Landlord criticises policies for pushing tenants into homelessness

‘Government data’ should recognise that unfair taxation and over-population are the leading causes of homelessness.
Blaming Section 21 simply tries to lay the blame at the landlords’ feet.
When a tenant is evicted via Section 21 (or Section 8), the property doesn’t disappear. It may change from being occupied by a tenant to being occupied by a homeowner. The eviction has little, if any, impact on homelessness.
Homelessness is caused by massive, unchecked net migration.
You have to admire the asylum seekers. They’ve certainly found it.

As in my case, when a property becomes vacant I only take applications from those that can evidence they can pay their own rent now.
I no longer take benefit tenants at all. Easier and less stress not to. If the government is willing to pay for accommodation for them, they can provide it for them too.
Looking ahead, evictions are going to become even more difficult, so I'm only going to be taking on tenants where, if this were to happen, they have skin in the game and where a difficult and costly eviction could really stuff them up going forward.
Time tenants realised the real implications of renting and what is it like to be held to account for the decisions you make in life and the contractual agreements you sign.
The wake up call is long overdue.

Good though Labour’s “hardship” test will sort all this out.

If this ever comes in at the level it is being suggested/threatened/mooted, then overnight no one will take a single person who in any way claims any rent contribution from the government.
There is an argument to state that any tenant that has their rent paid for them by the state is already in a level of 'hardship' before any AST is even signed as they are reliant on state help. On this basis there is there just cause not to be able to offer an AST from the outset therefore?
Many social housing providers also sign anti-homelessness pledges and are able to directly request councils make regular DHPs (discretionary housing payments) to keep the person housed if needed to stop them being evicted. The PRS have no such obligation nor such access as the contract between LL and T is a private one.
At a court hearing, it is only possible to speculate on what the outcome of a possession COULD be. It would be speculation only.
A homelessness application for example cannot be made until AFTER a possession order is given AND bailiffs sent out. A date could never be given as to when this WOULD happen before or during a possession hearing, as that is an administrative task carried out by court staff AFTER possession is granted.
What defines 'hardship' and at what point is this applied?
You can't have a mandatory ground with a 'but if...' add on thrown in, as that means it is not a mandatory ground.
How could the test be applied at the possession hearing/trial? Would it be considered as a standalone 'test', in addition to or in place of reasonableness where it is not a mandatory ground?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 14/08/2024 - 10:03
That's good way of saying it
they have skin in the game and where a difficult and costly eviction could really stuff them up going forward.
As well know we ain't taking anyone slightly risky any more-The low earners tenants are REALLY losing out.

It's a recipe for disaster in Nottingham, Selective Licensing & UC.

The council’s head of housing, Mark Lowe, NOT RANG ME ONCE. I'm Nottingham's biggest private provider to Benefit tenants over 27 years. Not one phone call.

The new Chief Exec of Nottingham Council said she needs to change the Organisation.
Nottingham Council are completely toxic from the top which spreads down to the good innocent people at the bottom who did have common sense before they joined the Council.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 14/08/2024 - 09:24Spot on! The claim that "Section 21 is the cause of homelessness" is a false one. Yes, people who become homeless may well have received a s21 notice. That does not mean that the notice caused the homelessness. The claim is an example of the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. "After this, therefore because of this." It is like saying that redundancy notices are the cause of unemployment. If Governments stopped employers making anyone redundant, does anyone seriously think that will cure unemployment?
Homelessness is caused by a shortage of houses at affordable rents in the right area. Build more houses and take care that landlords don't reduce the existing housing stock.

Tenants biggest enemy, isn't those that provide Housing for them ( as 85% of tenants say in the EHS ) its the politicians who drive those Housing providers out of the market, and consequently push up Rents.
Tenants, - 'Catch yourself on'

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 14/08/2024 - 12:38
I'm not sure if you understand where the hardship test is coming from. Mathew Pennycook has not only said that tenants can't be evicted for 2 years from the start of a new tenancy, but he is now proposing that a tenant can't be evicted if it would put them in greater "hardship" than the landlord. So unless the LL is about to get their property repossessed by their mortgage company, a tenant about to be evicted via a court order, will always be considered as being in a greater state of hardship than their landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Mike Thomas at 14/08/2024 - 22:18
And that is the only reason I need to sell up.
I don't need the agro of pleading to have MY property back . It is the way the UK is going...to the dogs ....and I'm not waiting around.

Reply to the comment left by Mike Thomas at 14/08/2024 - 22:18
This is how they will confiscate the property of hard working people who have taken on lots of financial risk and given tenants flexibility and choices about where they want to live.

Tenant flexibility and choice will disappear if they bring back these draconian laws.

This is what we might expect if we lived in North Korea!