Delighted as Revenge Eviction Bill is defeated

Delighted as Revenge Eviction Bill is defeated

10:20 AM, 29th November 2014, About 10 years ago 47

Text Size

The Tenancies Reform Bill presented by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather and aimed at stopping Revenge Evictions, has failed to secure enough votes to pass in Parliament, much to our relief at Landlord Action and other industry organisations.Paul Shamplin of Landlord Action

This is great news for landlords. Whilst I fully agree that tenants need to be protected from the small minority of rogue landlords, there simply wasn’t enough evidence to support the need for more legislation, which would have impacted a large number of good, reliable landlords.

In the 24 years I have been dealing with problem tenants, I have only ever heard of the words Retaliation or Revenge Eviction in the last 18 months. Section 21 gives a landlord an automatic right of possession without having to give any grounds (reason) once the fixed term has expired. Shelter’s figures that 213,000 tenants have been served Section 21 notices as revenge evictions must be guess work because without surveying every landlord, it is hard to understand how they have reached this figure.

A recent survey of landlords that had instructed Landlord Action to serve Section 21 notices revealed that only 2% had served a section 21 because the tenant had asked for repairs. 28% served notice because there were rent arrears and 15% needed the property back so they could sell, 13% needed to move back into the property, 11% wanted to re-let to another tenant to obtain more rent and 8% said the tenant wanted to be evicted so they could be re-housed by the Council.

Passing this Bill would have created a loophole for tenants to remain in properties for longer, lead to further rental arrears problems, stretched the resources of local authorities even further and lead to longer delays at court. Yes, we want to make sure tenants live in a safe and pleasant environment, but preventing the proper use of Section 21 is not the way to do this and would simply tarnish good landlords with a bad name.

We at Landlord Action would like to acknowledge the hard work carried out by RLA in relation to this Bill.

Contact Landlord Action

Specialists in tenant eviction and debt collection. Regulated by The Law Society.


Share This Article


Comments

Alan Loughlin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:42 PM, 17th December 2014, About 10 years ago

anybody who values their property excludes all HB unless really really sure of the person, as with past experience etc, otherwise just say no.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:45 PM, 17th December 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "John Frith" at "17/12/2014 - 16:26":

Hi John

Please see the link below.
.

John Frith

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:54 PM, 17th December 2014, About 10 years ago

Hi Mark,

I wouldn't consider the example you linked to a good example to work with. Firstly it's only a suspected RE, and secondly, the tenant is in arrears. Once a tenant is in arrears, that muddies the water too much.

Rod

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

17:07 PM, 17th December 2014, About 10 years ago

I'm with Mark on this one. Rouge l/lords are few these days, tenants are'nt! After15 years I'm not as keen as I was. Give them a palace they give back a wreck! Recently one tenant fiddled elec' for 18 months and the suppliers weren't that bothered. The place was a tip. Another left owing £2700 elec' bill! Oh' forgot to mention, they didn't pay their rent either! The system is already a mess, no more please.

Monty Bodkin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:36 PM, 17th December 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Ringrose" at "17/12/2014 - 16:37":

If a landlord is taking tenants on housing benefit without asking for much if any deposit and doing no reference checks, then re-letting regardless of the state of the properly often only takes 1 or 2 days!

You've nailed it right there Ian.

Before housing benefit is paid, the most basic of checks should obviously be carried out. It would sort this and a lot of other issues.

But they aren't.

5 minutes checking in the office, 5 minutes at the property.

It doesn't take a qualified solicitor and chartered surveyor. Your average 6th former on work experience with a laptop and a clipboard could do it.

Have you and I stumbled on the solution?

No, unfortunately not.

The housing charity industry, councils and the government already know this very well.

They could not cope with the ensuing chaos and loss of revenue..

Far easier to have a go at all 'evil' landlords (Boo! Hiss!), pretend to solve the problem, water it down so it is toothless and keep the status quo.

Nigel Roberts

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:24 PM, 26th December 2014, About 10 years ago

Jamie - there are two sides to every debate. Your crass characterisations of tenants, and in particular people claiming benefits are not merely offensive, they are plain wrong.

Here's a tale of of someone I know well.

Mr and Mrs X were good tenants.

He had a very good job in the City, paying well into six figures. She was a housewife. Because they were fairly mobile, rented a four bedroom house adjacent to the 'post part of Essex' i.e. just outside Birds of a Feather country.

They were on an assured shorthold tenancy and had been there a couple of years.

Mr X died of a heart attack on the Tube.

The next thing I hear (within a week or so of his death) is that their landlord has served her with a Section 21 Notice to Quit.

The reason? Because upon his death, she applied for Widow's Benefit and according to the agent 'the Landlord has a strict 'no-DSS' policy'.

Legal? Yes.
Morally questionable? In the extreme!

There were certainly enough liquid funds for her to continue living there in the short and even medium term. And she would have, in the normal course of things have downsized soon enough.

But here we see landlords (and this was an individual, not a faceless corporation) who, uncaring, unfeeling, and frankly, counterproductive to their own interests in a switchover with no void month, caused a newly bereaved person considerable extra distress by making her homeless, at the exact time she needed comfort and security.

I hope you wouldn't do the same, in the similar circumstnaces, but from the tone of your writing I am not certain you wouldn't.

And as a landlord myself, I wouldn't dream of doing this. If I wanted to gain possession, I'd first of all discuss things with the tenant. I'd have send a condolence card, not a Notice to Quit!

Rod

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:38 PM, 26th December 2014, About 10 years ago

I've been at it 15 years and take as I find
All the tenants iVe had on benefits have been trouble bar one! Landlords don't evict without good reason and if there are problems we should be able to kick em out as its our property ! The last lot cost me 1000s, fiddled the elec and left the place a -----hole. What really hurts, we worked hard for it and they get away with it all. All this for £95pw! Sorry to be so blunt but if they stole from a bank they'd be jailed so why not here? " And thro away the key" !

1 2 3 4 5

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More