Government look to throw landlords under the bus with 3 year tenancies

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 04/07/2018 - 10:39
done & forwarded to others to sign

Reply to the comment left by Laura Delow at 11/07/2018 - 07:40
Thanks Laura.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 10/07/2018 - 20:04
Read Ian Narbeth's post again and you will see that this is not what he is suggesting. Ian N mentioned having the EQUIVALENT of an s21 to use when tenant is in arrears (i.e. rather than being reliant on an s8). He also makes other good suggestions.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Cognito at 11/07/2018 - 08:32
Having to wait for 3 months, instead of Two months rent outstanding, is Not a good suggestion in my opinion,

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 11/07/2018 - 08:57
Give me a break, Chris! I said 2 or 3 months. The matter is up for discussion. The point to realise is that landlords are fighting a rearguard action. Simply railing against the unfairness of it all gets us nowhere.

I hope that landlords on this forum can see from a tenant's perspective that it is really tough and disruptive to family life if a landlord can boot you out even though you have paid the rent on time and looked after the property. What causes us grief is tenants who don't pay the rent, don't look after the property and whom it takes 8 to 12 months to evict. I am happy to have tenants stay for 3 years. It means I don't have voids, don't have to pay fees to find a new tenant and don't have the risk that the new tenant will be a wrong'un. Some landlords and agents have behaved appallingly, bumping up the rent at every opportunity, charging spurious fees and not responding to legitimate complaints about the state of the property (or worse, they respond by evicting the tenants). Those tenants make a lot of noise and MPs listen. The legislators then over-react and impose Draconian laws.

We need to push for reasonable things (such as making it easier to get defaulting tenants out quickly). Paradoxically, we should also push for better and consistent enforcement of the rules so that bad landlords are pursued and put out of business promptly.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 11/07/2018 - 09:51
There’s the rub unfortunately. The very thing which prevents landlords getting bad tenants out in under 6 months (but usually much longer) is the thing that both prevents current regulations being enforced and will prevent the improvement of removing nightmare tenants in exchange for longer tenancies for good tenants if new minimums are introduced; lack of funding and manpower in the courts and councils. Sadly that won’t change anytime soon and is only worsening. This type of strategy along with all the others they’ve introduced in recent years is purely for window dressing. It gives voters the impression the gov is working hard for the grassroots voter without it costing them any money out of the budget which is what we all know is required to make a real improvement in tenants lives. Enforcement is key. Target those landlords who are doing wrong under the already significant raft of regulations out there and stop loading up good & compliant landlords with unnecessary work and costs.

Sorry to be all ‘doom and gloom’. I do get what you’re saying. I just wish we could actually RELY on any offer of a speedy eviction for rotten tenants in exchange for our being tied in for 3 years.

I am highly doubtful this will go much further than talks and consultations, but I’ve been wrong quite often recently (Brexit & Trump for example), so who knows what fresh hell the gov will think up for us. Whatever happens I’m going to cling on for grim death. They won’t shake me off unless they decide to compulsorily purchase our BTLs for a pound a piece (sorry, I shouldn’t give them any new ideas) 😧

Does this mean even if the tenant is over 6 months in arrears we will now have a battle if they have signed a 3 year tenancy and are only 18 months in.
This shows why landlords are selling up and moving away from this business.
Tax costs, new tenancy agreements, rent increases, is there nothing this goverment wont do to penalise honest landlords.

john mcghee

Reply to the comment left by john mcghee at 11/07/2018 - 11:52
It would mean you could not serve a s21 notice and be guaranteed to get the tenant out. Landlords use s21 in preference to s8 because it is quicker, even though they can't claim arrears at the same time.
If we are to have minimum 3 year terms (and I am against them on the principle that we should have freedom of contract and the 6 month minimum is bad enough) then either the tenant should also be bound for the full duration or should have only one break right, not a rolling right.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 11/07/2018 - 09:51
Ian,
Sec 21 is NOT used on tenant who pays rent and looks after the property. Its used to get a Rogue tenant out who's slipped past the referencing net, and its only used then because its pretty much the only option open to Landlords. Proving any of the Tenancy agreement defaults against a Discretionary Possession ground 12, is like a chocolate tea-pot.
I just can't share or stomach the view that the govt are offering anything to Landlords in this '3 years if the Tenants wants it, if Not they can leave' - where's the equality / fairness in that ?

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 11/07/2018 - 15:44
I pretty much "cannot share or stomach the view" this so called Conservative Government has about landlords, tenants and housing market in general... Nor that they are FAIR in any aspect of their housing policy (or any other policy)...