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/

My experience is very much the opposite- both myself and friends have always had good experiences with landlords who own lots of properties. Whereas when renting from "accidental" landlords, there's often no money for maintenance, people who don't understand the law, and want to come in with no notice, or treat parts of the property like they still own it, unprotected deposits, and ridiculous claims against deposits are common too.

Also, whilst corporate landlords still evict people, my experience is you're far more likely to get evicted in the short term, having been promised a long term tenancy by people who only own one other property for all sorts of reasons.

I'm lucky that I've been able to buy now, but if I did need to rent again, I'd definitely rather have a landlord who owns multiple properties.

I am of the opinion the state should simply not be involved in the housing market at all, period. The state getting involved too much in the money supply is at the root of the issue in housing affordability. Landlords are fairly simple market participants in the search for yield.

Putting aside the questionable morality of living off the productive labour of someone else via rentierism, it is the market conditions and the price of money which drives the search for yield. It just so happens that yield has been handsome in the property market for the last couple of decades, thanks to the good inflation, that of house price inflation😋! This unsophisticated strategy has been profitable if you happen to have been born at the right time and/or had cash available prior to the huge increase in the money supply etc.

That strategy is now largely redundant with bond yields much more attractive and having the quality of being incredibly more liquid.

It is tough for renters for sure. It will soon be very tough for indebted landlords, although the smart ones will have sold up already. Perhaps the low volume in the housing market recently suggests the average landlord is not that smart...😃

I was from a what is called a concealed household when I was a FTB (living with family). So I wasn't freeing up any rental accomodation by buying (room at MIL's house is now empty). Many FTB with good deposits would be from such situations. Also many rental homes like HMOs would not be in the FTB budget esp if they have 3+ bedrooms. They would also most likely be bought by a couple so in a way a net loss of homes - instead of a 5 bedroom house housing 5 adults, it would house a couple and a dog and maybe a baby

What is happening is that they are putting up the rent to cover the increased mortgage costs. My mortgage (in London) is £1020 (probably would be £1400 or so next year). The flat next to me is rented out at £1800 and when I moved in 4 years ago was rented out at £1400 to two ladies. One of the tenants could not afford the increased rent and so they have been replaced with 3 university students, each paying £600 per month. This is a 2 bed flat with separate reception. I paid £690 per month as a student in London more than 10 years ago so I can see this isn't a bad price for a student.

Due to the supply crisis, many people are squeezing themselves into smaller accomodation to afford the rents.

They know full well they are going to lose the next election so they now don't have to pretend to care about renters anymore...

This issue will just be left to deal with by the next government and it gives the Tories' rich landlords mates a bit more time to continue doing as they please.

It's a tangent but I can see the same with leasehold reform . Been talked of for years making it cheaper to extend your lease or buy your freehold and absolutely nothing has changed . Too many rich powerful freeholders having the influence to keep the status quo

Until housing becomes more affordable no single action will help You cannot blame 21 The whole system has been propped up by accidental landlords and those letting 1 or 2 properties so 21 was necessary

Yes with Leasehold reform all they have done is stop Ground rent for NEW leases Labour may do better but it will be at least a decade before their policies start showing results Look at Thatcher
She had 15 years in office Will the public be able to stomach it because that is how long it will take to bring the big reforms in NHS,housing education and so on

Well, in answer to the 'will the public really be able to stomach it', our discussions about leaving the country are becoming more frequent.

I am not sure I have the patience to wait two decades for Labour to fix what the Tories have systematically firebombed for so many years.

Necessary change to the housing laws could be done within one term of a government. If Labour doesn’t do that it will have failed as comprehensively as all previous governments. (I agree that changes in education and the NHS will take longer, if they work at all of course, but those are separate issues.)

Any government could bring in restrictions on owning more than one property unless a landlord is licensed to do so, which would in turn create strict requirements about the treatment of tenants and the property.

the housing crisis in the other english speaking countries is even worse- look at canada and australia, and USA has an even bigger problem with inequality (its built for the top 10%; if you can be top 10% in the USA, you can be top 10% in the UK too). There is a language barrier in Europe for most Brits

Dubai is good for the short haul but you would never be a citizen and enjoy the full rights. Singapore is more expensive rent wise than London unless you are on a good expat package or are Singaporean (born or earn above £120k or married to a Singaporean- last is not even a guarantee that you will get permanent residency). HK makes London look cheap as chips.

There are no good options other than 'be the top 10%'. obviously only the top 10% can actually be the top 10%. In London, being the top 10% of the UK isn't good enough, you really do need to be in the top 5%- so combined £160k OR be lucky enough to have some help. I am the latter, was lucky enough to marry a native londoner so had free place to stay in my 20s and got a mortgage in my 20s. DH's student loan is almost all paid up now so our increase in mortgage next year would be offset by the extra £400 he would earn. And our ability to stay in London is good for our professional lives and increase in salaries has enabled us to pay down the mortgage so that our mortgage balance is only 2.3 times household income.

So i think the modus operandi for anyone who wants to survive in our world going forward is to assume that it will be very very hard and to do everything to maximize earnings and take advantage of any help you are likely to get (cos you will need it). Downgrade expectations of living standards while simultaneously being very ambitious. It is a world made for the top 0.1%

Housing is only part of it. I know loads of other places have it far worse than us - I don't have rose tinted spectacles on in that regard.

I am sick of seeing our government squeeze and squeeze the poorest in our society and making a dog's dinner of our economy.

I think I am turning into Victor Meldrew.

Other countries definitely do rentals better though. Germans expect to be life long tenants, for example.

