Section 21 advice needed – buyer waiting?

Reply to the comment left by Ross Tulloch at 11/12/2023 - 12:10
Probably worth a look at this. Look at the average coat of the legal work then offer it as a payment ro surrender as either way you aren't going to get it back by the sounds. You could also raise the rent to market value at the same time, nothing stopping you and dependent on the time that will elapse that will probably give you S8 grounds eventually. I would try the offer first and see how it's received but bracket it with the fact you need to set the rent at current market value and will be giving notice.

Reply to the comment left by Easy rider at 11/12/2023 - 15:33
Two important cases

Trecarrell House v Rouncefield
Byrne v Hardwood-Delgado

You can serve the paperwork late, so long as it's before s21 is issued. But you still need to ensure annual gas saftey checks are done. If the certificate isn't valid (not gas safe registered engineer) etc, it will invalidate the s21. It is however the duty of the tenant to raise this to the judge not the landlord to offer it up. Many just provide a certificate done within last 12 months and it sails through.

The other approach is s13. Raise the rent to market rents, that way the tenant is either paying enough to keep the house afloat or falls into arrears and it opens up s8 notice for failure to pay rent regularly + 2months or more rent arrears.

If the tenant is waiting on the council, they will 100% ignore s21 notice and await baliffs to evict once you get a court order for possession, which on average is 4-6months.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Willis at 11/12/2023 - 16:42
If the current rent is so far below the local norm, could such a large increase be deemed 'unreasonable'?

I'm in a similar position with my remaining BTL. I have been increasing for the past 2 years, and just increased by 10%, but it's still below the norm. Maybe I should have simply increased by 20%. After all, the tenant has had a good few years on a low rent.

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 11/12/2023 - 16:51
Reasonable doesn't come into it. S13 allows the landlord to increase rent to "market" rates. If the tenant disagrees and puts it to tribunal, the tribunal will just look at nearby property and make a decision. There are cases where the tribunal will set it higher than the landlord requested, so it can be a gamble for the tenant unless the landlord is been harsh.

So if rent is £600 a month and local rent is around £1100 after several years of not increasing the rent, if the landlord was too set it to £1200, a 100% increase it would probably still be allowed, worst case it goes up to "only" £1100.

Whilst a doubling of the rent feels unfair, in that example that's what the rent "should" be, so the tenant has benefited from years of under market rent.

I use terms like fair, reasonable sparingly as I think house prices and thus rents are way too high, but that's a separate discussion point.

Another of those cases where the optics of that solution are not great.

Intentionally putting up the rent with the specific intention of putting the tenant into arrears, to then use a section 8. All to get around a legal requirement for a Section 21.

Oh yes, it's certainly an option, but you can just imagine the press on that one. It's just the kind of thing that would get leapt upon.

Reply to the comment left by The Forever Tenant at 11/12/2023 - 18:45
100% agree on the optics, If the rent is below market rates its legitimate way to increase rent, regardless of the tenants position.

Do remember though, if the tenant is waiting for court eviction they are expecting the landlord to suck up 1-2k in court costs.

I do blame the council, as their "duty of care" begins once s21 notice is received yet they won't do anything until bailiffs have evicted them out in around 6 months time. Then the council will argue but he don't have capacity to house people so we have to wait until after the house is on fire, although that's a self inflicted issue because if you sell your housing stock and don't rebuild, then obviously there will be a shortage.

The legal requirement for s21 on gas safety still isn't clear. Its never been taken to a higher court. In most cases a gas certificate from last 12 months is sufficient, but some lower court cases have argued that you need them all, including the one prior to the tenancy starting.

A gas certificate from last 12 months is sufficient to prove that a competent person (GasSafe) checked it was safe and the absence of incidents confirms that there were no prior issues. The tenant would know and escalate if there had been. They would be able to object to the proceedings on that too.

The arguement that you need them all, including the one prior to the tenancy starting, is just virtue signalling in the absence of a real problem.

Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 13/12/2023 - 17:57
That may be true, but it is the law.

Reply to the comment left by David at 13/12/2023 - 18:08
Exactly, a judge has already ruled on two similar cases.

Where the paperwork was late, they allowed the s21, once paperwork was served.

Where the gas certificate wasn't performed before the tenancy started (several years prior) the s21 was denied, and it couldn't be fixed. Only route open was s8 eviction.

But again, this was a lower court so it doesn't set presedence but it is a case that can be referred too, because it's a correct interpretation of the law as it's not crystal clear.

He is not moving as he probably cannot find a place that cheap.

Increase the rent giving the appropriate notice, it's going to take months to get him out so you might as well get something out of it. Buyiong him out is an option if you are getting a good price and absolutely sure of your buyer.

The BOE are saying interest rates could increase next year, so you need to cover all your costs, including services etc, plus at least £100 pm