embarking upon the eviction proceedings immediately, there will be a duty upon their landlords to reach out to them, discuss their situation, and try to find an affordable repayment plan”.

The problem with the protocol is that it is toothless – essentially depending on the benevolence of landlords.

Advertisement
The two most common ways landlords seek possession are under “section 21” and “ground 8”. Section 21 provides that where a landlord has complied with certain procedural requirements (like issuing a notice using the correct form and waiting for a prescribed time before applying to court) the court must order

possession
The statute does not require a landlord to have complied with the government’s proposed pre-action protocol. For that reason, even where landlords have rushed to issue proceedings, and have ignored requests from tenants to defer payments for a short time, judges will be required to approve evictions.

Ground 8 provides that where a tenant is in rent arrears (eight weeks if the rent is due weekly), both when the landlord serves a notice on them and when the hearing takes place, the court must order possession.

Again, the court takes no account of the landlord’s conduct; it focuses simply on the amount of the tenant’s arrears. In these circumstances, if the new protocol is as the minister describes it, it will not protect tenants at all.

There are alternatives. In last year’s general election, the Conservatives committed to abolish section 21 as part of their “better deal for renters”. The government reaffirmed that commitment in the Queen’s speech, announcing a renters’ reform bill to include the abolition of section 21. They should be held to that promise. As for ground 8, it too needs to be abolished. Or, if that is impossible, rescinded for such time until tenants have had a chance to reduce their debts once they’re able to go back to work.

Abolishing or rescinding ground 8 would not prevent landlords relying on other grounds of possession. But, without it in place, judges will be free to order possession only if reasonable – thereby giving effect to the tenant defences the government says that it wants in place. One further advantage of abolishing ground 8 is that courts can turn to other possession proceedings in which possession orders are made but suspended, while tenants are given the chance to repay arrears to a realistic plan.

Muddling on without the abolition of section 21 and ground 8 will lead to millions of people forced out of their homes. It will send those evicted scattering – some to stay with elderly relatives, some into local authority housing (although it is at breaking point) and many into homelessness.

The government accepts that street homelessness speeds the transmission of coronavirus: this is the grim calculation that underpins the government’s granting of resources to councils to house rough sleepers. Drifting into a future where huge numbers of people lose their homes needlessly would be just as dangerous – for those who are evicted, and for everyone else.

• David Renton is a housing barrister at Garden Court Chambers

Council and housing association tenants will be fine as usual. It's the private renters that i feel for.

I don't understand abolishing a section 21 - what will it be replaced with? At the end of the day the house is owned by the landlord not the tenant, and if the landlord wants his property back that should be what happens, provided sensible notice is given (the 2 months used for the S21 I believe is ample). I say this as a renter myself

Renters have been truly hung out to dry. They’ve only extended it by a month (it’s normally 2 months).
But trying to bail us out was just too tricky I guess.
You can ask mortgage companies to tag 3 months on the end, but what do you do with renters?

Who's to say the landlords haven't fallen on hard times themselves? That's the risk renters take, I'm not saying they have a choice, but renters are living in someone else's property.

Of course this was going to happen. This is stage two of ‘bastard coronavirus’ the sequel.

Lockdown means a ticking time bomb and catastrophic financial crash affecting millions.

I feel sorry for renters but it’s likely the private landlords won’t be able to afford the mortgage repayments, do they’ll have to sell the property.

Everyone will be affected

Our tenant has t laid any rent since December 2019..before Covid she was given a section 8 and section 21. She is taking full advantage of us not being able to evict her now whilst we are having to pay for 2 mortgages. We have applied for a possession order, obviously that can’t take action yet. That alone cost over a grand and with potentially another 4K she owes us in rent arrears which we won’t see a penny off. Absolute piss take.

Should say *hasnt paid

@Monkeytapper

I totally agree with you it’s a piss take. I was just saying to my OH that the onus is on the LL back and if you get a shot tenant, financially you take the wrap and they get away Scott free. It’s disgusting and not fair at all.

It’s like squatting, they get rights and the LL had to pay for a court order as they’re protected. It’s mental.

I know this is slightly off topics to the OP, but it’s always about the renters and not the LL.

Shit*

@KellyHall most people who rent do so because they can't afford to buy a house. It's not a "risk they take", it's having no other choice. One could say that a landlord is the one taking the risk by purchasing a buy to let in the first place.

