Landlord Tory MPs set to rebel against ‘no-fault’ eviction ban

Not only is it 'unConservative', it is also 'unLabour'.
The obvious consequence of scrapping section 21 will hit the poorest hardest.

It is what we have all been saying for some time....

I am a landlord, so I do declare an interest.
But I have got an in-depth knowledge of how the market functions.
Not only is this very bad for landlords, as exemplified by how much landlords are leaving the market in their droves – for this very reason it’s also a terrible deal for tenants.

Listen, we all want landlords to rent properties that have a minimum standard. This is easy to license and enforce. Landlords should pay for this in return for being able to rent out their property.

We all want security of tenure for Renters on the proviso they pay a rent that is fair to both the tenant and landlord.

What is not acceptable is backdoor legislation that transfers the government's social housing onto private landlords. We know social housing tenants, for good or bad, have financial problems, and an unacceptable percentage do not pay the Council their rent. The Councils fully admit it is almost impossible to enforce payment from tenants if they don't have the money or leave. We also know that socially housed tenants do cause more anti-social behaviour that the present proposed look law has inadequately tried to persuade landlords it will be dealt with. How can it be done if the Courts are not set up to deal with the problem quickly and fairly?

Another issue is the Councils are underfunded in the provision of new social housing. At least 100,000 new units are required annually. London has attempted, but with only 10,000 proposed, it is a drop in the ocean. A 20-year cross-party programme of building eco-efficient units is required.

Finally, no matter what pressure is borne on the government by various charities to put increased responsibilities on landlords - the result will be an ever-rising sell-off of private rental properties until a proper, acceptable and sensible balance has been reached. The bottom line is landlords can and will sell their portfolios and invest in more lucrative investments. To be frank, even a bank pays a higher rate of return than the average landlord.

The selling off of council housing was a monumental mistake but can be rectified by building new properties on a 20-year programme. Also, low-income earners could be given preferential interest rates on buying their energy-efficient units.

Reply to the comment left by Mr Blueberry at 23/10/2023 - 12:23
I agree with most of what you say but if you are saying that you want tenants to have indefinite security of tenure if they behave, pay their rent etc then I would disagree with you.
This is a dangerous path and it was disasterous in the seventies and eighties for Landlords who watched the value of their properties plummet.
I experienced this with two identical flats we owned. We sold the vacant property for £47,000 in 1984 but the downstairs identical property (which also had a garden which the other floor did not have) was occupied by a sitting tenant and was valued at between £23,000 and £28,000 by various agents at the time.
Section 21 transformed the rental market when it was introduced.

The (Renters (Reform)) Bill is more anti-tenant than anti-landlord.
Good landlords and good tenants have little to be concerned about. Good tenants should be protected from unfair landlords seeking to evict for no reason. The Bill plans to introduce a new ground under Section 8 for landlords wishing to sell. The government promises a more streamlined eviction process for antisocial tenants.
Bad tenants will be evicted via Section 8 rather than Section 21. This could (and should) impact their ability to find a new landlord.
Good landlords need good tenants.
Bad landlords need to be dealt with. A properly managed database of (PRS) properties and their landlords will ensure taxes are paid and that properties are compliant with legislation.
We just need the courts system to be improved (and seen to be fit for purpose) BEFORE S21 is canned. I’d suggest abolishing S21 in different council areas over the course of a year or two.

Reply to the comment left by C-cider at 23/10/2023 - 13:03
Who would evict for no reason with all the added expense of downtime, extra costs of advertising and getting the property back to a fit state to let it again.
It just does not happen and there are in addition a plethora of regulations to deal with bad landlords right now!
I do not understand this argument.

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 23/10/2023 - 13:26
It probably doesn’t happen very often. It shouldn’t happen at all.

At present, the landlord wishing to sell up isn’t a ground for a Section 8. Some people believe it shouldn’t be (a reason for eviction) unless prior notice was given when the property was advertised.

Stella
Some landlords are absolute b******* and do abuse s21. Some use it when a tenant raises a legitimate complaint about the property or the landlord's conduct. Those are the cases that the likes of Shelter highlight. The trouble is that the tiny minority of well-publicised cases and some dodgy statistics have caused the Government to introduce the Bill. More tenants will be hurt than helped by this Bill.

Without Thatcher’Assured Shorthold Tenancy’s I wonder if lenders will pull out of the market.

After all that’s how the current Buy to Let thing started

Reply to the comment left by David Smith at 23/10/2023 - 14:09
David I think that lenders will probably look very carefully at this.
I expect that the bill will allow lenders to get vacant possession to call in the loan otherwise the BTL market will eventually disappear.
After all BTL mortgages only happened because of section 21