Email to Karen Buck MP re S21 Debate

Just musing on whether two separate sets of legislation are actually necessary. If S8 was amended to include selling, moving back in, abandonment etc, would a separate S21 be necessary?
I'm also thinking that using S21 for arrears, damage or ASB, which is widespread, allows the tenant who IS at fault to walk away with no blot on their copybook. If landlords are forced, due to restrictions on a 'new' S21, to use S8, those tenants will end up with an adverse court ruling and/or a CCJ, with all the attendant effects on their ability to secure another tenancy or credit.

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 18/11/2018 - 11:21
I used 21,for non payment as instructed by the solicitor,,got a CCJ but the tenant still got another place to rent.

Reply to the comment left by AJ at 18/11/2018 - 11:25
Another PRS tenancy? Just goes to show that there needs to be a bad tenants database along the bad landlords one. It won't happen, because then the SRS would have to house ALL the bad tenants!

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 18/11/2018 - 11:21
Annie,

Have you ever tried evicting a tenant for ASB using the 'correct' ground? (section 8 ground 14)? It is worse than useless.

Before posting your further musings, have a search and read up on the huge problems faced by social landlords trying to evict ASB tenants. Bear in mind social landlords have huge legal and financial resources compared to the average private landlord.
(For anyone that doesn't know, social landlords normally can't use the section 21 'no fault' process)

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 18/11/2018 - 11:21
The BIG difference, for me at least, is the jurisdiction of the Judge...or rather lack thereof (provided the paperwork/process/P.I. has been followed correctly) - the best the tenant will get is 42 days and even then only in exceptional circumstances. If you had a PITA tenant who had pets against the agreement, was smoking in the property, not keeping the garden and causing neighbour disputes then the Judge is unlikely to grant Possession. They'd say that pets and smoking, whilst they may indeed be against the terms of the agreement, are perfectly normal day-to-day activities and in themselves do not warrant eviction. The garden is subjective and logistically a simply and immediately remedied (if the tenant actually bothers to do it) and without a body of supporting evidence, preferably from other authoritative bodies, will not get very far. Add inconsistent rent payments to this and provided the tenant shows willing (by paying a paltry £5/mo toward their arrears), then you're unlikely to leave with a 'win' either.

THIS, is precisely why most LLs forego the monetary loss recovery and get the (almost) guaranteed return of their property under S.21. We are not social workers, nor are we loan companies or a charity. If one customer doesn't pay, you have to stem the flow of the supply of the product and/or replace them with a customer that will pay. It is the same in all businesses...except when you don't settle your account with, say, a builders' merchants, you will be put on stop. Shame we can't do the same with tenants who don't pay their rent on time! People will always prioritise in the order of most hassle first. They know there is little their LL can do in the immediate term, which is why Xmas is always on me and why they will beg/steal/borrow to top up the gas or electricity key (because if you don't, you gets no power).

I've mentioned it before, but is there anything to stop us taking a swipe of a credit card (perhaps from a guarantor), just as a hotel would, for instant redress?

When I finally got rid of my tenant I added their details on this site. http://www.landlordreferencing.co.uk/lifestyle-tenant-referencing/

I don’t know if it does any good, or anyone looks at this site, but I didn’t want anyone else to suffer

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 18/11/2018 - 12:09
Couldn't agree more Luke! Judges may well 'judge' no smoking clauses etc in the AST to be unfair conditions. I don't take tenants without a guarantor (not that I've had a change of tenant for years). The reason I was able to evict a tenant one time was because the guarantor, having realised the risk to himself if I went to court, stepped in to negotiate with the tenant to ensure they left the property on the appointed day. The idea of swiping their credit card is an interesting one, but I don't honestly think will fly:)
Now if England cares to go down the Scottish route of providing a model tenancy agreement, but which included the requirement for all tenants to have a guarantor, that would be a move in the right direction!

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 18/11/2018 - 12:02
Yes I know Monty. My musing was whether COMBINING S21 with S8 into a single document has any merit. Is your point that landlords should be allowed to continue to evict tenants without stating a reason? Or that we should be able to continue to evict without going through a court process?

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 18/11/2018 - 14:09
Is your point that landlords should be allowed to continue to evict tenants without stating a reason?

Landlords should be able to gain possession at the end of an agreed fixed term.
Pre section 21, the UK rental market was dire.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Or that we should be able to continue to evict without going through a court process?

Landlords cannot currently evict without going through a court process.

It's my understanding that the introduction of Section 21 as a means by which property owners could regain possession of their property in theory easily (but in reality taking far longer than the two months' notice period) is what led to people being willing to take the risk and invest in rented housing. This facilitated the creation of around 2.5 million new homes in the UK for rental. One can only imagine how worse the housing shortage and homelessness levels would be had this not taken place.
Landlords have mostly now downed tools however and very few will create new housing for rental now. This is the exact opposite of what is needed - we need people who are willing to fund the early stages of new-builds and engage in converting commercial premises to residential to be incentivised not vigorously discouraged. Making it harder for landlords to regain possession of their properties will obviously and logically mean that fewer will take the risks of trusting strangers to rent those properties from them. The alleged aim of protecting tenants' rights will have the effect of contracting the market and making it even harder for tenants to find homes. Ditto regarding minimum 3-year tenancies.

I will send my comment to Karen Buck now.