Ben Beadle supports abolition of Section 21 but calls for urgent court reforms

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 22/10/2024 - 16:57
It's exactly like all these other pop up businesses making money from the landlord, who is incidentally the only person taking any risk. Its not in the interest of NRLA for there to be a hassle free rental sector.

How many Landlords are there in the Country, and how many are mebers of the NRLA?
Beadle has the emphasis all wrong. It should be the other way round. No change until the courts are reformed and in action (and the revisions made to Section 8 are found acceptable by a majority of Landlords !).
When you have a bad tenant, the time taken to evict is of the essence, and can be the difference for some between going under or stayng in business.
And how many lost housing months are there a year due to the time taken to make good after evicting a bad tenant who is eithe not paying rent, damaging the property or both? This is an unnecessay rolling loss of housing stock
Most landlords are against the change until the courts have been brought up to speed, preferably with a separate Landlord & Tenant court. Even then, we want an explict statement that the govenment and courts accept that the owneship of the property remains with the owner, and is not for them to dispose. Even if Section 21 is replaced by a subclause to Section 8 that the owner has the right to evict on 1 years' Notice, provided that the rent continues to be paid and no aggravating behaviour or damage occurs.
And why are fixed tenancies no longer allowed, if both adult parties agree?
The current cohort of Landlords were induced to invest in providing houses of others under ASTs on the explicit understanding that they were the absolute owners of their property, and have the ultimate recourse to recover their property within a reasonable period of time (Section 21). This was a crucial factor in my decision to change from being a tenant to being a Landlord.
Under Section 21, the courts have no option but to grant the eviction order if all required procedues have been followed. But they do try.
I suggest all of you his disagree with Beadle wite to your MP, (& perhaps the losing Labour candidate) and your Local Councillors to advise them that Beadle does not represent you on this matter.
NRLA may well povide useful help in navigating the current legislation, but they are no help in mounting a strong defence of our rights as property owners.

Reply to the comment left by JohnSnow at 22/10/2024 - 17:57
Greater than 40k.

But don't worry the tenant came to pick up his mail in a brand new car.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 22/10/2024 - 15:04
Beadle is an extremely ineffective man. No, we do not support the abolition of S21, so don't make that position clear on anyone's part but your own.

The NRLA should be ashamed of themselves. Every blow to landlords is just sucked up, year after year. Its a disgrace. Sack them and get some proper landlord voices at the table.

Reply to the comment left by Lordship at 22/10/2024 - 16:57
I am. Their fees have just gone up by almost 25% . Should I just not renew or is there a better body to become part of?

Reply to the comment left by Colette McDermott at 22/10/2024 - 21:38
Wrong, Beadle is a very effective man, his job wasn't to be a thorn in government's side but rather to disenfranchise private landlords from any representation at scale.

Reply to the comment left by Niwdog at 22/10/2024 - 19:41Niwdog, it won't. I own HMOs and this is a real problem. I wrote about anti-social behaviour when the Tories introduced the Renters Reform Bill.
The Renters Rights Bill doesn't even include the piffling change to behaviour "capable of" causing nuisance or annoyance so the job is even harder.
The likelihood of a tenant in an HMO giving evidence against a housemate is close to zero. Expecting that tenant to live under the same roof as the tenant who is making their life a misery for any length of time until the case gets to court is zero. If they can give 2 months notice to leave, they will. The bully must have his day in court to protect his right to live in a property and the bully's victim can just lump and leave if they don't like it.
Help the vicious, hurt the victim is Government policy.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 22/10/2024 - 16:33
Of course we could do what a lot of our foreign friends do (allegedly) and simply put themselves on the Council Tax (pretending to live there) and let people live in their properties for cash as "lodgers" with the personal understanding between parties of a 2 months notice period to end 'lodging'. I would imagine more and more people doing this as a way to circumvent almost every attack introduced by Gov. Cash in hand with no tax to pay! And even if declared the first £7,500 pa of income from a lodger is exempt from tax.

How can someone from NRLA purported to on the side of Landlords possibly condone the Abolition of Sec 21?
Sec 8's are useless and Sec 21's are about the only thing have left to get our properties back.
A LA will tell any Tenant to stay in a property until the bailiffs throw them out. However, at least with a Sec 21 the LA has to do something.

Reply to the comment left by Godfrey Jones at 23/10/2024 - 12:48
If you mean £7,500 tax free under the rent-a-room scheme £7,500 PA is only automatically tax free if your total earnings are under £7,500; if total income is more than £7,500 you have to register.

But otherwise, yes if all of the income above £7,500 is undeclared cash then somebody would probably be able to abuse the system by paying up to £7,500 rent into a bank account and taking everything else as cash. I have once had a tenant who I discovered had done something similar. Claimed housing benefit, paid me my rent, claimed other benefits and did other 'moonlighting' jobs for cash.