@Iamclearlyamug - S21 would be replaced by new specific grounds allowing a landlord to serve notice, likely to include circumstances like them selling the property or wanting to move into it themselves. The equivalent changes were introduced in Scotland a couple of years ago.

I agree 100% with this article - we need exceptional measures introduced to stop a landslide of homelessness.

@Hunnybears It’s so frustrating and think we might sell up when this is over, too much stress and hassle, plus we will have to sort house out when we do finally get it back as from what I can see it looks a shithole in garden so inside can’t be much better, and we will have to store all her stuff for god knows how long as I feel she will wait until we instruct bailiffs. How on Earth some people can think it’s ok to not pay rent is beyond me. She ignores any communication from us, text, calls etc, and I don’t want to be seen as ‘ harassing her’ as that could get me in trouble.

@HonestOpinion10 i sympathize with renters of all tenures but i was expecting your comment. But as usual Joe Halewood didnt let me down

speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/ve-day-and-burying-housing-and-homeless-news/

Joe Halewood HSM
@SpeyeJoe
·
5h
Will more post #COVID19 evictions happen in social housing than the PRS? Yes!

VE Day and burying housing and homeless news
"Any chance we can recycle all the VE Day red, white and blue plastic bunting to make PPE for the modern day heroes in the NHS and social care? Maybe it could also be used to make plastic sleeping bags for the many thousands of rough sleepers still on our streets or in readiness for the thousands upon thousands more rough sleepers who will be there when the three-month eviction ban ends on 25 June?

VE Day is a good day to bury bad news and housing and homelessness is no exception to that as I find a barrister saying the Tories pre-action protocol (PAP) to allegedly stop en masse evictions is legally worthless here a point I and others made on the day this notion was first stated by the hapless Robert Jenrick. The same Robert Jenrick as the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government who still promotes this PAP delusion and legal fabrication as he did to the HCLG all party parliamentary group on Monday this week (here) when he confirmed that if landlords private or social go to the wall in this crisis that the Tory government most decidedly will NOT bail them out.

These issues come on top of silence to yesterday’s news that the District Councils Network estimate of half a million more homeless cases which I covered here that detailed why this was an underestimate. 500,000 more homeless unsurprisingly is today’s fish and chip paper such is the typical apathy towards it from housing, government and the public.

Pity there is not much wider awareness of the affordable rent conversion practice that has seen the misnamed social landlords convert over 200,000 properties over the last 7 years from the social rent level to the affordable (sic) rent level. It’s a darn pesky fact for the self-labelled social landlords as it means they get rid of the existing tenant paying the SR level to replace with a new AR tenant paying on average 47% more in rent the very next day.

That’s a hell of a financial incentive for councils and housing associations to evict isn’t it? Its a systemic one too and been happening for years!

Note the 47% increase is at the stroke a pen and just an average figure. The easiest way to read the official figures is the case of a 2 bed property in Bromley owned by Clarion Housing Association which is the UK’s largest landlord. The existing tenant paying £112 per week in SR was replaced by the new affordable rent or AR tenant paying £335 per week for the exact same property Yes that is a tripling of rent overnight – and these AR ‘conversions’ as they are called have seen 200,000 been ‘converted’ in the past 7 or so years since the Tories introduced this policy that gives social (sic) landlord finance directors wet dreams.

COVID19 is a huge wet dream for the same social (sic) landlord finance directors and commercial hawks as it gives them the greatest ever opportunity to evict as many existing tenants paying the social rent level as possible so they can better sweat their housing assets by replacing them with new tenants paying the affordable (sic) rent level. Of course we have the ‘great and the good experts’ of the likes of Shelter warning that it will only be the proverbially ‘nasty’ private landlord who evicts en masse due to COVID19 and who if they get any rent increase it will be negligible while the proverbial good guys of the social rented landlords will average a 47% rent increase from evicting!

In August last year I looked at the official figures as I do each year which government release after housing associations produce these figures and the tripling (or 200% increase) of the Clarion rent overnight in Bromley is by no means a one-off or even highest example as the table below reveals

table in link.

The reason for my necessity in reproducing it is the argument that social (sic) landlords will evict en masse as they have a massive financial incentive to do so which they self-evidently have, unlike the private landlord. When we factor in that some 200,000 social housing properties have been converted to the AR level of rent over the past 7 years it means some 30,000 properties have been converted giving SRS financial directors and other asset sweaters constant orgasms.

