Government kicks renters in the teeth again - indefinite delay on Section 21 notices ban

[KievLoverTwo]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/michael-gove-kicks-ban-on-section-21-eviction-notices-back-again/

Tories gonna tory

It’s a problem with the courts, they are taking too long for landlords to get their properties back using other grounds eg Section 8(where the tenant is in rent arrears). The abolition of Section 21 would have caused more landlords to sell up, creating more problems for renters. The housing situation is dire at the moment and this would have just made it worse

Exactly what the above poster says.

If they bring this in as law before proper conditions are set up for landlords, many more will sell up. This will be in addition to the 25% that have already sold as a result of the proposed reforms.

Nightmare for renters as there is nothing to rent without huge competition.

But if landlords sell up the FTBs will have a housing stock to be able to buy from, which will take some people out of the rental competition? So either the houses will be sold to other landlords or to people currently renting, either way it shouldn't affect the number of people to properties. Or is this too simplistic? In which case can someone explain why?

@wellthatwentwelldinnit - because many people who rent aren't in a position to buy, even if house prices fall significantly

lots of reasons - but for example the pool of people who will buy those places will be the wealthier ones. So poorer people who will
nevwr have a chance to buy will be competing for a smaller number of properties. It won’t have an impact on house prices that means those poorer people will be able to buy.

@inloveandmarried @Fififafa I don't disagree with either of you, but that it's taken them four years since the process started is beyond ridiculous. I am sure they knew the courts weren't set up from day one, I don't believe they ever intended it to become law.

It poses a big problem for renters living in substandard conditions. Right now, LLs are only allowed to turf you out after six months of making a complaint about living conditions has passed. That is in no way long enough. It should be at least a year.

If you are going to scrap such a controversial policy, at least give something back to renters to watch their backs in exchange.

The last time I had to move due to terrible conditions it took four months solid of looking and 5,500 miles in the car. Most renters are absolutely not privileged enough to be in our situation, and this was last year, before availability got a ton worse.

It was the single most important aspect of the Renter's Reform Bill, and I cannot believe they're just discovering how unfeasible it is right now.

having a tenant in place that doesn’t pay their rent isn’t the only risk. That tenant can also be doing damage to the property either intentionally or through normal wear and tear. Depending on the laws of the moment and the resale market, It could be cheaper for the landlord to leave a property vacant rather than risk installing a bad tenant. Other options are to put properties up for short-term rentals on sites like Airbnb since that is an under-regulated industry.

expecting the properties to remain in the housing stock is unrealistic.

If you are into conspiracy theories, the crackdown on safety regulations, changes in tax incentives and the renter's reform bill are a strategy to squeeze small landlords out and make way for bigger, corporate landlords.

Certainly around me, I think regulating Air BnB would do more to help the rental market in the long run.

I do think there needs to be more restrictions on when a Section 21 can be used, though, and more notice for people to find housing.

Controversial opinion- I don't think small landlords are better.

Often they run on very fine margins, and can't afford essential repairs. Many don't understand the law and the protections tenants do have. Some small landlords promise long term rentals only to ask for the house back six months later.

On a personal level, I'd rather rent from a large corporate landlord who genuinely want a long term, reliable tenant, compared to a small one. However, on a societal level I can see the problems that can cause, too.

You might be kidding yourself if you think corporate LLs will be any better. My last one owned hundreds of homes, charged market rates, and all his tenants lived in absolutely fuel poverty, in questionably safe standards, and were lied to by their contractors when trying to get help.

That said, that is just ONE experience.

I’ve seen so many people say this. Smaller landlords selling up doesn’t not equal more FTB’s being able to buy. It will mean fewer but “larger” landlords hoovering up these properties. Fewer landlords, less completion, even higher rents. The main issue is we don’t have enough properties being built by our government and previous governments

Yes I agree. This government has known about the problem with the courts for years and not done anything about it. At the moment it takes on average 6 months to repossess which is costly particularly for a mortgaged small landlord.

@KievLoverTwo The bill has to be fair for both renters and landlords or it just won’t work.

The description 'no fault' eviction is a misnomer. Many LLs use S21 instead of S8 even when there is fault because it is supposed to be more straightforward.

However, courts are anecdotally trying to block valid S21s, with judges raising spurious objections.

The hatred towards LLs only ends up hurting tenants. I'm not sure why the government thinks it can absolve itself of any responsibility towards developing a reasonable housing strategy for years on end, and then throw all the blame on the very sector which has housed people in the absence of social housing being made available - and expect them not to sell?

See conspiracy theory comment above.

Yes, OP, I agree. The introduction of S24 which was targeted only at sole traders and not limited companies was the start of a drive towards corporate LLs only.

Not convinced that many landlords will be able to sell up, at fire sale prices maybe, not at the prices many of them bought for though, the buyers who once would have snapped up an ex-BTL can`t get the debt any more.

Nah, corporates are losing enough money on commercial property just now, they dont want all the drama and legality of renting to individual tenants, many of the "larger" landlords were just debt junkies using leverage (the way they used to teach it in the"No Money Down" seminars) loads of them will now be getting squeezed by the interest rates, they wont be buying more IMO, and sales down 50%, FTB mortgage applications down 40% says that lack of supply definitely isn`t the problem!

Renters, remember this when you vote in the next election.

Politicians much things up yet again, can kick and use meaningless headlines and promises to try to garner votes.

I do think gov. policy has been to squeeze out small landlords, yes. That is the conclusion I would come to based on the policies they have enacted. Those that they have actually managed to get off the ground that is!

"Other options are to put properties up for short-term rentals on sites like Airbnb since that is an under-regulated industry."

Not for much longer.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-12640869/Is-taxman-coming-hustle-Airbnb-Ebay-Uber-hand-income-data-directly-HMRC.html

Also difficult for someone with a BTL mortgage coming off a fixed rate to survive with an empty property...

https://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/news/2023/10/10/btl-market-virtually-non-existent-despite-falling-rates-%e2%80%92-analysis/

I’m generally a free market capitalist, but I do have a different view of housing control for the obvious reasons. I’m also dismayed by this. I thought the promised change was long overdue.

There may be something in what you say about a push towards corporate landlords. But that may in fact be a positive step in the (possible) longer term. Much more stringent, social policy-based, requirements can be placed on larger, wealthier landlords to bring them into line with social housing providers.

As for those saying that the courts and judges are obstructing evictions, the law has always taken a stern view of eviction, whether in the common law, in procedural rules or in statute. And a good thing too. It’s a centuries old common law bias against depriving people of shelter.