The End of Section 21

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

    My idea was to make the notice period longer.
    Two months isn't long enough for a tenant to find a new place to live (in the same area, typically), get approved and move.
    Everything has to be done in a huge rush.

    Given a much longer period, everything isn't rushed and would be less stressful.
    The average tenancy lasts 18 months or so, so 9 or 12 months notice should be more than reasonable.
    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


      Originally posted by bureaucrazy View Post
      s.21 is often used when there is a valid section 8 ground but section 8 seems too inconvenient.

      Remember it is landlord who owns the house. Surely the continuation of the tenancy should be by mutual consent where either party can end the relationship?

      In cases where tenant has done nothing wrong but landlord has other plans, it is a major inconvenience to tenant to get s.21.

      So, instead of abolishing s.21, why not make the landlord pay compensation to tenant for his inconvenience and the privilege of using s.21?

      A £1000 payment would not be the end of the world if there was no other way to get your house back and T would not feel so hard done by.

      This policy would prevent abuse of s.21 and ensure landlords used proper s.8 grounds in most other cases (which would be free).
      This idea and others along the same lines are exactly why its highly likely my tenants will be seeking other premises, i am not paying a tenant money to leave MY property when i have done nothing wrong, if they want the kind of security i have as a home owner..... buy a house. It may sound harsh but not everything in life is fair and renting will always be inherently less secure than actually owning something.

      Comment


        The way that housing finance works is that you can throw away money on rent, but the same or less money will not be accepted as a mortgage repayment. That means that people get trapped into a situation where they can never buy a house.

        Comment


          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
          The way that housing finance works is that you can throw away money on rent, but the same or less money will not be accepted as a mortgage repayment. That means that people get trapped into a situation where they can never buy a house.
          I think the idea that rent is lost money doesn't reflect reality any more.
          People just don't think about owning things in the same way that they used to.

          And when you mortgage a house, you're basically just renting money from a bank.
          Last edited by jpkeates; 18-04-2019, 13:30 PM. Reason: Quote added for context
          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


            Originally posted by Hudson01 View Post

            This idea and others along the same lines are exactly why its highly likely my tenants will be seeking other premises, i am not paying a tenant money to leave MY property when i have done nothing wrong, if they want the kind of security i have as a home owner..... buy a house. It may sound harsh but not everything in life is fair and renting will always be inherently less secure than actually owning something.
            I don't disagree. If the government want to give landlords less rights for the same money, economics says somthing else will have to change. My idea is a comprimise as it would be better to pay for s.21 than have no s.21 at all. I think the idea of a longer notice period is also a good one but sadly, no suggestions of common sense will appease Generation Rent or the gov. The consultation might be just a formality.

            I predicted many years back (I cannot find the thread here though) the government would intervene in the market to help large corporations replace small landlords. This policy is part of that plan.

            I think that plan began a long time ago. Buy to let was invented to enable small investors to develop a large rental market ready to be swallowed up by corporations. It would not have been possible back then for corporations to build housing as there were not enough renters to service. The market had to be developed first and small investors have now served that purpose. You are not needed any more.

            The next stage will be the takeover.

            Comment


              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              My idea was to make the notice period longer.
              Two months isn't long enough for a tenant to find a new place to live (in the same area, typically), get approved and move.
              Everything has to be done in a huge rush.

              Given a much longer period, everything isn't rushed and would be less stressful.
              The average tenancy lasts 18 months or so, so 9 or 12 months notice should be more than reasonable.
              I gave my tenants 6 months notice for a 6 month tenancy. Sounds fair enough to me.

              Comment


                I haven't had to or wanted to serve a tenant notice in years.
                My agent is an absolute genius at tenant finding and verification.
                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


                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post

                  I think the idea that rent is lost money doesn't reflect reality any more.
                  People just don't think about owning things in the same way that they used to.

                  And when you mortgage a house, you're basically just renting money from a bank.
                  The big difference is that you get to keep the capital gain. In my part of London, I get the impression that the primary landlord model is to use the tenant to pay the "rent" on the loan from the bank, and make the profits as capital gains.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

                    The big difference is that you get to keep the capital gain.
                    Capital gain?

                    I've just put a property on the market that I bought in 2006 and the expectations of the agents are that I will get less than I paid for it.

                    Comment


                      There;'s just so much misconception out there now... The days of massive growth on property where a very few number of landlords just managed to guess the property market are long gone.

                      Now we are regulated out of hatred of the perception of landlords being the big fat millionaire evil bastards. The bad ones (i.e. landlords) have done it to us. The fact is that it just couldn't be more different. Even if you do make a small amount of capital gain, you are taxed a large portion of it.

                      If you were do to the sums, letting now is a marginal business with quite a high level of risk.. it only takes one bad tenant to do one on you and you're screwed.
                      There's no way I'd recommend doing this now.

                      For me, I do as much as I can to keep the tenant happy, property in good condition, rent just below market value to retain good tenants.. As far as I know they're happy.... but I'm probably still an evil bastard. Think I've accrued about 2% 'real world yield' with all that risk (and dealing with some git who trashed the place)...! would've been better elsewhere!

                      These accusations, frankly just boil my piss.

                      Comment


                        The game is up. G.Osborne knew what he was doing when they removed mortgage relief. We're all up against maths and most cannot win. It will only get tougher going forward until all property is in hands of corporations. Single property landlords will have to think long and hard. Next April they will joined by accidental landlords as well as Government will lower 18 months lettings relief to 9. They have just started the "consultation".

                        For the residential market:
                        - What I would like to see firstly is a separate court for housing issues. It should not go to local magistrates and take 6 months. It deals ONLY in housing related issues by those who have expertise within it. It is staffed well. No eviction should take longer than 6 weeks max.

                        - Councils have to be abundantly clear with tenants who have been served notice. If on your way out you have damaged property (not wear and tear) you will not be entitled to council help in re-housing for 7 years. You will also be removed from housing waiting list as well.

                        - Lastly every landlord should have to show at least 5 hours CPD if they want to rent out property.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Handson View Post
                          Lastly every landlord should have to show at least 5 hours CPD if they want to rent out property.
                          Is that per day?

                          Comment


                            Agree with the housing court, we need a dedicated streamline method for evictions and housing issues.

                            Roll environmental health into this new service so that a tenant has a method of hauling a landlord up in front of a judge over category 1 hazards for example. This will highlight the “rogue” landlords as well.

                            I don't mind the loss of section 21 as long as if a tenant enters X amount of arrears they are rightly removed from the property.

                            Thats all fine by me, along with indefinite tenancies so long as there is an option for repossession for major breaches of tenancy but i have a sneaky suspicion section 8 will remain as ropey as before, and the balance will be even more tipped in the tenants favour.

                            As for your other suggestions, under no circumstances should we see the council refuse assistance to those who need housing, we are not animals and banning someone for 7 years will only cause the homeless issues to spiral out of control and that is far far worse for society as a whole.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

                              The big difference is that you get to keep the capital gain. In my part of London, I get the impression that the primary landlord model is to use the tenant to pay the "rent" on the loan from the bank, and make the profits as capital gains.
                              This is exactly what i do, my BTL's are all capital and repayment over the shortest possible time frame, i want them mortgage free asap, i am not interested in monthly income just for the tenants to effectively pay for my properties. This sounds bad i know, but i also know many that do this and don't touch interest only.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by MdeB View Post

                                Is that per day?
                                Per year initially.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X