Huge change for renters to be announced TOMORROW in major shake-up of tenant’s rights

[AndrewDod]

One tenant said they'd waited for three days before summoning up enough nerve to ask if they could keep a dog, not only because they were afraid I'd say no, but that I might throw them out for asking.

Are there ANY unqualified examples of tenants asking for something reasonably, getting a reasonable response (which might be no) and then accepting that response - and then getting a S21 as a direct result of that. With absolutely nothing else going on.

Somehow I doubt there are any, or perhaps one or two across millions of properties. If I was a tenant I would not want such a landlord anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is actually happening (you are not suggesting that) is a flat out liar.

[jpkeates]

Are there ANY unqualified examples of tenants asking for something reasonably, getting a reasonable response (which might be no) and then accepting that response - and then getting a S21 as a direct result of that. With absolutely nothing else going on.

On the basis that given a large enough sample size, most things will have happened, I can believe it.

Anyone who suggests that is actually happening (you are not suggesting that) is a flat out liar.

I think it's a combination of things.

Tenants are genuinely worried about this.
And I agree that it must happen vanishingly rarely in real life.
So it's either publicity from campaign groups that causes or amplifies the concern or landlords or agents actually threaten it.

Because after that it's a perfectly natural response to a survey.
"Are you concerned that your landlord might serve notice you if you request a repair?"

Who's going to have so much confidence in a landlord that they'd say no to that?

[AndrewDod]

I think the real problem here is that of words - and also the imposed words on S21.

S21 is not a notice at all (or at least it is not a notice to leave). It is simply a pre-action letter. If that had been clear from the start of this legislation we would not have had the possibility of this deliberate misrepresentation (by Shelter et al.)

[jpkeates]

I think the real problem here is that of words - and also the imposed words on S21.

S21 is not a notice at all (or at least it is not a notice to leave). It is simply a pre-action letter.

I think you're right, but I have an alternative suggestion for the solution.

The landlord should be able to give notice and it should probably be something like a section 13 notice, outlining what the tenant can and can't and does and doesn't have to do. It should also allow the landlord to explain why they're serving notice. Maybe allow the offer of some sweetener to do what's being requested in some cases.

Then, if the tenant doesn't do what the landlord requests, then there should be a pre-action letter or notice of some kind. Which is the start of the formal process.

That's fairly conventional - if you want someone to do something, you don't start with threatening court action, you make them aware of what you want first.

[AndrewDod]

But in any sane system the default expectation of the setup should not be that people are going to be sued and have to be sued (which is what the law and Councils etc demand). The expectation should be that when asked to leave (per contract) the tenant will usually leave. Just as if I asked builder to rectify some work, the default expectation is that he will do so -- not that he will be sued.

There should be at least SOME downside to the tenant of refusing to simply work together to end a tenancy amicably, constructively and with best outcome for all parties. It is that expectation which is driving rents up, and making it so hard for marginal tenants.

[jpkeates]

But in any sane system the default expectation of the setup should not be that people are going to be sued and have to be sued (which is what the law and Councils etc demand). The expectation should be that when asked to leave (per contract) the tenant will usually leave. Just as if I asked builder to rectify some work, the default expectation is that he will do so -- not that he will be sued.

There's no way of knowing, but I suspect that that happens more often than not.

The landlord serves notice and the tenant leaves, more or less as requested.

[AndrewDod]

There's no way of knowing, but I suspect that that happens more often than not.

The landlord serves notice and the tenant leaves, more or less as requested.

I would guess:
96% of tenancies end at tenant's request
2% end at L request and L cooperates
1% end at L request but T does not cooperate and do so via their own will
1% end at L request - T wants to co-operate but a City council tells them not to

It is those last 2% that are causing such massive costs to landlords and tenants, and are driving the whole thing. About a half of those 2% I would suggest are tenants that are crooks/damagers/contract breakers/rent non-payers. But many tens of thousands of £ of loss and facilitated theft spread across the other 96% has a big impact (both on imposed costs and on the degree of risk Ls are happy to accept).

