Ben Beadle claims Renters’ Rights Bill’s Section 21 Ban is “not a big change”

Reply to the comment left by Jack Jennings at 11/09/2024 - 21:48
I agree. Why is the Government moving to periodic contracts. The existing arrangements of 6 or 12 months in the first year gives landlords peace of mind that they have security of tenure for a year which will save costs.

This is a step too far, we are selling our property as soon as we can before the new law comes in.

I've just come back from a S8 court hearing. The tenant paid off 6 months of arrears just as I was getting in the car to attend. Consequently I didn't get the possession order on the mandatory 2 months arrears grounds. The judge refused to grant the possession order on the discretionary grounds of persistent arrears and late payments even though the tenant has only been out of arrears twenty times in the last 10 years that my records go back!

If that doesn't count as persistent I have no idea why this ground exists in the Section 8 legislation.

The legislation that replaces section 21 MUST be updated to give judges clear direction on when to find in favour of landlords when the case disserves.

It is my experience that not only is the law, but also judges that are biased in favour of tenants and against landlords. This is not a fair system.

Reply to the comment left by Steve Masters at 12/09/2024 - 17:02
Well , it’s a joke
I’m in Wales and there was a time you could give notice for them to vacate but looks likes that after 12 months
The worse thing they did in Wales was pay the rent to the tenants as in my other buy to let years ago it was paid directly to the landlords
That’s what should be in place now from benefit applicants and if they don’t have the money the council should re house them !!! But where ????
Your tenant was clever paying it , they know and play the system , it’s sad

Hi,

Yeah, it's a crap system, if this happens, then you should be able to claim your time and costs from the delinquent tenant, it then may make them responsible for their actions, like bringing up children, except that the Govt needs to learn this first, it seems that children have more sense than the govt though.

Reply to the comment left by Wendy O’Connor at 12/09/2024 - 17:27
Exactly, T has been playing me and playing the system for 10 years.

What's to stop them from continuing to mess me around and only pay the rent twice a year when it gets to court.

Mr Beadle, please take note, the system needs to change to be fair to both sides.

Until then, RRB and the withdrawal of Section 21 IS a big deal.

Reply to the comment left by Steve Masters at 12/09/2024 - 17:02
I concur with your experience of the courts, there is no justice anymore. Just social justice has replaced it.

Is Mr Beadle the Chairman of the Tenants' Association? I would be surprised if he reflects the majority view of the landlord. Perhaps it's time to appoint a Chairman who genuinely represents the interests of landlords in the PSR.

I recently read a news article about how abusers use financial coercive control to prevent a partner from leaving a relationship, and it got me thinking about how these punitive new RRB regulations and potential increase in CGT is going to effectively trap reluctant landlords in what is fast becoming, if not for many already, a toxic relationship. At what point does the financial coercive control of landlords by the government, whereby we are no longer free to take back our own possessions and leave the PRS relationship without financial penalty and a tremendous negative effect on our mental health, become a human rights issue?

I disagree that S21 is not a big change.

I have long argued that right of tenure for tenants would be advantageous to both parties.

Germany is a good model here and demonstrates that tenants with greater security of tenure make improvements to the properties at their own cost.

But renting in Germany is a classless norm.

Tenants do not aspire to be owners at the first opportunity, as a rule.

So the wealth demographic of tenants is very different.

Currently Landlords generally do not issue S21 unless there is a problem tenant, normally anti social behaviour or rent arrears.

But there is an invisible trump card held by landlords called S21 that effectively manages tenant behaviour.

Feelings drive behaviour and the behaviour that S21 achieves is tenant compliance due to the fear of S21.

That will change.

Current “good tenants” will have the upper hand. They will have the confidence to do things that the landlord would not permit because the fear of S21 is removed.

Landlords will feel loss of control and loss of ownership of their assets.

Feelings drive behaviour and landlords will sell.

When a tenant does something that would cause the landlord to want to evict, the only recourse available to the landlord is to sell the property.

Selling will no longer be exceptional, it will become the rule.

2024 - Bad tenant = S21 and business as usual

2025 - Bad tenant = sell the property - no other option open to landlord.

The great sell off will continue long beyond the introduction of this RRB

Ben Beadle needs to go.

Since the merger between the NLA and the RLA all we have got now is one organisation that rolls over far to easily to government.

I'm not saying he can change things, but he could at least stand up for landlords and reflect his members views.
He thinks he knows best, well his strategy has worked wonders hasn't it!

Go, go now!