Shelter couple’s “punishment”: self-imposed exile in Cornwall

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 23/06/2019 - 01:48
While the government and local councils continue to pile more and more costs onto landlords while simultaneously taxing them more heavily, the subdivision of properties you describe will continue as landlords struggle to make any profit at all. Indeed, it could be argued that as the population increases and insufficient houses are built, this is a solution that is actually keeping the homelessness situation in check, yet all you see is greedy landlords taking advantage of tenants. There is no reason that most of those other evicted tenants you describe should be in temporary accommodation. If they are blameless but the landlord has needed his property back they should easily be able to obtain an alternative private tenancy. Of course, if government policy is directed at shrinkage of the PRS an inevitable shortage of rental accommodation will arise. Sometimes extensive work is needed on a property which makes it temporarily uninhabitable. You yourself have mentioned you have a property with a persistent damp problem, for instance. What if your tenants complained to the council and you received an order to remedy it and you found that necessitated the house being empty? As for "revenge" and "illegal" evictions - how are these happening? The tenant has legal remedy. You suggest that landlords evict tenants they "don't like". Sometimes the true character of a tenant is not apparent initially. Some start to sub-let, some grow cannabis, some are persistent late payers, hoarders, annoy neighbours, refuse access for gas inspections or display any number of other behaviours which cause the landlord/tenant relationship to break down, meaning the only remedy is eviction. Why would a landlord evict a good tenant - it makes no sense?

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 23/06/2019 - 07:38
Why would a landlord evict a good tenant - it makes no sense?
It makes no sense for a decent law abiding LL, but it makes sense for the criminal element that are cramming lots of people (often immigrants with no knowledge of housing law) into properties and unlicensed HMOs: there are always more readily available to replace them; they get moved on he the authorities are closing in on the LL.

I suggest that everyone reads Ben Reeve-Lewis' posts on LandlordLawBlog; they are a real eye-opener regarding how criminal LLs and agents operate and the unfortunate consequences for their tenants.

I feel that there will be fewer S21 notices issued just to raise the rent now that T Fees ban is in place: the LL will have to foot the bill for agents who churn tenancies, and will likely say "no" (except for those who are totally clueless and foolishly trust their agents).

No need for S21 to raise rents. A simple S13 notice every 12 months sorts that.

I also think some letting agents have been guilty of churning tenants just to increase their fee income, and I also agree that the Tenant Fees Ban should result in a slowdown of that activity.

Some landlords are far too trusting of their agents and I suspect they do not check whether a tenant is moving on for genuine reasons or whether agents have served notice without the landlords knowledge. It’s not difficult to have at least some rapport with tenants to prevent this, even if a landlord chooses to use an agent. Tenants don’t need a landlords phone number, but an email address is OK and it’s easy for landlords to send an email saying Happy Christmas to their tenants just to maintain contact.

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 25/06/2019 - 04:24From your comment and that of Michael Barnes it becomes apparent that we are each coming at this from completely different perspectives. Your view is skewed by the fact that you have worked with a housing association, you have close relatives working for Shelter and you house some tenants who are benefit claimants and have found it difficult to find a home because of the squeeze on benefits. As a result you see and hear of disproportionate number of the unfortunate victims of the minority of criminal landlords who operate under the radar with no regard for the law even if they have any knowledge of it. As you suggest, quite a number, it would appear from examples in TV programmes about the work of housing officers, are immigrants housing immigrants who are willing to put up with appalling standards of accommodation in order to get a roof over their heads. This is a world of which I have no experience, and my posts are from the point of view of the vast majority of decent, law abiding landlords who are fed up to the back teeth of being castigated in the media by the likes of Shelter representatives and left wing politicians who take every opportunity to attack all private landlords with accusations which apply to a tiny minority and whp have been instrumental in convincing the younger demographic of tenants that we are all money-grabbing scoundrels set on making their lives a misery.
I fully agree with you that it is the failure of successive governments to ensure that the housing supply matches the demand which is at the root of the current housing situation. Private landlords have risked their own savings to plug the gaps left by government action and inaction in relation to the relative cost of housing and incomes, supply and demand, only to find themselves a convenient scapegoat for the results of policy decisions and conflicting stimuli completely outside of their control. Landlords are not responsible for lack of social housing provision, planning laws, mass immigration, the stagnation of wages since the credit crash, the idiocy of Help to Buy which pushes up new build prices to line the pockets of the housebuilders, or the measures which recent governments have taken to goad into work the 25% of the working age population who did not work. Some of these were unfit for work or unable to get a job but others simply exploited a system of benefits and credits instigated by Labour (with the laudable aim of eliminating child poverty) which enabled them to live on permanent holiday having everything freely provided from the taxes of those who work for their living. In my view, rebalancing this situation was a sensible aim but the implementation has been disastrously mishandled.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 25/06/2019 - 07:59
Absolutely spot on and when are ameliahartman and her lefty comrades including the Government going to realise that they are exasperating the whole rental system with their ridiculous policies and false accusations. The bad Landlords are not affected by any of this because they don't care, if they get caught they move on and start again. Us decent Landlords have had enough and I am certainly out A.S.A.P, time to retire and enjoy what I've worked very hard for before the Government takes it all. I've recently seen first hand what is happening to decently Landlords, a friend who has lost £1000's because of advice offered by Shelter and LHA all happening not long after her husband died.

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Leverett at 25/06/2019 - 09:15
Yes, I am executing my exit strategy whilst trying to minimise effect on Ts (trying to sell when properties become vacant, but needing to sell "capital loss" properties before selling long-held properties with capital gains to minimise tax; looks like there will be S21s for some)

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 25/06/2019 - 07:59Whilst the minority of landlords are criminal, they are likely to own many properties (investing proceeds of crime) and hence affect many tenants. So we might be correct in saying "it is only about 2% of landlords" (a made-up figure for illustrative purposes), but that could be 10% of tenants; and if it is "only" 2% of tenants, that is still a lot in absolute numbers. There are many more Ts than LLs.

The bar is very low in all this.......