Landlords issue ‘veiled threat’ to evict tenants over Section 21

The loss of Section 21, whilst Courts are not fit for purpose, increases some of the risks that landlords face. Section 8 takes longer, is more expensive and is not guaranteed to result in recovery of the property. During this time, some tenants stop paying rent and cause damage to the property.

It’s amazing just how quickly the rioters were dealt with. If only the Courts were as quick to sentence child murderers and rapists. Landlords need confidence in the Courts.

I hope never to have to ask a tenant to leave. As far as I am concerned, it is their home, at least, until my death.

However, if any tenants do leave, the properties will be sold (and only to people that I like), so that my children are not burdened with the responsibility of becoming landlords.

Selling wouldn’t have a negative financial impact on me. I could achieve better returns in safe, tenant-free savings accounts. I average a gross return of less than 8% from the rental properties. The net return will be negative this year but it’s typically around 4%.

I charge low rents, I self manage and I’m a basic rate taxpayer. My rents would rise significantly if I didn’t self manage or if I was a higher rate taxpayer.

What is ”psychotic“ as Mr Darling puts it, is expecting Landlords to just roll over and allow control over their properties to be removed from them, irrespective of their own personal circumstances and irrespective of any tenants’ breaches of contract, such as to pay rent or look after the property.

I bet if he had properties with hundreds of thousands of £££, he would change his view. How he and his ilk can simply expect individual landlords to carry on without having the necessary protection in place to obtain possession when required is beyond me.

It's not a veiled threat, it's an obvious consequence.
Of course landlords will evict bad tenants while they still can.
Another obvious consequence of scrapping section 21 is fewer rental properties and rents increasing. That's not a veiled threat it's just stating the bleedin' obvious!

Has he not read about certain Housing Associations getting their Section 21's in quickly as well?

Avoiding or preparing for impending doom is a natural reaction. I can honestly see a minority of tenants that will using the new system to completely avoid paying rent for up to 2 years . Almost all of them will challenge rent rises safe in the knowledge that they can not be evicted whilst the courts are so far behind.

Section 8 according to the RRB:
3 months' rent arrears
+ 1 months' notice to tenant
+ 6 months average waiting time for a hearing (this will go up)
+1 month to enforce the possession order
+ 3 months average waiting time for bailiffs
= TOTAL 14 months
If all goes smoothly. It rarely does.
At the average rent of £1300, this translates to £18,200 income loss.

This is the level of income loss a landlord is facing with a bad tenant they cannot evict.
The only thing that is "psychotic" here is that the government think this is perfectly OK.

Hi Guys,

I know that this is off topic, but does anybody know the answer to this, If by some miracle, this crazy bunch of lefties get in again in 5 years time, and I really believe that this is possible due to the same reasons as they got in this time (split vote between cons and Reform), Milibands demand that all rented properties are to be C rated or above by 2030, if a LL has a tenant in a property with a D or E rating and he/she cannot afford to do the required upgrades to bring the property up to a C or higher, what happens to the tenant? Does the LL have to evict the tenant? , if so this doesnt sound like a good deal for either the tenant or the LL, of course the Govt will still gain due to capital gains tax and SDLT when the LL sells , I assume that this is all they really care about as all their other stupid rules/ideas are only serving to hurt tenants whom the Govt is alledgedly trying to help

Reply to the comment left by GARY RIVETT at 24/09/2024 - 12:48
you will be forced to upgrade the property - there may be some grants.

However what if Corbyn et al split the Left?

What is remarkable is this Mr Darling is in the company of politicians who were so obtuse they couldn’t see the problem with taking £1000s of free clothes, glasses and holidays right left and centre - some of them disingenuously reporting them as office support, some not bothering to declare at all.

On top of supporting a policy that will, without question, lead to the deaths and hospitalisation of some of those pensioners who will not get onto Pension Credit in time or will be above the less than generous £218 per week cut off (the adult minimum wage for 35 hours is now £400 pw for context).

And the clown thinks it’s landlords who have the problem!

Reply to the comment left by GARY RIVETT at 24/09/2024 - 12:48
Gary, the landlord's impecuniosity will be no excuse. Indeed he may be fined to add to his woes. It will not be possible to evict a tenant in order to do the work.

We will have to wait and see what viciousness Miliband comes up with but do not expect any protection.for landlords. We are likely to be required to spend some arbitrary sum (£10,000 was mooted by the Tories) even if it will not get the property to a Band C.

There may be defences if the tenant refuses to allow access or if it is impractical to do work with a tenant in situ but landlords may find themselves sued (or maybe prosecuted) for failure to upgrade and have to incur costs to defend themselves.