Section 21 Notices….

[CuriouslyDifferent]

Saw on the bbc today that a landlord has had to fight the tenant for two years to get their property back.

Obviously an extreme case - but surely all this is going to do is discourage potential landlords from renting out a property.

When renting I always knew that one day I’d be asked to leave and yep it happened and agreed when and sorted out a new pad.

i do understand that buying is not always an option for many reasons and some people will always rent, as i always have.

But surely a landlord has a right to decide they no longer wish to rent out a property and possibly put it on the market empty.

And I know there are abuses which I’ve never suffered - a complaint causing a s31 isn’t fair - and if it goes on the market afterwards in same state for a price increase is an abuse. In my opinion.

But surely the sort of hate we are seeing against landlords who actually fill a very necessary need - shouldn’t have to go through anything more than a few months whilst a tenant moves on. It’s ultimately going to discourage a section of landlords.

I know myself, when I discuss investment options, I’d steer very clear of property as an investment. It’s potentially just to much grief.

@Xenia - pets don’t always trash a property. What problems have you had?

We have always agreed to pets when we let with clauses about any damage being put right. In 20 years of letting the only pet damage we have had was to a fence in the garden which the tenants replaced immediately. Including pets in a tenant property is no more risk than your own pets at home

@C4tastrophe yes, but for me to move my properties into my limited company I would need to pay stamp duty on them all! Tens of thousands. It's not as simple as you are making out!

Re pets - landlords used to be able to take a higher deposit to cover potential damage. Or refuse pets. Now cannot refuse and the max deposit we can take is 5 weeks rent. That absolutely does not cover when you have tenants that let their pets wee and poo over all the floors

I have had to rip up carpets, Lino, laminate, disinfect, paint over, new flooring etc. its disgusting

Xenia has spoken a lot of sense over my Mumsnet years and she's very on the ball with this issue

I Haven't fully digested the changes but I thought you can't evict to do major work? So say the house was damp and needed damp proofing and say replaster, so the house would be a building site, you can't evict to do it? I was thinking if we have a major issue from now on it would have to be evict to sell? Our house will need major work to get to epc C rating. I think being forced to sell gets likely ever year and that's with a 17 year tenancy. Tennants are happy, no complaints, they treat it like they own in and have security but I still feel we will be forced to sell it at some point. I'd rather that's when the Tennant chooses. Luckily it's in good condition

While the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction, it’s not nearly enough without rent controls. Hopefully the clause allowing landlords to evict to sell will have proper safeguards too, ie can’t rent for 6 months after eviction etc.

I couldn’t agree more. The current situation is horrifying - I work in this sector and there is utter misery being caused by the behaviour of some landlords . Its
become out of control in recent years

@jackstini sounds like you could have sold a couple or so and used the profit to cover the stamp duty on the ones you kept and gone limited.
In any case, landlords can see which way this is all moving.
Adapt or sell and move into a different business.

You could use section 8 Ground 6 for redevelopment
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/possession_and_eviction/grounds_for_possession/assured_tenancy_mandatory_grounds_for_possession#title-6

Assuming your current tenants stay in situ, you have until 2028 to achieve an EPC C (2025 for new tenants)

What’s stopping a LL issuing a section 8, saying they want to sell or move back in themselves then renting it straight out again? Who will be checking that’s not happening?

Very little, as far as I'm aware; I hope some safeguards will be built in, for instance a prohibition on renting out said house again for 6-12 months.

And, if it's found being advertised again, let the old tenants take them to court for a punitive sum, as with the rules around failure to protect the deposit.

I can’t honestly see it helping I know MN doesn’t believe they exist but have a few friends who are accidental LL and all need to be able to get tenants out
1 moved away for work on a fixed term contract and needs house to come back to

another moved in with a relatively new partner wants to keep her flat for a backup and so she doesn’t put herself in a financially vulnerable position ( the golden advice on MN unless it means u becoming a LL then your scum )

and lastly my mum’s friend sadly in a care home her daughter rents her house out to pay towards care home fees

Wouldn’t say the third example is an accidental LL.
They are choosing to let out the house rather than sell it despite knowing the owner will sadly never be able to return to it.
They could sell it & equally use the proceeds to pay for care home fees.

Both of the first two landlords could use section 8 ground 1 to evict, as they used to live there and want to move back in
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/possession_and_eviction/grounds_for_possession/assured_tenancy_mandatory_grounds_for_possession#title-1

The third one is not an accidental landlord - she has made a very conscious decision to rent it out rather than sell the property, which is the usual course of action when someone goes permanently into a care home.

