Government has ‘spooked’ landlords over the Renters (Reform) Bill

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 20/09/2023 - 12:50
Exactly.
It was a daft suggestion from someone clearly anti landlord who hasn't thought through the consequences.

So have I misunderstood the previous post on this thread by Reluctant Landlord that said:

"wheres the 'reasonable and proportionate' angle on this exactly?

2 years notice by a LL to sell? Are you serious?"

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/09/2023 - 13:26
Yes, it originated in a post from Teessider about what he might think reasonable. You will have to follow the links back if you can be bothered to do so.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 20/09/2023 - 12:36
It includes that there was defect in the landlord's notice seeking possession. At present if that happens and the case gets to court the landlord will lose.

What section 11 says is that if the tenant surrenders rather than go to court, the local housing authority can impose a financial penalty on the landlord if it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the notice was defective.

That will make it riskier for landlords to accept a surrender without an order for possession. Even if a tenant, realising his case is hopeless, agrees to go, the landlord will remain at risk if there was an error in his paperwork. This would apply even if the landlord agreed to waive some arrears. The tenant can always say: "I would not have left if I hadn't thought the claim would succeed."

In other areas of commerce if litigating parties settle a dispute and it later turns out the claimant had made a mistake in his claim form, he isn't fined up to £5000.

The Act will not make it easier to evict defaulting tenants. Landlords, especially those who try to evict without paying for professional advice, will be at risk of financial penalties in circumstances where the tenant has defaulted. Moreover, the Act further complicates an already complicated system which is to the detriment of the involuntary creditor, the landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2023 - 13:47
So if this is correct, and what you say seems reasonable:

"Even if a tenant, realising his case is hopeless, agrees to go, the landlord will remain at risk if there was an error in his paperwork."

Then this would make renting a property very high risk for the majority of landlords renting out other than through an agent who really knew the process of eviction well.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2023 - 13:47
Yes, I agree with all that up to a point but the defect in the notice would have to relate to one or more of the matters specified in Clause 10, which seem to be designed to prevent the landlord taking advantage of the tenant's ignorance.

There is nothing I can see that would prevent the landlord offering a financial incentive for the tenant to surrender the tenancy, as long as he has not served proceedings that would fail if tested in Court because they are fundamentally flawed.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 20/09/2023 - 14:11
But the key is "as long as he has not served proceedings etc". The tenant might offer to go without a fight if arrears are written off only after receiving a claim.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2023 - 14:15
Yes, that could happen. As you said before, landlords will be exposed to penalties if they get it wrong, although the chances of the LA becoming aware and having the time and energy to prove the offence to the required standard may be somewhat remote.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/09/2023 - 13:26
Yes, I’m serious.

I have been a landlord for half of my adult life and I believe tenants should not be evicted just because the landlord wants to sell.

Landlords should be encouraged to sell to tenants or other landlords. Two years notice would be some encouragement.

Reply to the comment left by George Pearson at 20/09/2023 - 15:24
I think you are the only one in step on this.