The End of Section 21 – YOUR questions answered in this lunchtime webinar

What effect will this have on the student market, where students are on one year contracts and new student contracts are agreed in advance of the existing students. Is it possible that students could get awkward and refuse to move at the end of their tenancy and then we are in breach of contract to the incoming ones. Could be awkward to manage. Any advice please.

I won't be able to attend, but I would inject this as a discussion point:
Abolishing S.21 is a major trip hazard that will allow students to continue their AST agreement(s) on a statutory periodic basis if they so chose. In the meantime, the next set of students that signed up to legally occupy the property can no longer do so. I believe the landlord is still responsible to honour the newer AST agreement and must find suitable accommodation for these displaced students. It is a situation that puts the potential incoming students, letting agents and the landlord in deep trouble. The Universities themselves could also get dragged in.

It is clear that S.8 needs to be strengthened and the hearing process speeded up. I suggest that if claims were handled by a dedicated housing court or tribunal service in the first instance where claims are only referred up to the county court if it felt it could not make a safe decision or if there were criminal issues (such as theft, fraud, damage, threats, etc.).

If it possible to evict a tenant using S.8 for 'un-tenant like behaviour', it should be possible to include a reasonable amplification to the currently accepted meaning of 'un-tenant like behaviour' in the AST agreement which the court will need to take notice of. Examples could include refusing permission to enter the property to inspect for gas safety, electrical safety, damp, legionnaires, fire alarm certification, emergency lighting certification, essential maintenance, failure to communicate, condition of the property including cleanliness, damage and so on.

As a student landlord I think that you will find that students could have refused to move out at the end of their fixed term before any of this section 21 removal was proposed. It seems that most of the time they have never exercised that right, after all , all AST agreements move to periodic terms after the fixed term has expired.
The point now is that should a landlord or agent actually sign an AST on a property that is currently let to students and risk the consequences.

Reply to the comment left by at 24/04/2019 - 14:01If students do choose to stay on and with S.21 removed, we have no legal sanction to remove them! This is an enormous trip hazard.
The law makers need to be aware.

Scrapping the S.21 "no fault" eviction will force landlords to use S.8 instead where "blame" is attached to the potential evictee. Many councils automatically regard such evictees as having made themselves 'intentionally homeless' absolving council of any responsibility to re-house the evictee.
The use of S.21 evictions allows marginal tenants or tenants whose circumstances have changed (e.g. mental status, infirmity, new infants, departing children, spousal changes, etc.) and are not longer a correct match to the property they occupy to be evicted on a "no fault" basis. Such evictees are then able to qualify, if appropriate, to enter into a re-housing programme.
It is a myth that evictions add to overall level of homelessness. Only and increase in available housing or a decrease in population numbers can lower homelessness.

Just seen the article about the webinar and have tried to register.
The message says that the webinar is full. Is it going to be recorded and put on the website for viewing or are there plans to run another session

Me too...it's full...wil l it be recorded please ?

Tessa will be putting a link to the video up later this afternoon or tomorrow morning and I will add it here.