While there isn't currently a specific section 8 ground for selling it up, it looks like there would be if the current proposals to end s21 go through.

None of your friends would be impacted in those ways based on what you've said.

They just wouldn't be allowed to evict a tenant because they looked at them funny, got pregnant, or asked for repairs - which is what the current S21 system allows.

@rwalker the first two situations would be fine as you can evict if you or a family member need to move in.

Accidental landlords need to remember this is a business and they need to act professionally and run it as a business.

Painfully accurate
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/can-i-still-make-people-homeless-if-they-look-at-me-funny-your-landlord-questions-answered-20230517235250

@rwalker Literally no one is an accidential landlord - letting out a property requires people to make a decision. In the situations you describe, all of those people wanted to keep ownership of a property that they no longer lived in. They chose to fund this by renting the property out. None of this is an accident.

It is the tenants who will be crying in some cases at the moment though as the state adding to landlords' costs etc means landlords have left the market or will do so . Moving a mortgage property into a company comes with stamp duty costs and depending on property value ATED - the annual tax on enveloped dwellings so lots of landlords would find it even more unprofitable to move the property into a company. I have no issues with any of this - the state can do what it ilkes but it is the reason there is less and less property to rent.

I don't agree that if a pet wrecks it you simply hold back deposit. The state has reduced the amount of deposit you can take in the last few years. Secondly if the tenant holds back rent and it costs you 2k of legal fees and you lose 3 months of rent to get them out no way does the deposit cover damage done by the dog. Same with smoke Many don't want smokers.

Very little.

from everything I’ve read there will be a maximum of three months before you’re allowed to rent out again.

It’s a sticking plaster rather than a complete solution imo.

I do wish they’d bring in a compulsory course - just the basics - before people are allowed to let out properties.

Just to stop some of the “Can I let myself in if I give notice?” and “just charge late fees” comments that I’ve seen landlords make on threads on here.

Rent Smart Wales - who run the compulsory landlord licencing in Wales - have courses.

Naturally there is much whining from landlords.

I can't think of a single other industry which whines so loudly about having to follow the law, or laws designed to keep their customers safe.

Imagine if cafés were whining that their kitchen staff have to take food hygiene courses, the local authority inspects for hygiene, and they have to fix the leaking roof promptly. Even when Natasha's Law came in (compulsory full ingredient labelling for prepacked food made on site), and it did add a lot of cost in terms of time devising the labels and cost of printing each label - there wasn't any whining because people could see it was the right thing to do.

Many landlords seem to think they should be exempt from legislation that keeps their customers safe. A law unto themselves indeed.

Yeah a lot of landlords don't seem to actually like tenants or view them as people - just rather inconvenient mortgage payment units.

It's not the laws as such that are whined about - it's the amount of changes that are made so often and so quickly.

This means that the basis on which a landlord originally made an informed decision to be a landlord, is now completely changed

Often the changes come with a timeline that mean you cannot do anything about it either - for example the phasing out of capital gains tax in a short space of time which is not allowing people to sell all their properties if they don't want to continue

I do like people, and most of my tenants are lovely - many been with me for 12-16 years! However, renting out property it is a business and I wouldn't presume that every other business has to actively like all its customers; although transactions should always be courteous and done with respect on both sides

@jackstini ”Often the changes come with a timeline that mean you cannot do anything about it either - for example the phasing out of capital gains tax in a short space of time which is not allowing people to sell all their properties if they don't want to continue “

Lowering the CGT limit is absolutely not preventing landlords from selling. It just means, like every other person in the UK, their allowance has been reduced. Landlords were not singled out.

@C4tastrophe - yes, but it's an example of them changing the goalposts

Say if someone (in good faith) based their retirement plan on being able to sell their 6 houses at 1 per year as they are going into pension age, in order to include the annual CGT allowance
Then that allowance is taken away within 3 years, it affects their retirement plans and there is nothing they can do!

I doubt many people will feel too sorry for someone having 6 houses to sell having to pay more tax.
There are people with way worse problems to contend with than that. And you must have been aware that the Conservative government is not exactly popular so if they didn’t make the changes, I’m sure Labour would have when they win the next election.

I mean I wouldn't near retirement with all my pension funds invested in an illiquid asset like property.