Tenant evictions: It’s time for an uncomfortable conversation

Reply to the comment left by Phil Johnson at 19/04/2024 - 11:04Section 21 has a minimum 2 months notice to end the AST contract that you have with the property owner. So twice the 1 month notice typical for the renter to end the contract.
Section 21 is to the renters benefit because no reason must be PROVEN, unlike Section 8. So there is no record of the reason which enables the renter to pass reference on another property including social housing.
Section 8 goes on the public record and local authorities regard it as being intentionally homeless so will not provide.
The risk to property owners that they cannot get vacant possession for a year is not acceptable so they are leaving which reduces supply and increases cost.
Be careful what you wish for because the consequences will not be what you imagine..
Neither the politicians nor activists will be accountable for this mess.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 19/04/2024 - 18:49
I think you are assuming that needing to sell a property will be a mandatory ground.
Not according to a written reply given by the NRLA advice team on their forum circa 2 weeks ago.
The reply said that the NRLA were not sure if it would be a discretionary or a mandatory ground. This has yet to be decided.
Imagine having to be at the mercy of a left leaning Judge to get vacant possession when you desperately need to sell!
I expect the NRLA are taking the cautious approach to this.

Reply to the comment left by Phil Johnson at 19/04/2024 - 11:04
Thanks for giving us your side Phil.

A different view on this. If your Broadband company wants to pack up business, it can. You get another one.
Can a Landlord not pack up when he wants to? It's his house.
Can a car rental company have their car back when they want it? They can. Cause if they couldn't, there would be no more cars to rent.
And that's now where we have the problem. Cause of all these Landlord attacks, when a tenant (generally bad or not paying enough rent & doesn't understand inflation) is asked to leave, cause they now can't get anywhere, the tenants are now saying You cannot ask me to go for any reason WHATSOEVER. Hang on a minute, that Landlord is a single human being like u. He's not got the back of the Council or the Taxpayer or multi million pound company. He wants his house back. If you telling him/her they cannot have their house back, then u will have no houses to start with-And that is what is happening.

He borrowed you the house (or lent-I never understand which is which), he DIDN'T give it you for life. You are referring to a Council there-Although they not safe now with changes & bedroom tax etc.

I read on in your message & it's good to see that u do understand the Landlord is a single human being.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 19/04/2024 - 12:38
Fewer people ...hmmm "The solution is fewer people" you say ... hmmm...

Or just fewer households... how many houses would be available at lower rents if there was less divorce? People just lived at home and used all their spare bedrooms? Multi generational families perhaps? Hmmm... OR... just build some more bloody houses! How about that for a radical idea! The birth rate may be on the decline - that'll be useful. But at the end of the day... there's been no afffordable house building program in decades. The flats they put up in London ... for an eye watering £400k, for a studio... and they call that 'affordable'... its actually ridiculous. No one wants to talk about that though...

Reply to the comment left by Phil Johnson at 19/04/2024 - 11:04
I am and have been a landlord for over 30 years and have never used a section 21. Therefore in theory I do not object to the abolishment of section 21. However I do object to having to submit a claim to court and pay court fees which have just risen to £400 for possession of a property if I need to "ask" someone to leave. A section 21 did not have a cost element. You would like your landlord/tenant relationship to be the same as you have with a large company because they are more rational and business minded and you use broadband as an example but surely you must have dealt with totally irrational rules with these large company's. Have you never felt like you were banging your head against a brick wall for 2 years trying to tell your broadband company that your WiFi doesn't work properly until you just give up, or dealing with utility company's who won't give a refund of a massive credit balance because they say they like to see 2 months worth of credit on your account despite the fact their actual terms and conditions say they require 1 months credit on the account, or trying to get through to British gas by phone which is impossible so having to use the web chat and waiting for 3 hours on a web chat because you are 995th in the Queue to be told when you finally speak with someone that you need to phone, or being told your building insurance has increased by £700 for the year because at the time of renewal one of your properties is between tenants (which could happen anytime but if it happens at renewal it's going to cost you where's the logic?), or being charged double council tax between tenants because your rental properties are classed as second homes because they are furnished despite the fact the properties have never been a second home. I could go on but my point is these large company's are not always fair or rational. While you make some good points it should be remembered that a section 21 is not "a no fault eviction" it is "no reason given" eviction. In life there are many circumstances where we have to blindly submit to circumstances where we can not see a logical reason and life is not fair. However when it comes to such a valuable asset as a property a landlord should have control. On a personal level when I worked 7 days a week and saved to buy my first property (I could have just lived with my boyfriend like many would because he owned his own house) I didn't have a pound in my purse for the first 5 years of ownership and I had no life at all. After that for the next twenty years after we bought our BTL's the total profits are way less than the single salary of anyone of our tenants. So we are not wealthy, we do not have expensive cars like our tenants, we do not order Uber eats etc like our tenants. They choose to rent and have a better life than us. We have sacrificed and struggled and worked so hard for our BTL property. Why should control of that asset be taken away from us and given to our tenants creating a massive imbalance. Why should we have to go to court and pay to sit before a judge to ask for our property back.

Reply to the comment left by Lisa008 at 20/04/2024 - 08:12
Unless we control our borders, there will always be more people needing houses than there are houses to be had.

Houses are a numbers game. If they build lots of fancy and expensive houses, cheaper houses will be released to the market when these expensive ones are bought.

If we had sufficient houses for the number of people wanting to buy them then the market would adjust accordingly so that they could all be sold.

If government encouraged those with sufficient funds to buy properties to let (in return for a modest profit), there’d be more rental properties. At the moment, it’s safer and possibly more profitable to put your money into a savings account or risk free Premium Bonds.

There are lots of people living in houses that are larger than their needs would dictate. Aside from the emotional cost of moving homes, SDLT and other moving expenses deters people from downsizing.

There are also (probably) lots of single people living in taxpayer funded homes with partners also in taxpayer funded homes. In my small circle of people that I know, there are three such ‘couples’.

Controlling migration is vital. There are around 8 billion people in the world. They cannot all come to live in the U.K. This issue will never be fixed because it’s too late. Our country is run by people whose hearts lie elsewhere in the world.

Reply to the comment left by John MacAlevey at 19/04/2024 - 12:03
As witnessed every week on the BBC's Question Time. The biggest lie on TV when Fiona Bruce states every week that the audience is made up of a cross section of the political spectrum (or however she words it). It's clear to see that the audience is always full of left wing activists, which suits the BBC's political agenda just fine.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 19/04/2024 - 13:24
Same here. We don't want to pass on stress to our children so we either sell or move into our BTL property which means converting 5 units back into one.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 19/04/2024 - 18:49
I found your post interesting. Please can you elaborate as I am a new landlord - I don’t think I will continue letting, I will be just within the timescale before the RRB section21 is abolished. This is my first let and my first quarterly inspection was a surprise to say the least. After decorating, cleaning carpets, making the garden nice, lots of cleaning before I Let, to find dog fouling all over the garden, damages!

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 19/04/2024 - 23:43
Labour has already stated that it will direct the courts to do a hardship test.

The test: who will suffer the greatest financial hardship if the property is returned to the landlord so that the landlord can sell?

Well we know what the courts will conclude don’t we!!