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/

To show that PCC is introducing this new costly scheme and it is not a conspiracy.

Gov/local gov assets can be bought and sold at any time. They frequently are. In that respect I don’t see why housing should be any different to land or other buildings. Or shares in nationalised industries.

The selling prices may or may not have been low (I thought there was a valuation process) but even if they were, that’s a societal benefit by allowing ownership and removing state obligation for repairs and so on.

As I said upthread, I don’t think renting and landlordism (?) should work to the whims of the market. Housing is scarce and we can’t make more land. That’s why I think there should be much tougher regulation including restricting sale to other licensed landlords or to tenants.

But I don’t distinguish between council provision, other social housing and private landlords. They should all operate to the same high standards and either maintain properties in the rented sector or sell to tenants when the tenants can buy.

I don’t see why housing should be any different to land or other buildings. Or shares in nationalised industries.
I was opposed to the sale of nationalised industries for the exact same reason - I had already fucking paid for them and then the government had the cheek to try and sell them to me again. Of course these are not the same as housing in any case - "land and other buildings" are not people's homes.

I don’t see why housing should be any different to land or other buildings. Or shares in nationalised industries.
Councils are providing a service, not trying to make a profit. Private landlords exist to make as much profit as they can - surely you can see that difference?

So I came across an article yesterday (sorry, I didn't save it, I get so many pushed in my face every day) that stated: when Section 21 does finally come to be banned, there will be a loophole for landlords.

If they evict someone because they want to sell, and then it doesn't sell, they can then re-let the property to another tenant after three months with no penalty.

I.... just.... words

I saw something about this too. It's in total BS, just political posturing which is now being delayed until the court system waiting lists improve. So that could be forever then!

The Tory government seem to just be a series of continual press leaks and PR stunts.

I know! They've been leaking things to the press since 2020 and then gauging the public's reaction before deciding whether to implement it or not. It's truly pathetic and yet another sign of a failing system.

Hastings had a licensing system but it was deemed illegal . We no longer have one .

Yes I can, although I’m not sure it’s that simple. Council rent goes up over time just like private rents. Councils need to make repairs and have all the other calls on their budgets generally. As we’re frequently and rightly reminded on MN, social housing isn’t provided at peppercorn or massively reduced levels of rent.

In any case, part of the greater regulation I have in mind is of rent assessments and capping.

The ‘I paid for nationalised industries’ argument is a bit one-eyed: a government bought those assets in all of our names; another government sold them off to make money in all of our names (and for other reasons). In both cases the government concerned was mandated to do so by the ballot box. One isn’t right and the other wrong. They’re just two different philosophies in action.

Surely most tenants and Lls are decent folk but the rents are so high it is impossible when probs arise

You said you "didn't see why...." I have explained the reasons - obviously you reject my opinion, but it's an opinion, just like yours.
It takes some brass neck to use our cash to buy something, then use our cash to sell it back to us (so we pay again) and then use that cash to give to rich people, but that's how privatisation works.

Oh, and of course, it was like most post-war governments, supported at the ballot box by a minority of those who voted.

I think this probably would have been true before but now with the interest rates as they are it's probably less likely

Would many landlords actually do this just for the hell of it? 3 months loss income and they have to pay for the utilities and council tax while empty, plus the cost of finding new tenants...

I don't know but that's not really the point. The point is the pretend safeguards which won't really improve protection for tenants at all.

@KievLoverTwo Have you ever lived in Germany? Rentals are incredibly competitive in some areas. As a tenant if you leave a property even after a really short time you are expected to have the whole house repainted. Kitchens in rentals is not the norm so you are expected to put in a kitchen and then remove when you leave and an exit clean on a family home will cost you around €800.

For the hell of it? No. For money, yes.

Imagine this scenario:

House is riddled with damp, LL gets someone in to quote to remedy it, contractor says 'that'll be 10k please', LL can't afford it, but knows tenant has rights. LL evicts tenant on the basis that 'I need to move back into the house.' LL puts the house on the market for appearance's sake, doesn't agree to sell it to anyone, three months later, with a rent loss of, say, 3k, they get the damp painted over, get a new tenant in, probably with a 5-10% increase in rent, and nobody's any the wiser. LL gets to avoid paying 7k, new tenant also lives in squalor.

We have seen a LL on this board in the last few months say something like 'I can't afford to pay for damp repairs so I need to evict my tenant to sell the house.' Iirc, the quote was 12k.

In the future, that LL will be entitled to put it back to rent three months later. Which seems quite likely in the current environment, because nobody is buying damp-riddled houses.

So it'll just get rented again.

It's just another pile of absolute bollocks from the government, where protections are completely and utterly meaningless, they're nothing more than a press release and a bunch of faux debates in parliament to keep the renter's votes.

'It's just another pile of absolute bollocks from the government, where protections are completely and utterly meaningless, they're nothing more than a press release and a bunch of faux debates in parliament to keep the renter's votes.'

Exactly this @KievLoverTwo
Although, I think people have started to wise up to the government guff machine in many quarters. We have another year (approx) to the election, where people will see things deteriorate further.

My partner was living in Berlin when we got together.

He lived there for 18 months.

He was not required to paint upon leaving.

It had its own kitchen in place.

I understand the kitchen thing is unusual to get - there are some LL's who specifically rent to Brits/overseas folk who provide this service because overseas renters aren't used to having to fit kitchens and won't necessarily be in the country for too long. And no, it wasn't extortionate, before anyone asks.

Several edits, last one: no, there was no e800 exit clean either.

@KievLoverTwo ok I see your point with that example! I was looking at it as landlords trying to raise rent.

Full disclosure... I own a rental property. In 10 years we are on our second set of tenants and the first ones only left as they didn't like it when the shop next door changed to a funeral parlour...we don't raise rents unnecessarily and do repairs quickly.

@PuttingDownRoots I'd happily live next to a funeral parlour for a decent LL.

It's not a 'conspiracy theory' that government wants to see more corporate landlords entering the private rental market. The changes to the law that have been brought in /are being signalled all make it more difficult for small-scale landlords.

The build-to-rent model is being favoured through the tax code and the law.

Sorry - posted too soon.

'Build-to-rent' is basically taking the idea of property as an asset class to the next level. Pension funds and banks building homes to then rent out. Australian bank Macqaurie is also looking to move into the market -apparently.

It's less about landlords with large portfolios and more about large corporations wanting a slice of the housing market.

The rise of corporate landlords: how they are swallowing city centres like Manchester one block of flats at a time (theconversation.com)

Build to rent’s glitzy goldrush raises fears for social housing | Commercial property | The Guardian

I haven't time to find the article now - but former senior Conservative government ministers are on the board of at least one of the big names in the Build-to-Rent business. Surprise, surprise.

What I don't see is how proposing a thing then postponing it indefinitely actually helps. The risk/speculation will already have prompted landlords concerned by this to go on the market or leave the property empty rather than remarket if they intend to move back in.

Actually going through with the legislation is probably not the point at which a risk averse "amateur" landlord would sell, while more robust, "professional" landlords would take the risk...