[JK0]

Funnily enough, I very nearly did kick someone out last year for asking permission for a dog. Tenant sharing in a gound floor flat asked if she could get a Collie puppy. I told her that the block does not permit pets, but in any case my reply would be no.

The cheeky mare then approached the management company of the block to seek permission over my head!

If she had not given notice shortly before the 4 month point, she would have got a s21 notice from me.

[AndrewDod]

In any sensible world that would be enough to give notice - but to the evangelists out there the fact that someone is causing damage to your reputation with a third party and showing an intent to do something that could cause misery to others and severe damage and legal risk to you, and risk to the health of future tenants -- seems not to matter.

What rubbish tenants...

[DoricPixie]

AndrewDod,

When was the last time you rented in England’s PRS?

I’m also curious how getting a dog would risk the health of future tenants. After my experience I’d be very hesitant to let to a tenant with a dog ever again but not for that reason.

[Nelly30]

The problem with s8, and why we don't use it much is that it can be defended with spurious tales of 'disrepair'. Then you get a many month delay in evicting a tenant who is already two months in arrears, while TPTB arrange surveys.

This is exactly true and I've once even had Shelter try to convince the judge that our notices were incorrectly served as one of the tenants was put in prison for fraud!

I find it quite hypocritical that mortgage companies/Banks on the other hand can evict tenants much quicker and are effectively exempt from the same Section 8 process. I guess the Banking industry carries more clout.

As many posters have written, I know NOT A SINGLE Landlord who has used Section 21 to evict a tenant to market the property for more money. I have only used Section 21 to evict non paying tenants and fundamentally cut our losses. I find it slanderous to think that certain pressure groups can keep making these claims, without evidence, and the Government follow without fair consideration. The Generation Rent chap quoting there were more Section 21 evictions this year than last year for example. Well, given there are also more properties on the housing market, this would be natural anyway.

Afraid to say, in my mind, this is legislation from civil servants who literally have no clue how the system works. My experience is also that the court wait times and MoJ costs only get worse and worse...

Then you have the Council's who advise Tenant's to remain in situ against a judge's order! And I've seen first hand how useless Council's are with overseeing and streamlining their own properties -any episode of Council Housing Crackdown will show this...

[inthelandlordzone]

Hi ,
as a late contribution to this thread,

I just thought I'd share a statement that NRLA made, as it refers (without being specific) to 'enhanced grounds for repossession' under Section 8

Though they don't provide specifics in that statement as to what this actually is.

If anyone has any MORE DETAILED info on that , that would be of interest.

Here's the NRLA comments

(start)
Today’s Queen’s Speech saw the UK Government recommit to a Renters Reform Bill, including the abolition of Section 21 while also strengthening landlords’ rights with new possession grounds.

We welcome the Government’s acceptance of the need for enhanced grounds for possession – and particularly of the challenges we have highlighted of persistent rent arrears and antisocial behaviour. Paying rent should never be seen as an optional extra and we are glad that Government agree.

The NRLA has been campaigning robustly on the importance of reforming Section 8 grounds to provide landlords with the confidence they need to continue to invest if Section 21 is removed. We will continue to lobby on your behalf to ensure that the reforms are fair and workable for landlords.

We will also continue to push the Government on the vital importance of addressing capacity in the courts so that landlords are able to regain possession within a reasonable time period.

Today’s announcement is not a fait accompli. Not only does the Bill need to go through Parliament, but the housing minister Eddie Hughes confirmed to me that the forthcoming white paper which will outline the Government's plans, and which the NRLA is feeding into, will be the beginning of further consultation and landlords and other stakeholders will have the chance to have their say.

We encourage you, our members, to get involved to ensure landlords’ voices are heard. Keep an eye out for more from us over the coming weeks and months about how you can do so.

Also announced as part of the Renters Reform Bill today are:

• Applying the Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector – we will be publishing our proposals on what this should look like next week
• A new Ombudsman to resolve landlord/tenant disputes without needing to go to court – our redress pilot is designed to provide a model which works for the sector
• A new ‘property portal’ to help landlords understand their obligations, allow tenants to hold landlords to account on compliance, and support local authority enforcement. We are seeking further information on this.

(end)