What's the longest anyone has waited for tenants to go? We're buying.

[alrightluv]

Vender has just reissued the section 21. Court next. Been going on since Feb. When we viewed tenants showed us round pointing out every little fault. Should have guessed then.
We're not desperate as still have our home. Plus other stuff going on. But curious to know if anyone has had similar? TIA

That's not quite true. You own the house, not the bank. However, if it's mortgaged the house is being used as security against a loan (the mortgage). If you fail to keep up with the repayments on the loan, the lender can force the sale of the house in order to recover their capital, but the lender doesn't own the house, you do.

The snobbery on here.

To all you mortgagees- it's not yours till you've paid off the mortgage- it's the bank's!

That follows the logic on here.

You might want to ask them to clarify OP, pretty sure that’s not how it works regarding housing.

Exactly this. The land registry shows the individuals as the owners, not Nat West etc.

@EatCrow I'm sure the EA will ring again soon with no real news 😉 The venders definitely got lucky with us.

Labour are looking at not allowing evictions where it causes the tenant extreme hardship (in the Court's opinion)

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/hardship-bombshell-for-landlords

They are also looking at ending Section 21 evictions and tightening grounds for evictions.

On the other side of the coin a Local Authority can discharge it's duty to the homeless by helping them to secure a private rental so the tenants might not necessarily get the social housing they are after. It's also possible that they will have to spend years in temporary accommodation waiting for something permanent.

Along with these changes landlords are expecting the government to raise the rates of capital gains tax so many landlords are already hurrying up trying to sell to get their property sold before that happens.

The supply of rental properties is going to reduce further and this will lead to an even tougher market for renters.

I think the anti landlord changes while there are too few rental properties is not a good idea and the people pushing for it are turkeys voting for Christmas. If the government can get plentiful social housing in place and then clamp down on private housing then no problem but at the moment when landlords sell up there is very little alternative for renters.

So I would say OP there are no guarantees at the moment it depends whether and how quickly Labour introduce their plans or perhaps the tenants will change their minds and leave anyway.

Still very tame compared to eg Germany
https://housinganywhere.com/Germany/tenant-rights-in-germany

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/germany-proves-private-renting-can-work-better-britain

The UK Government has to sort the housing market out for sure! But putting the burden on private landlords is not going to work. It needs to be social housing, corporations, not for profit housing etc etc.
The transition if the burden is placed on the private small time landlord won’t work. I guess if they want to just drive them all out and tax them with huge CGT, that is a deterrent matter. But who is going to buy the houses/flats?
Air BNB is also a massive issue. That should be better regulated. Small time landlords renting long term to tenants should not be the target. They are probably actually better to tenants than ruthless slum landlords? I don’t think it is OK that some tenants just get away with trashing a place etc. I think there should be some criminal damage laws around that too. There has to be a balance on both sides.

I agree @Araminta1003 and think any reasonable person would too, that there has to be balance on both sides. It’s not ok for a tenant to trash someone’s property just because they are upset about having to leave. And equally LLs can’t be allowed to get away with awful behaviour towards their tenants either.

They also show they can't be sold without approval of Nat West (or whichever).

Does that mean that NatWest owns it? No.

So my point stands.

Eh? I've sold 5 properties and never asked for my lender's approval before doing so or been told I need to get their approval.

You are a FTB I believe.

It basically does though.

Just like the landlord owns your home but it your home.

Just like the leasehold owns your flat but you bought it.

As so as you default on payment it is instantly not your where as if you 'own' it no one else has claim to it.

Its literally on the title that you need 'permission' from the person who paid for it.

Its my husbands job.

Yes titles clearly list it. I assume when you moved you informed your mortgage and either paid it off or transferred it taking a new mortgage on the new property?

That IS getting their approval.

I don't agree that means a property "can't be sold without approval of Nat West (or whichever)".

Obviously the lender finds out you are selling the property but you don't have to ask their permission before deciding to sell it or putting it on the market. As long as their loan is repaid, that is all they are concerned about.

They don't have to approve or not approve the Sale.

Nope. They don’t own it.

If I come into money and pay down my mortgage, the bank don’t sell it to me. The ownership doesn’t transfer. They have a charge on the house because the loan is secured on it. They do not own it.

I will leave it there.

@BlackShuck3 - if you are renting, it's not your home. It's a home you are living in temporarily but it's not yours. Jeez.

No it is YOUR home for the leased time you have paid for, that is basic law.

Property/buildings/houses and a 'home' are two entirely different things. A home by definition is 'a place a person lives' its nothing to do with ownership.

The landlord has no rights to the property while its someone else's home, they are literally selling those rights. They can not enter it, use it personally or do anything (outside of legal safety requirements like gas/electric maintenance or emergencies) without permission from the person whose 'home' it currently is.

In a dispute they need to go to court and have a judge rule if the tenant can be overruled/removed from what is their home. Tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment of their home which is what they are buying with their rent money.

No sorry, that's my bad writing there. I meant rather than being landlords we are the tenants in same situation and explaining that we ended up having to stay to end of fixed term. So even when tenants would be happy to leave early sometimes they can't afford it, so tenants in situ is not ideal.

Small time landlords renting long term to tenants should not be the target. They are probably actually better to tenants than ruthless slum landlords?

Probably better than many housing associations too. It is a myth that HAs are responsible, reliable landlords. It’s difficult, not impossible, for them to evict tenants but HAs are poor, often appalling, at carrying out timely repairs and many older properties are in a poor condition internally. Corruption, particularly in the maintenance departments, can be rife. They need much better regulation and oversight.

This thread is putting the fear of god into me. Our tenants have been in their home/ our house for 7 years. No problems on either side. However we need to sell the house. We are going to wait until the house is empty to sell it. We are just deciding how much notice over and above the legal requirement to give the tenants. All suggestions welcomed. We won't be asking them to leave early. However if they find somewhere and want to leave early we will be happy with that. I'm a nervous wreck already.

give them a correct section 21 notice and let them know that you'll be flexible about the move out date if they need a bit longer to move. Don't formally give any extra notice as if they don't leave at the end you'll be in the same position but several months delayed down the line.

@PeriIsKickingMyButt
Thanks very much. Let me just check I've got this right. I don't tell them now that we will be serving a section 21 in February (2 months before the end of their tenancy) but I let them stay a little longer after April if necessary? And I am gracious if they want to leave early?
Also we won't be asking them to make good their decorating when they leave as we will need to do everything to put it up for sale. But I'm guessing we don't say that either?

Pretty sure there's a hell of a lot of internet scaremongering about this and actually most tenants will leave politely when asked. Most people are going to want their deposit back, want good references, want to keep a working relationship with the letting agent. Sure there may be a handful of people that might benefit from being removed by bailiffs to help with social housing, but even for those people, they're not about to be given a pristine 3-bed semi as soon as they get evicted, they're going to get bunged in horrible temporary accommodation for god knows how long. So really, for almost everybody the benefit lies in leaving in an orderly fashion.

Ok, I misunderstood. Yes, tell them now that you won't be renewing next year when the tenancy ends, and offer them the chance to leave early if they find somewhere sooner with no penalties. Don't mention decorating as you wouldn't be allowed to charge them anything for that after 7 years anyway. If they come to you nearer the time and say they can't find anywhere and need longer you had better be gracious as you won't get far being otherwise.