moesasji Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This section 11 malarkey, is it illegal to use it for purposes other than gaining possession of the property? Ie if the landlord doesn't actually want possession and issues it anyway for a bit of gamesmanship, then could the tenant sue the landlord for some kind of harassment? A landlord doesn't have to motivate why he issues a section 21, so in that sense hard to see why doing this could be illegal. This is one of the reasons it was possible (and relatively common) to issue a section 21 at the start of a tenancy. Probably with the sole motivation for a letting agency to extract money as it forces a renewal of the contract as that way you don't get a periodic tenancy. Little that could be done against this....except the trick of moving out at the date on the S21 unannounced forcing a void on the landlord who often appeared unaware of an S21 being issued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 A landlord doesn't have to motivate why he issues a section 21, really? I thought he had to be clear it was because he wanted possession of the property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 really? I thought he had to be clear it was because he wanted possession of the property? Good God, no! That would trample on sacrosanct property rights! Factsheet from Shelter here https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/386451/Is_your_section_21_notice_valid_Jan2014.pdf "This factsheet looks at how your landlord can end your assured shorthold tenancy without giving any reason by following the procedure in section 21 of the Housing Act 1988." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) oh dear. the fact that there are landlords arguing for issuance of s21 on account of a dispute that the tennants are not part of, when they don't actually require or anticipate taking possession, is utterly deeply nasty. The fact that this is legal is very troubling. As I've said on several occasions here, it is war. Edited July 28, 2015 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 oh dear. the fact that there are landlords arguing for issuance of s21 on account of a dispute that the tennants are not part of, when they don't actually require or anticipate taking possession, is utterly deeply nasty. The fact that this is legal is very troubling. As I've said on several occasions here, it is war. Indeed, but even they must realise that to be coming up with such desperate, nasty, and ultimately self-harming plans as to issue S21s en masse, that they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel this time. They aren't going to win. And karma can be a real bitch when you've got it coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limpet Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Good God, no! That would trample on sacrosanct property rights! Factsheet from Shelter here https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/386451/Is_your_section_21_notice_valid_Jan2014.pdf "This factsheet looks at how your landlord can end your assured shorthold tenancy without giving any reason by following the procedure in section 21 of the Housing Act 1988." What`s the point of calling it a tenancy agreement then if it can be just thrown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2buyornot2buy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 What`s the point of calling it a tenancy agreement then if it can be just thrown out. It applies to the period after your fixed term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Oh no. I see they've got a wannabe beauty queen acting as ambassador for them. The treasury will surely crumble in the face of such a titan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 They aren't going to win. And karma can be a real bitch when you've got it coming. Win? They are't even going to fight. "These men are cowards." Even when Mark and pals thought they had legal recourse the court handed them their @rse. Now they are hoping that Osborne will side with them instead of siding the the Revenue. Given he just set up the Revenue to rip their whining throats out by 2020 I'd wager my own money that this is only going one way. Sell now. Sell everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Win? They are't even going to fight. "These men are cowards." Even when Mark and pals thought they had legal recourse the court handed them their @rse. Now they are hoping that Osborne will side with them instead of siding the the Revenue. Given he just set up the Revenue to rip their whining throats out by 2020 I'd wager my own money that this is only going one way. Sell now. Sell everything. I think you underestimate the power of Miss Cheltenham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This idea that tenants will be thrown out and made homeless as a result of BTL landlords "being forced" to exit the market is nonsense. If there's a bankruptcy banks will now let tenants stay until the end of their tenancy period (there was a rule change recently about this), and if there's no bankruptcy but the landlord wants to sell up then they'll have to honour the rest of the tenancy period too. There's no different from the current situation where either party can decide not to renew at the end of each tenancy period. Serving a bunch of S21s doesn't change anything for the tenant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moesasji Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There's no different from the current situation where either party can decide not to renew at the end of each tenancy period. Serving a bunch of S21s doesn't change anything for the tenant. Except for those on a rolling AST as effectively this would imply that those get two months notice that the landlord would like to have the property empty. Keep in mind that not every AST is for 6 or 12 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fish Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Win? They are't even going to fight. "These men are cowards." Even when Mark and pals thought they had legal recourse the court handed them their @rse. Now they are hoping that Osborne will side with them instead of siding the the Revenue. Given he just set up the Revenue to rip their whining throats out by 2020 I'd wager my own money that this is only going one way. Sell now. Sell everything. Bad news at 188 " 28/07/2015 at 18:41 Really bad news. They’ve rejected the petition. Below is the email I just received. We need to think tactics. Ideas welcome regarding how to get over this latest obstacle: ‘We rejected the petition you created – “Scrap the mortgage interest tax levy before it forces tenants out and rents up!”