It is also reproduced to show how naïve the likes of Shelter is to the COVID19 implications for homelessness and how ignorant their private landlord bad, social landlord good starting point is and has been. That predetermined starting point distorts any sensible analysis as the facts of 30,000 AR conversions proves that the so-called social landlord is just if not more of a greedy heartless bastard than the private landlord. Facts have not changed the entrenched predetermined starting position of Shelter (and others) which is a chronic misrepresentation of the UK rented housing market. The AR conversion (mal)practice of housing associations especially has been ongoing for the past 7 years yet Shelter et al have not said a word about it and despite 30,000 AR conversions per year!

I expect the typical response of how dare you defend the private landlord to be used by the social rented sector against all of the above facts and commentary.

I am not defending the private rented sector. I am criticising the social rented sector and do so with full substantiation using those darn pesky and official and irrefutable facts that the deluded and deceitful social rented sector wishes nobody to mention as it exposes SRS hypocrisy.

To summarise, COVID19 will have a very nasty habit of exposing many more facts about the asocial nature of the so-called social landlord who self-claims they are imbued with social purpose and social ethos. The reality is the adjective ‘social’ has been just as much bastardized by them as the adjective ‘affordable’ which the facts irrefutably prove.

Still, at least the public, the politician, and even Shelter can blame the homeless catastrophe that begins shortly on the contagion rather than the past and current social rented sector ignorance, deceit and greed!"

If people have got into arrears I am sure landlords will be willing to accept a payment plan for the arrears to be paid off where possible. I fail to understand why people seem to think they are entitled to live somewhere free of charge though.

I rent out a property that would, if I lost my job due to the recession, be my only source of income. So if my tenants defaulted, I'd be screwed and not able to pay the mortgage for the house I live on or claim any UC but hey ho don't worry about me I'm only a shitty bastard landlord.

Why have you mentioned key workers for whom we are clapping in your title? They are working so should be able to pay their usual outgoings anyway?

I'm very lucky that Myself and husband have both been working - we are both key workers, so have obviously paid our rent as usual.

It isn't just about evictions either, if someone pays the arrears and was maybe only a bit late (my friend had to wait for her boss to pay her, she is in the hospitality industry). Then, there's nothing stopping the landlord choosing not to renew the tenancy is there.

@Waxonwaxoff0 exactly! The LL is taking the risk in purchasing the property. Renters are doing so because they can't afford to buy, they certainly shouldn't be responsible for the LLs risk beyond paying rent.

You'll forgive me if I have little sympathy for LLs, especially when you see in the media LLs trying to evict NHS staff.

Because key workers such as those who work in care homes are likely to be living in HA properties. There was a report on Newsnight last night that carers are going into work when sick (this has happened for years but is especially dangerous now) due to lack of sick pay and fear of eviction.

@RedToothBrush

@Monkeytapper

Totally understand why you’d consider selling up. We rent out a property too and thankfully the tenant is brilliant.

You go hear so many horror stories that I said to DP if she left etc and we got people that didn’t pay. I would want to sell up as it wouldn’t be worth the hassle, for the money you get. I’d rather pay off the lump sum from our own house.

It came about from a conversation we had, after the upstairs maisonette had a burst pipe that leaked water in to our kitchen and living room in rented property 🙄

Absolutely nothing to do with our poor tenant, but we still have to foot the cost and pay for it in the hope upstairs insurance will refund us. If they don’t then we’re out of pocket.

So having someone that doesn’t pay, I’d crack up and sell it!! That what I was telling me DH. It’s all good when it’s god but when it’s bad it’s too much.

Hope you get her out ASAP!

Sorry for typos and I meant he’s great. Out tenant is a lovely guy

The landlord is running a business. Rent may be their only source of income. If their customer doe not pay he has no income so there is no business. Key workers will be getting paid so will be paying their rent so no issues with them?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/evicted-nhs-doctor-treating-coronavirus-21839600

I have seen TV shows about nightmare tenants (really rough, chavvy types who trash the place and fail to pay rent for years) and landlords having to go through lengthy and costly court proceedings, bailiffs, etc in order to get the tenants out? I get the impression that the law is skewed in favour of the tenant?