Angela Rayner: Labour will deliver rental reform and abolish Section 21

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 09/10/2023 - 15:58
Section 21 is abused by landlords. They use it instead of Section 8 because the court system is inadequate. The answer is to improve the court system.

I think that if a landlord wants to sell, they should sell to another landlord. The tax system could help to encourage this. If the system was improved, there would be a queue of new landlords looking to buy.

A landlord (in my opinion) should only be able to regain possession if the terms of the tenancy have been broken. The exception being where prior notice was served advising that the landlord would require possession on a given date. Even where a lender repossesses a property, it should, in the first instance, be sold to another landlord.

It is how I would wish to be treated.

Again, put yourself in the tenants’ shoes. Eviction should be a punishment for those that are guilty. The PRS should offer security of tenure to those that fund it (that is, the tenants).

The government makes a lot of money from the PRS. The 3% SDLT surcharge, tax on turnover rather than profit, VAT on made-up necessities, income tax from suppliers, tradesmen, the legal teams, agents etc.. It should be possible for government to sweeten the del to allow landlords to sell to the next generation of landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Teessider at 09/10/2023 - 19:20
What a load of nonsense.

"Section 21 is abused by landlords" - no it is "used" by Landlords because it is a perfectly legal route to go down and based on the failings of Section 8 it is the most practical way to be assured of gaining possession.

" The PRS should offer security of tenure" - it does offer security of tenure in accordance with the rental contract as drawn up. If you expect Landlords to be committed to for life to renting to any one particular tenant or family then you're totally stark raving mad! No better way to kill the PRS stone dead.

What you need to get your head around is that the PRS is a business. A simple contract entered into between two parties for mutual benefit with various rights and responsibilities for both parties; and that contract can be ended by either party when they feel it is no longer beneficial to them; you propose that the Landlord no longer have that option but tenants should be free to start and end tenancy agreements as they please.

What you describe already exists it is social housing/Council Housing and therein is the nub of the issue - social housing provision has been under-provided for probably the last 50 years or more and government after government has refused to re-build that sector .... so now you propose that each private Landlord does it him/herself? What a load of cobblers. They are running a business not a welfare state.

Re’ the speech - ‘same horse different jockey. There are more tenants than landlords therefore chase after tenants votes - simple!

Reply to the comment left by Teessider at 09/10/2023 - 19:20
For a business to function there needs to be certainty.
Removing section 21 means it is no longer a business.
Why should we borrow money to buy the property, spend thousands renovating it then with the costs of compliance, licensing fees, maintenance costs and other costs to then hand the keys to a tenant and they can stay there for the rest of their life.
The only prospect of having the property back would be a prolonged court battle and more costs.
Having a sitting tenant and very little prospect of their removal the sale value drops, just like they did in the seventies and eighties until Mrs Thatcher freed up the market for everyone especially tenants and introduced section 21.
I agree that we should treat people fairly but why do you think that Landlords should be treated unfairly?

Once again politicians seem to believe that we can provide ' affordable ' accomodation of a very high standard. Sorry but high standards cannot be provided at LHA rates .

Just yesterday an Essex housing association has put itself up for sale. If a housing association has thrown-in-the-towel surely someone must start to get the message that they may be causing the crisis?

Reply to the comment left by Teessider at 09/10/2023 - 13:54
2 months is the minimum. There is nothing to say that landlords can only give 2 months. I have recently given a tenant 14 months notice. She will be served a formal Section 21 in 8 months time giving her another 6 months, as a notice is only valid for 6 months.
She is perfectly free to vacate the property at any time during those 14 months. She has been perfectly free to vacate at any time of her own choosing. In fact she previously vacated another property of mine without even giving 24 hours notice, after she had a fall out with her neighbour, and I didn't charge her a single days rent from the moment she moved out.
Many, many landlords are sympathetic to the difficulties tenants face. But being a landlord is a commercial venture, and if the sums do not add up then many landlords will sell up. Tax changes, mortgage changes and regulatory changes are what is driving the need for landlords to sell up. It isn't some nasty cold hearted power trip that the media and some politicians would have you think.

Ofter in cramped accomodation, so what do Labour propose for social housing, build large 3 bedroomed semi detatched ? - more likely low rise flats

I like to be fair to tenants. I am selling up and I have told them that. I have also told them that provided they pay the rent then I wont issue an S21 and they can stay as long as they like. The only tenants I have evicted were scumbags, two tenants trashed the property and others were months in arrears. Out of my remaining 6 properties, 2 are EPC C, 2 EPC D and 2 EPC E (yup E for Electric). The only reason I would S21 is if the cost of upgrading the EPC rating was prohibitive and tenants could claim back rent . In fact the rent they could claim back would be more than the savings the upgrading of EPC would save them.