Landlords issue ‘veiled threat’ to evict tenants over Section 21

The loss of Section 21, whilst Courts are not fit for purpose, increases some of the risks that landlords face. Section 8 takes longer, is more expensive and is not guaranteed to result in recovery of the property. During this time, some tenants stop paying rent and cause damage to the property.

It’s amazing just how quickly the rioters were dealt with. If only the Courts were as quick to sentence child murderers and rapists. Landlords need confidence in the Courts.

I hope never to have to ask a tenant to leave. As far as I am concerned, it is their home, at least, until my death.

However, if any tenants do leave, the properties will be sold (and only to people that I like), so that my children are not burdened with the responsibility of becoming landlords.

Selling wouldn’t have a negative financial impact on me. I could achieve better returns in safe, tenant-free savings accounts. I average a gross return of less than 8% from the rental properties. The net return will be negative this year but it’s typically around 4%.

I charge low rents, I self manage and I’m a basic rate taxpayer. My rents would rise significantly if I didn’t self manage or if I was a higher rate taxpayer.

What is ”psychotic“ as Mr Darling puts it, is expecting Landlords to just roll over and allow control over their properties to be removed from them, irrespective of their own personal circumstances and irrespective of any tenants’ breaches of contract, such as to pay rent or look after the property.

I bet if he had properties with hundreds of thousands of £££, he would change his view. How he and his ilk can simply expect individual landlords to carry on without having the necessary protection in place to obtain possession when required is beyond me.

It's not a veiled threat, it's an obvious consequence.
Of course landlords will evict bad tenants while they still can.
Another obvious consequence of scrapping section 21 is fewer rental properties and rents increasing. That's not a veiled threat it's just stating the bleedin' obvious!

Has he not read about certain Housing Associations getting their Section 21's in quickly as well?

Avoiding or preparing for impending doom is a natural reaction. I can honestly see a minority of tenants that will using the new system to completely avoid paying rent for up to 2 years . Almost all of them will challenge rent rises safe in the knowledge that they can not be evicted whilst the courts are so far behind.

Section 8 according to the RRB:
3 months' rent arrears
+ 1 months' notice to tenant
+ 6 months average waiting time for a hearing (this will go up)
+1 month to enforce the possession order
+ 3 months average waiting time for bailiffs
= TOTAL 14 months
If all goes smoothly. It rarely does.
At the average rent of £1300, this translates to £18,200 income loss.

This is the level of income loss a landlord is facing with a bad tenant they cannot evict.
The only thing that is "psychotic" here is that the government think this is perfectly OK.

Hi Guys,
Unlike Cider Drinker, I do not charge low rents, I charge the market rates.
Of course, any LL is entitled to charge whatever they wish for their properties, I could not afford to charge lower rents and I don't see why I should, I also self-manage as management companies in my experience just rip us off. I am an LL to make a profit, if I didn't, I would sell up, it really is as simple as that.
To get back on topic, it would be insanity not to use the section 21 route if you are having doubts about a tenant while you still can. I am lucky to have all good tenants, but if I had one that was giving me problems, I would get rid of them now. Once section 21 is gone, you could almost guarantee that any tenant that is dodgy now will know that the LL can't do anything about it and would probably become much more belligerent, any experienced LL would know this, and this is why I also believe that there will be a wave of section 21 evictions before they are abolished. If it were me then I would evict now, just in case you get another crappy tenant which you have to evict.
It is Central Govt that is forcing LL's to evict any tenant who is slightly dodgy rather than just putting up with their bad behavior in the hope that they will improve, in the knowledge that if they keep crossing the line, the LL can just issue section 21. Now that it will be abolished the LL must protect his/her business.
Unlike Cider Drinker, I have had a few occasions when I have had to evict tenants, and all of them were solid, valid reasons to evict. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do to anyone, and of course, I would not do it if there was no reason to do it, I had held back for as long as I could, they were honestly given every chance to change their delinquent ways, and I warned them all several times before acting. It would simply not make sense to evict for no reason, why would we?
I can't understand why central Govt doesn't realise that this will happen, are they really so stupid to think that we will just put up with crappy tenants because it suits them for us to do so. This is a business like all others, well not quite like all others, we of course are treated far worse than other businesses by central Govt.
I used to encourage friends and acquaintances to enter the PRS as it was a decent business where almost anybody could make a modest return on their investment and also supply housing for those who cannot for whatever reason buy a place for themselves, therefore contributing to the local community and providing an essential service, now I cannot with conscience recommend anyone to enter this increasingly toxic sector.

Hi Guys,

I know that this is off topic, but does anybody know the answer to this, If by some miracle, this crazy bunch of lefties get in again in 5 years time, and I really believe that this is possible due to the same reasons as they got in this time (split vote between cons and Reform), Milibands demand that all rented properties are to be C rated or above by 2030, if a LL has a tenant in a property with a D or E rating and he/she cannot afford to do the required upgrades to bring the property up to a C or higher, what happens to the tenant? Does the LL have to evict the tenant? , if so this doesnt sound like a good deal for either the tenant or the LL, of course the Govt will still gain due to capital gains tax and SDLT when the LL sells , I assume that this is all they really care about as all their other stupid rules/ideas are only serving to hurt tenants whom the Govt is alledgedly trying to help

Reply to the comment left by GARY RIVETT at 24/09/2024 - 12:48As I understand it, your property would not be lettable. The tenant would need to leave. Of course, there’s not even a Bill yet so the chances of it becoming law by 2030 is marginal, at best.
You would then sell the property. It would be bought by an owner-occupier that doesn’t need to meet the EPC Rating C or by a wealthier landlord. If it’s the latter, the rent would need to rise to cover the cost of the EPC investment (or the new landlord would need to know a ‘friendlier’ assessor).
The tenant would probably seek to buy a home of their own (if they had the finances to do so). It wouldn’t need to be EPC Rating C and could be less energy efficient than the home they have been forced to leave. Alternatively , they may seek social housing which also wouldn’t need to be EPC Rated C.
But it’s OK because Starmer and Rayner are going to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029. I’m not sure who is going to buy them because it won’t be private landlords and I’d assume current tenants can’t afford them

Reply to the comment left by GARY RIVETT at 24/09/2024 - 12:48
you will be forced to upgrade the property - there may be some grants.

However what if Corbyn et al split the Left?