We will probably end up owning and it won't matter, except as an observer who continually sees all the ways in which governments trample all over the least able to defend themselves in society 😡

a big problem is that home ownership is a cult in this country. They have done surveys and something like 89% of people want to own their home if they could, including a clear majority of people in social housing. Renters have a lot of political power in Germany because they are 50% of the population. They are 20% of the population here and many don't vote (as they tend to be younger). The other 20% who rent live in council housing (and that too has a stigma).

Yet the reality is that many people just can't afford to buy. They may not have the stable jobs, let alone the. deposit. Yes the home ownership rate was far higher in the past, but at the same time that was an unprecedented golden age of home ownership. Like many post war things, I am not sure it can be replicated again. But yet we cling doggedly to the expectation that we must all be homeowners because our grandparents and parents were. And tbh many of us would be (but it is often a function of right place right time).

Totally.

It doesn't help that some of the older generations look down their noses at people who rent, like it's something to be ashamed of. I once told my not quite mother in law how many times I had had to move, and she replied 'how embarrassing.'

Now people think it's an absolute necessity because final salary pensions no longer exist, government pensions are laughable and they deem their home to be their emergency retirement fund.

We have spent so many decades trying to get things for the cheapest price we possibly could that we never took pause to think about the long term implications of whether we should.

Now we are stuck in a dog eat dog society, and I can't see an escape from that mentality is ever going to be possible, because capitalism rules.

Oh dear. There I go again.

O_O

Sorry for the whinge.

If there was more protection in law for landlords the system would work better for everyone.

Landlords wouldn’t be so reluctant to rent to people on benefits. They’d be more likely to allow pets or choose tenants with children rather than the childless professionals who cause less wear and tear on the property and are less likely to leave it damaged because they would have some recourse. As it is, lovely tenants miss out of properties because on paper, they aren’t the safest bet.

@FloweryName I agree. In theory they are not meant to discriminate, but in reality...

People with kids and even people with pets are likely to stay longer anyway.

Perhaps landlords shouldn't be allowed to know if someone is on benefits, but given the hash the authorities make of it whenever someone is up for review, I don't blame them for wanting to know.

One of the bigger problems is that we have a lot of landlords with very small slush funds. If they had twelve months mortgage in the bank set aside for repairs and when life gets in the way of stable rent payments, they wouldn't need to be quite so guarded about who they rent to.

Hats off to Portsmouth City Council who have introduced new property regulations for the rental sector with compulsory licensing.
If the communal room in the rental house isn't large enough, then the landlord will have to evict one of the tenants, use the section 21 process, to then use the now vacant room as an extra sitting room.
Much of the city housing stock is 1890/1910 when small terraced houses were the norm. 80% of these houses have small sitting rooms so you can expect many evictions in the new year.
This will make the rents go up as the demand increases.
PCC is only charging £1076 for a 1 year license. Guess who is going to pay for this tax load, landlord or tenant?

Good lord.

The above mentioned conspiracy theory is feeling more possible by the day.

Money in the bank or not, landlords aren’t going to take risks with their business if they don’t have to. Expecting them to have money available for repairs and maintenance is reasonable. Expecting them to be able to suck up non payment of rent is not, in any circumstances. I don’t agree that landlords having small ‘slush funds’ is a problem. If tenants pay the rent they are obliged to pay, landlords won’t need to cover it for them.

You say perhaps landlords shouldn’t be allowed to know if a tenant is on benefits but it’s not that simple. They have the right to be able to see that a potential tenant has the means to pay before handing over the keys, and rightly so. Just like it is irresponsible when banks or other lenders hand out money without knowing if someone can afford the repayments, it would be irresponsible for a landlord to sign a contract with someone with no idea if they will be able to fulfil it or not. Landlords have a duty of care and shouldn’t put tenants in a position where they’re going to get into debt, but the only way they can check that is by asking for proof of income.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have sold off our social housing, causing rents to spike. In an ideal world, those needing help wouldn't have their benefits denied and only granted when the claimant kicks off, leaving them penniless for long periods of time.

Benefits claimants need stronger protections unless governments can get their act together and build the homes they need.

It used to be housing benefit went straight to the landlord and then the tenant topped up if necessary.
But then it changed to the tenant getting the HB and having to pay rent.

Honestly... I don't blame a struggling mother using the housing benefit to buy food for example. But then they get in debt and the circle starts.

Yes the rental market needs better regulation for owners and tenants. But the new system has to be in place before disassembling the current one.

I’ve never understood why people think social housing needs to be operated by local councils. I’ve never understood why people think the sales of council houses was in some way wrong. In that respect I’d go further and advocate a compulsory right for tenants of private lets to buy the property.

The issue is that private landlords need to be much more highly regulated, including by a prohibition on sale of the property to anyone but another licensed and regulated landlord (with rights to remain for the tenant) or an existing tenant. There would be many other requirements, including being fit and proper, having properly appointed contractors and being able to show sufficient liquidity to make repairs immediately.

’Accidental’ landlords are not a thing. If you come into extra property you should either rent it subject to rigorous control of your business, or sell it.

no conspiracy theory

https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/services/housing/landlords/apply-for-an-hmo-licence/applying-for-an-additional-hmo-licence/licensing-information-for-landlords-faqs/#background

That is a series of many, many links. I am not sure what I should be looking for?

I’ve never understood why people think the sales of council houses was in some way wrong.. We all paid for the construction of these houses froom taxation as an overall societal benefit, a bit like roads. Selling them off (and especially at the massive discounts on a market price) is both ripping us off and reducing the availability of decent housing at a reasonable price. It's been further compounded by slashing funding to local authorities and not allowing them to use the funds from sales to build or buy more housing for rent.
If governments are idealogically opposed to councils doing this for some weird reason they could stop new provision, but also prevent sales of existing stock.