Abolishing S21 without S8 fully ‘fit for purpose’ will have dire consequences

"It was reported by Citizens Advice that supposedly 141,000 people have been handed eviction notices since laws to ban revenge evictions were introduced in 2015.  I just don’t understand how they have collated this information"

I think it was from a survey of 2000 renters and they have taken the percentage figures from that (a fraction of a %) and just extrapolated it onto 4.5 million private rented households over the timeframe.

It would be interesting to know if they asked the landlord if rent arrears, anti social behaviour, damage to property, refusing access, won't communicate etc was also a factor in that tiny fraction of revenge evictions.

At the moment, Section 21 notice is the only route open to a landlord who needs or wishes to sell a tenanted property. The government consultation paper on which all these press reports are based proposes amendment of Section 8 grounds to include landlords selling, but only after two years into the tenancy. This means default minimum two year tenancies unless other Section 8 grounds apply. One of the main reasons so many landlords are currently selling up is the change to the taxation regime which makes properties unviable in certain cases. Thus the government is robbing these landlords of their one means of avoiding repossession or even bankruptcy, in an attempt to cure a problem which it has itself created. Paying attention only to the tenant representatives' insistent demands and failing to include the people who provide the accommodation in their consultations means the government have no overview of the private rental sector and are constantly tinkering at the edges with consequences unforeseen by the authorities but predictable by landlords who have not been listened to. With no lessons learned from history and no opportunity for one piece of legislation to bed in and its results be appraised, another follows hot on its heels sending contradictory signals to the poor bewildered landlord who is trying to keep up and do the best to provide a good service to tenants and make a modest profit for all the work and time involved. Surprise, surprise, the private rental sector is shrinking even as demand increases.

I believe this is a well planned action to completely get rid of PRS. IT might be sponsored by huge corporate landlords, who want to snap the properties cheaply from bancrupted landlords who are unable to sell due to two years restriction.
Otherwise I cannot imagine why there is nobody in the government with at least two cells in their brains to see what is happening in the middle of the greatest housing crisis in the modern time.
I suppose it is a high time our New Landlord Alliance did something about it. I am not even sure what happens with their action on Shelter?

Replying to whiteskifreak Surrey.
We do update members on our actions and campaigns and will do so shortly. We obviously cannot reveal all our strategies on a public forum.
Answering your points as best we can here, we started a very high profile campaign against Shelter which is ongoing. Unlike the NLA and RLA we took the fight to shelter, meanwhile the RLA were publishing Shelter poetry.
We are far from finished with Shelter but as everyone knows Events have overtaken us with the abolition of Section 21 which is coming and which we forecast, see our website. One must now ask why the Government /councils give money to shelter since their 'raison d'etre' goes with section 21 . They dont house anybody nor will their advise be needed.
We have written to the MOJ and submitted a document re changing the regs re posession. Allowing all certificated enforcement agents to execute posession orders from the courts.
Finally re Section 21, we have no control over government policy, nor do the other organisations, however on that point we will imminently make a statement here
On p118.
I hope that answers your question and believe me, I completely get your frustration with the current state of affairs.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 17/04/2019 - 09:00I certainly agree that S.8 should be beefed up so that wilful damage, theft, etc. be treated as criminal offences. If one hires a vehicle and it is returned without a radio or slashed seats, the treatment for these offences are often taken far more seriously than offences committed by rogue tenants.
S.21 has proven beneficial for some tenants where the landlord has chosen not to issue an S.8 notice. Because a S.21 is a "no fault" eviction, councils and housing trusts accept that the outgoing tenant has not made him/herself intentionally homeless and agree put them on a rehousing programme. This would not be the case if an S.8 notice had been issued.
I suspect that removing S.21 will cause havoc in the education sector where students in HMOs could no longer be legally evicted at the end of an academic year. The students that signed up to occupy a property for the next year could find themselves homeless with the landlord still duty bound to provide suitable accommodation.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 16/04/2019 - 14:12
I consider myself to be a responsible landlord. I have owned properties in the South West for the last 15 or so years. I worked for a small supporting people organisation until 2012 when my employer retired but still kept my houses for private rent. During the period 2012 – 2016 I had what could be called bad tenants. I won’t go into detail but suffice to say I was left with rent debts, rubbish and redecoration, not to mention rats and fleas. Even with the support of my solicitor I was unable to claim any monies back from my tenants – how could I when they had no income! and eventually spent about £2.3k on repairs and lost £1.6k in unpaid rent which was mostly accumulated after I had given Section 21 notices. In one case it took me 3 months to evict the tenant, in others they left voluntarily, but still owing rent. I issued Section 21’s so I could put my properties back in to lettable condition, showers and shower curtains were missing, a kitchen cupboard was taken, carpets ripped up – you name it!