. There is already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept duplicate petitions. We think this petition is similar to yours: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880 You might like to sign this petition instead. It is more likely to get more signatures that way. Click this link to see your rejected petition: View your rejected petition We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards If you want to try again, click here to start a petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament’ Maybe the scaremongering had something to do with it? Edited July 28, 2015 by little fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longgone Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Bad news at 188 " 28/07/2015 at 18:41 Really bad news. They’ve rejected the petition. Below is the email I just received. We need to think tactics. Ideas welcome regarding how to get over this latest obstacle: ‘We rejected the petition you created – “Scrap the mortgage interest tax levy before it forces tenants out and rents up!”. There is already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept duplicate petitions. We think this petition is similar to yours: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880 You might like to sign this petition instead. It is more likely to get more signatures that way. Click this link to see your rejected petition: View your rejected petition We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards If you want to try again, click here to start a petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament’ Maybe the scaremongering had something to do with it? oh dear they can always try this ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Nothing so interesting I'm afraid.. someone further down that same thread mentioned he had to refer to this forum as "HPC" because direct links were deleted. Sorry, I was clearly letting my imagination run away with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Bad news at 188... Maybe we should start our own 'Buy-to-let interest tax relief' petition to campaign for the remaining relief to also be removed, in line with the tax treatment of other classes of investment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Now the 118 people are advocating SPAMMING the poor guy who beat them to it with Facebook messages and Friend requests [for me, a Friend request from someone I've never ever met is highly questionable]. More arrogance of course combined with cynicism and thinly-veiled accusations of dishonesty: http://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-140/#comment-60118 Assuming the owner of the other petition is sincere in his motives, then I can’t imagine him not agreeing to have it replaced if there is a more suitable alternative? Edited July 28, 2015 by mrtickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) The way the collective hive mind of the BTL'er stride across facebook..... is pathetic! Edit to add... The last time we had a beef with anybody on here we had streetview pictures of their house, how much they paid for it, where they worked, how much they got paid, pictures of their wife (semi naked) and the colour of their underpants! Edited July 28, 2015 by XswampyX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overlander Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 It seems to me that the piggys are squealing loud and very organised, now all it will take is a few lucky hits and they could be heard. They seem to be squealing away with very little counter actions this could be easily fixed. Any idea what we could call a counter petition agreeing with osbourns proposals that could be a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It seems to me that the piggys are squealing loud and very organised, now all it will take is a few lucky hits and they could be heard. They seem to be squealing away with very little counter actions this could be easily fixed. Any idea what we could call a counter petition agreeing with osbourns proposals that could be a start. Don't worry. Look how much political heat the coalition took over the 'bedroom tax'. This squealing from landlords won't even register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbo Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 If these guys were on a repayment mortgage, rental inflation and reducing interest would negate the cost increase anyway. They have 5 years to adjust. This is preparation for interest rates and possibly looking to shift stock where those affected by benefit changes will be looking at paying less rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 What squealing? I don't hear anything? Give it 2 more years.... Squeal little piggies, squeal! (what ever happened to the singing pig?) I can hear it now... "oink, oink. Where's the trough gone, it was here just a minute ago? What's that, a gas barbecue? What are they going to put on that? Oink, oink. It burns, it burns. Smells tasty! oh the heat!...." Can we have that as a petition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 If these guys were on a repayment mortgage, rental inflation and reducing interest would negate the cost increase anyway. They have 5 years to adjust. This is preparation for interest rates and possibly looking to shift stock where those affected by benefit changes will be looking at paying less rent. This is buy-to-let we're talking about here, the last true bastion of the interest only mortgage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 If these guys were on a repayment mortgage, rental inflation and reducing interest would negate the cost increase anyway. They have 5 years to adjust. This is preparation for interest rates and possibly looking to shift stock where those affected by benefit changes will be looking at paying less rent. Doh! Source :- http://moneystepper.com/property/rental-prices-regional-yield-variations/ The trend is your friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Hey, Mark - are you still reading? I encourage all posters to be meticulous in not posting anything that is actionable. If your desire to put the knife in is irresistible then think twice, then think again and then check your sources and link to them, and then for a belt and braces approach, throw in some weasel words, "arguably", "rumoured", or maybe an implicit counter factual, "had the landlord in question had very high leverage" But basically, chill, because how the f**k do you bring a legal action seeking redress for a civil wrong for which legal remedy exists against a party that you have publicly declared doesn't matter. Words once set forth, cannot be called back. With ersatz mortgages, it's kinda different. (h/t High Yield, your ebullience brought rich reward, but still they are funnier if left alone, and OMFG are they funny.) Edited July 29, 2015 by bland unsight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.