The End of Section 21

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by boletus View Post

    Have you ever evicted a tenant for ASB?
    This housing association (well funded experts), managed to do it.
    It only took them a decade.

    https://www.24housing.co.uk/yournews...bad-behaviour/

    Comment


      #32
      The obvious outcome is that it will be harder for tenants on benefits or low incomes to find a rental property from a private landlord.

      Which is great news for anyone wanting to reduce council spending. Not being able to find somewhere to rent doesn’t impose a duty to assist on the local authority, like finding somewhere and being evicted does.

      A indirect consequence will be that the use of section 8 notices in place of s21 notices mean that every eviction will need a court hearing, which increases the cost of eviction on a tenant, as they will have to pay costs if they lose.

      The idea that section 21 notices are a main cause of homelessness is a statistical misreading. Obviously an eviction is going to be the last thing that happens before someone is homeless, but it’s not the actual cause. It’s like blaming most deaths on heart failure, rather than the serious illness that caused the heart failure.

      What’s missing from the campaigner’s thinking is that tenants evicted using s8 will, in most cases have contributed to their homelessness and will be unable to get emergency assistance from their local authority. Which will remove them from the homelessness statistics, but they’ll be just as homeless.

      What looks like a great deal for the tenants is simply the normal government policy of hostility to people who are poor or on benefits.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #33
        Does anyone have a .gov.uk source for this? There seems to be talk of a consultation process but I can't find any way of accessing it.

        (Having looked at some more of the reports on this, there does seem to be a difficult balance between making it possible for tenants to feel confident to complain to their landlords, and allowing landlords to fulfil the community expectation that they will insure that tenants are good neighbours. (As I see it, one of the key reasons that tenants are likely to be bad neighbours is that they have no investment in the local community - to some extent making eviction more difficult may ameliorate that, but I think it will not fully close the gap.)

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
          Does anyone have a .gov.uk source for this? There seems to be talk of a consultation process but I can't find any way of accessing it.
          https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...-rented-sector

          We will launch a consultation on the details of a better system that will work for landlords and tenants.

          Comment


            #35
            Err, you guys know that 'consultation' is government speak for 'fait accompli', don't you?

            Comment


              #36
              Anyone know when this is due to kick in?

              I think this is the final straw for me, I'm done with it.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by bureaucrazy View Post
                There is a solution:

                The govt should leave ASTs alone and legislate a new type of "secure tenancy" alongside the existing AST regime.

                The secure tenancy would be for at least 3 years and have no s.21.

                The law would require the landlord to provide "a how to rent" leaflet explaining the difference between a "secure tenancy" and an AST before signing up the tenant and the landlord must in all advertising and on the face of the agreement indicate which type it is. Any landlord who fails to comply automatically has the agreement converted to a "secure tenancy" by law.

                Tenants will generally prefer secure tenancies. LL will prefer ASTs. LL who offer secure tenancies will be able to charge more and be able to pick the best tenants because secure tenacies will be fewer. Secure tenacies will face competition from home ownership. If they are too expensive or hard to come by, people will have the option to buy instead. Tenants who don't care about security will save money by opting for an AST instead.

                LL who offer ASTs will have more flexibility but also more competition. They will charge lower rents and only get to pick from the tenants left over after all the secure tenancies are filled. Market forces will put pressure on LL to offer secure tenancies if they want better tenants and more rent.

                The market will decide on the balance of offerings to suit tenant demand.

                A 2 tier system like this already exists with council housing running alongside PRS and works no problem. Everybody knows the difference so why not use this in the private rental sector?
                I thought this is what the Gov't were going to do and I agree it would make more sense.

                I don't agree with the statement that tenants will generally prefer secure tenancies though. The market is not homogenous and none of my tenants would want a 3 year tenancy. I also don't agree that the landlords who offer them will have the pick of the best tenants. Those who want to avoid being evicted for 3 years will include a wide range of tenants including the anti-social and those intent on breaching minor elements of the agreement that they know they can't be evicted for. On the other hand students and young professionals will generally be happy with more flexible tenancies.

                Comment


                  #38
                  I thought that this was decided already but on the BBC now they are saying there is to be consultation and what with everything thing else it could be sometime.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by bureaucrazy View Post
                    There is a solution:

                    The govt should leave ASTs alone and legislate a new type of "secure tenancy" alongside the existing AST regime.

                    ....
                    Experience have shown that your theory is great, in theory. Doesn't work in practice.

                    There's already non-shorthold assured vs shorthold assured. The default was non-shorthold, landlords had to jump through hoops for shorthold, which they did, and generally was required to do so by lenders.
                    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                      Err, you guys know that 'consultation' is government speak for 'fait accompli', don't you?
                      I thought that at first but now I'm not so sure.
                      He's spiked Corbyn Labour's guns, appeased Gen Rent but committed to nothing.

                      Originally posted by flexy View Post
                      Anyone know when this is due to kick in?
                      2022 earliest.

                      Originally posted by flexy View Post
                      I think this is the final straw for me, I'm done with it.
                      I think this is where they may have miscalculated. However empty a threat, even that they have attacked landlords once again may be the final straw for some.
                      The last thing a non-Marxist government wants is to destroy a private rental sector enabling movement of the workforce.
                      (-or "get on yer bike" as Lord Tebbit phrased it.)

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by KTC View Post
                        Doesn't work in practice.
                        There's already non-shorthold assured vs shorthold assured.
                        A very good point.

                        Tenants can already have a 3 year, 5 year, 10 year, open-ended tenancy etc.
                        -but they have to pay for it.
                        So effectively all tenants end up paying for the loud minority that demand longer tenancies.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by boletus View Post

                          Have you ever evicted a tenant for ASB?
                          Agree with this, i have never needed to evict a tenant, i pick them very carefully indeed..... but.... what if i drop the ball and make a mistake ? I like to have the 'nuclear option ' of a no fault eviction, all will depend on what the rules are, what reasons can there be for an eviction if it's not to do with rent arrears, i trust that if i want to sell one of the properties then that will be reason enough ? I won't want to move into the bloody thing, i may simply want to sell it (i.e when i retire etc), now if that option is taken off me then all bets are off and i am out of the market and my current tenants are looking through the small ad's.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Why would you want to evict a good tenant? Generally you would want to keep them surely. The section 8 categories will still stand but I think reasons like rent arrears will be mandatory and actioned faster. I believe section 8 will be given more strength to compensate for there being no other option.
                            Think about the tenants you have had and why the tenancy ended. In my case they have all been professional couples who stayed for 6 months - 6 years. All left for various reasons -getting married and buying own home/splitting up/immigrating/going back home (current are solicitors from SA - here on a year's contract now extended so coming up to two years). I don't think it will be as bad as people think..but maybe it depends on the area/type of tenant?

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                              Why would you want to evict a good tenant? Generally you would want to keep them surely.
                              I wouldn't. It's ones who set up pop up brothels and cannabis growers I have a problem with. https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...on-8-ground-7a

                              Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                              The section 8 categories will still stand but I think reasons like rent arrears will be mandatory and actioned faster.

                              Rent arrears are already mandatory. How on earth can section 8 be actioned faster when they will require a court hearing?

                              Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                              In my case they have all been professional couples who stayed for 6 months - 6 years.
                              Isn't that lovely for you.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                                I don't think it will be as bad as people think..but maybe it depends on the area/type of tenant?
                                Yep, generation avocado in Islington will be very happy with this.
                                But you wouldn't want to be on benefits renting in Huddersfield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X