Concern over ‘Mandatory’ Grounds For Possession?

I can see the courts having a huge backlog if this legislation comes in.
At the moment a S21 tells the tenant that the property is wanted back and the vast majority of tenants know it's mandatory and don't risk going to court, they simply look for somewhere else.
New legislation will mean uncertainty, the media hype will say things like "lifetime tenancies", "tenants rights", "pets allowed", and tenants will all simply expect to never be asked to leave, so every case will go to court.
It's already happening with tenants saying "you can't deny me a pet- I've seen the news"

Reply to the comment left by Chris Bradley at 11/07/2022 - 07:07
It's like the much-used excuse during lockdown... 'you can get a mortgage holiday, so I don't need to pay!'

Very well spotted. This is a deliberate omission it’s unbelievable that this is a simple mistake. After all new legislation is currently being passed in Scotland whereby the Court will decide whether or not you can sell your property. So why not England ?

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 11/07/2022 - 16:17
Cue the first cases in Scotland that decide a ‘down-on-his-luck’ no-dependents male landlord is less of a priority than the single-mum of three that’s occupying his property (and perhaps only asset).

Worse still, the owning of the property could preclude the LL from benefits himself if it were necessary, because he ‘owns an asset’ (that he cannot make use of)…!

Complete madness.

This is a white paper. A lot can change during the drafting and passage into legislation of the actual bill.

I think that they have done that simply because they are still to assess what amounts to an 'intention to sell'. Does it need to be at arms length; at market value; whats the notice period; when does the tenant have to leave (has to be before exchange of contracts really so its so open to abuse).

I have been saying from the start that i think in practice most landlords wont really be affected by these amendments because of these 'justifications for eviction' and I stand by that. The Govt have to allow for eviction for intended sale because the impact could be serious eg some people may have the house as their pension pot, some may want to sell to pay off their interest only mortgage at the end of the mortgage term...refusing to allow evictions for sale leaves landlords in a position whereby they are stuck with the property if no one is interested in BTL's.

There is no doubt that this Govt have made, in my view, a few dubious decisions but they wont do this.

I wouldn't worry at this stage. Whatever measures they try and put in place to ensure the landlord does really intend to sell will likely be so open to abuse that they will be pointless. It will all be simply about the time.

I appreciate that people may disagree but I hope that this gives you some reassured. Best, Charles

Reply to the comment left by CMS at 17/07/2022 - 05:40
I think you’re vey naive just look at what the legislators are doing in Scotland, the Court will decide whether you have good enough reason or not to sell your property.

Reply to the comment left by CMS at 17/07/2022 - 05:40
They don’t have to do anything. Indeed, in Scotland, *all* cases of eviction, regardless of reason (a need for the LL to live there themselves included) will be have a Hearing is going through. Young single mother’s needs deemed greater than middle-aged, dependent-less LLs??…No Possession granted!

Dylan is correct in his assessment of your naïveté is accurate.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 17/07/2022 - 08:57
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Have you looked into what the landlord actually has to prove in order to obtain the eviction? My understanding is that all that is needed is for the landlord to prove an intention to sell which includes (a) appoint a solicitor; (b) estate agent or professional to list property.

Apparently it is incredibly difficult for tenants to argue against Ground 1 (sale in Scotland) this is also evidenced by the Generation Rent research albeit it was a small number of matters, that had 1/3 of the landlords, who used ground 1 to evict the tenant, still selling the property a year later!

In fact, it is that simple that tenant's can bring a wrongful termination claim if the landlord has lied because they dont have to provide substantial evidence. Furthermore, i think it was s21 was abolished in Scotland in 2017(??) and when do you think the first Wrongful termination claim was made and upheld? 4 years later.

You may take a different view but I can assure you my view is based upon research not naivety.

Regards, Charles

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/07/2022 - 11:20
I disagree but its all down to opinions. What i would say though is that i have now provided you with third party evidence backing my view as opposed to yours. If you think its incorrect I am more than happy to listen to any actual evidence supporting your opinions.

I will admit I am not overly enamoured with being referred to as 'naïve' but I am happy to consider an alternative view if one of you does wish to back up your comments. If it would help you both understand where I am coming from did you want me to send you the links to the articles and surveys that I am basing my opinion on?

I look forward to being enlightened in due course.

Charles