After renovating, redecorating and repairing the properties I approached my local council and was appointed a Housing Officer. Through her I was able to rent my properties and have a bond with the council for one month’s rent. Also the rent they pay or ensure is paid is for more than the rents I had previously asked. I have now had tents this way for the past 2.5 years and so far no problems.
My Housing Officer contacts me from time to time and inspects the properties several times a year.

So far as the proposed new rental regulations go I think if you are a good landlord you do not need to worry, but regrettably there are so many rogues landlords they get us good ones a bad name causing the need for this new legislation.

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 17/04/2019 - 09:59
Re Students: We (LLs who rent to students) shoudl put pressure on the Universities so they can do something about it. We always had a one year agreement (AST for 4 students, as acceptable by a lender) and if the students decided to stay (notifying us about such an intention in February), we will issue a new agreement for next academic year. Will that not be allowed now?

If seems if this removal of Section 21 goes ahead we will be completely at the mercy of the Court judges. We will have to convince a Judge that we have a genuine to reason why we need to sell, in order to seek his approval for a possession order. This will become a discretionary ground. Say a landlord wants to sell up and move overseas. A judge will have in front of him what is perceived as a rich landlord who wants to live in the sun and a poor tenant who is a victim and being made homeless just because of the landlord’s greed. Guess who the judge is going to side with ?
We will have to go armed with pages and pages of documentation to prove anti social behaviour. Council documents and police reports etc, etc. Guess who the judge will probably agree with ?
Arrears proof will have to be extensive and landlord will have to show he/she has been reasonable and helped the tenant etc, etc.
Given the supply of rental housing will reduce, judges will be under massive pressure from the authorities not to issue possession orders.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 17/04/2019 - 11:36
The ground to sell will be mandatory. (At least at first!)
Agree with the rest- basically the shambles it is already.

I've issued & followed up about 7 Section 21's the last 8 years or so.
All for rent arrears & damaging houses.
The last 2 Section 21's with evictions has been purely cause of Nottingham Selective Licensing http://www.selectivelicensingtruth.co.uk & Universal Credit.
The first 4 out of 5 from memory was because of the benefit cap-A change bought in by Government on EXISTING families that ALREADY HAVE the kids.
And the last 2 evictions was PURELY cause of new legislation by Nottingham Council & interference, change of rules from the Government.
So my point is, I we end up evicting not cause we want to, but from bad tenant behaviour & the Govt bringing policies in that make it impossible to stay in their home cause of new Govt Anti-Landlord (Which end up being anti-tenant) policies.
And my other point is, if the Government & authorities KEEP CHANGING the rules, goalposts in their idiotic wisdom thinking they making it better for tenants, they ARE NOT! Come see what's happening on ground level.
And yes, your words:
The cases where the tenant does pay the rent, eventually, but it is always late, refuses to give the landlord access and fails to communicate regularly, leaving the landlord with no choice but to pay the mortgage out of his own pocket until the tenant coughs up?
I have many of them, not yet evicted cause of them reasons, but as one gets older, one cannot bear much more of the late payers & the same ones every year who just won't play ball with the Boiler service man WHO IS TRYING TO SAVE THEIR LIFE!
And Yes Monty, many Landlords when asked by the Council Homeless Dept, Why u evicting, if Landlords says cause of rent arrears, Landlord says No as he knows the Council won't help them. I've said this for many years just cause I need tenant gone & new tenant in to pay mortgage quick.