Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Cozza

Changes To S.21 Possession Notices - Bad News For Btl

Recommended Posts

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/articles/assured-shorthold-tenancies-and-the-deregulation-act-2015

'Revenge' evictions (i.e. avoiding basic maintenance by evicting the complaining tenant and moving in a more compliant specimen) just became that bit harder.

Legal grey areas over securing deposits have also been cleared up. Now more in the tenant's favour.

Good job BTL landlords can always depend on capital appreciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice

6 month limit after which a section 21 notice expires, at the present time running from the date of service

Any health and safety improvement notice served by the local authority means no section 21 notice can be served for 6 months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I think this is a good thing.

However, it will cause much gnashing of teeth for some LLs

There seems to be some requirement that repairs carried out in response to a complaint by a tenant need to be inspected by some council bod in some circumstances.

And that there might not be enough of said council bods to carry out the inspections in a timely manner.

Until the inspection is passed, the S21 can't be served.

Is it possible to imagine a situation where the council that would have to rehome the tenant were he made homeless as a result of the S21, might not always put the necessary inspection right at the top of its list of things to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I think this is a good thing.

However, it will cause much gnashing of teeth for some LLs

There seems to be some requirement that repairs carried out in response to a complaint by a tenant need to be inspected by some council bod in some circumstances.

And that there might not be enough of said council bods to carry out the inspections in a timely manner.

Until the inspection is passed, the S21 can't be served.

Is it possible to imagine a situation where the council that would have to rehome the tenant were he made homeless as a result of the S21, might not always put the necessary inspection right at the top of its list of things to do...

Probably best to err on the side of not whanging people out of their homes, I think. Doubtless there will be expedient use of any legislation by some but that is hardly the preserve of unscrupulous tenants.

Edited by Cry and Regret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some requirement that repairs carried out in response to a complaint by a tenant need to be inspected by some council bod in some circumstances.

And that there might not be enough of said council bods to carry out the inspections in a timely manner.

Until the inspection is passed, the S21 can't be served.

Is this going to provide a nice little loophole for tenants who want to avoid eviction? Could one simply lodge a formal complain to stop any issuing of the s21, and then wait for the complain process to be resolved? Could take quite a while.

More broadly, I do wish the revenge eviction issue had been addressed by the govt - I know there was talk of this at one time. To me it seems really simple; give tenants the right to extend their tenancy if they are up to date with their rent payments, in all but a very small set of circumstances (e.g. sale of house, moving in by LL). In those circumstances, discourage "lying" by stating that the property must not be let for, say, 6 months after the tenant is removed.

I was surprised last year when our EA contacted us asking if we intended to renew our tenancy. This was 3 months before the end of the current one, and she mentioned that she wanted to know because otherwise they would have to draw up the S21. Is it standard procedure now to simply not trust tenants to leave at the end of tenancies? We are extremely good tenants and have been here a few years. Speculative S21s should quite simply not be allowed IMO.

edit: OK just read a bit more about s21s and it sounds like this is standard procedure. I haven't actually ended a tenancy in the UK since the '96 changes came into effect..

Edited by mattyboy1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately the tenancy regulations encourage and facilitate the relationship between the landlord / tenant to be quite adversarial

some agents don't help matters either

there is no need for the relationship to be adversarial by default, but it is easy to see why and how some go that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I think this is a good thing.

However, it will cause much gnashing of teeth for some LLs

There seems to be some requirement that repairs carried out in response to a complaint by a tenant need to be inspected by some council bod in some circumstances.

And that there might not be enough of said council bods to carry out the inspections in a timely manner.

Until the inspection is passed, the S21 can't be served.

Is it possible to imagine a situation where the council that would have to rehome the tenant were he made homeless as a result of the S21, might not always put the necessary inspection right at the top of its list of things to do...

Business risk anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Business risk anyone?

I don't think it is a significant increase in risk tbh

There has always been a risk that a tenant wouldn't pay and that it would be hard to get them out

These changes could make it a bit harder, but I don't think it is material in the grand scheme of things

For LLs that don't do repairs, then there is an increased business risk. But that's surely OK isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately the tenancy regulations encourage and facilitate the relationship between the landlord / tenant to be quite adversarial

some agents don't help matters either

there is no need for the relationship to be adversarial by default, but it is easy to see why and how some go that way

Agreed. Just a contract. I'm in the process of renewing and the agent is causing the issues, saying it's a problem to email/post a copy of the agreement rather than have me sign it in person. It's a contract worth a five figure sum, I think I'll be reading it at my leisure prior to signing thank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this cuts out 'the sword of Damocles' situation where an S21 is issued as an AST begins? That would be a start, but only a start. 'No fault' evictions need to be eradicated entirely in my view.

My tenancy is like this: I get an AST for 12 months with a S.21 notice at the same time. Two months before the AST ends, the letting agent writes asking me if I want to renew, and if I do,I get a new AST and S.21 notice. I have to pay £90 + VAT in fees for this.

If they did nothing, the AST would go periodic, and the landlord would still be able to get me out with 2 months notice. The only reason I can see for the current procedure is for the letting agent to harvest fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tenancy is like this: I get an AST for 12 months with a S.21 notice at the same time. Two months before the AST ends, the letting agent writes asking me if I want to renew, and if I do,I get a new AST and S.21 notice. I have to pay £90 + VAT in fees for this.

If they did nothing, the AST would go periodic, and the landlord would still be able to get me out with 2 months notice. The only reason I can see for the current procedure is for the letting agent to harvest fees.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tenancy is like this: I get an AST for 12 months with a S.21 notice at the same time. Two months before the AST ends, the letting agent writes asking me if I want to renew, and if I do,I get a new AST and S.21 notice. I have to pay £90 + VAT in fees for this.

If they did nothing, the AST would go periodic, and the landlord would still be able to get me out with 2 months notice. The only reason I can see for the current procedure is for the letting agent to harvest fees.

Deeply dubious practice from your letting agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a significant increase in risk tbh

There has always been a risk that a tenant wouldn't pay and that it would be hard to get them out

These changes could make it a bit harder, but I don't think it is material in the grand scheme of things

For LLs that don't do repairs, then there is an increased business risk. But that's surely OK isn't it?

This isn't really about non-payment as the s.8 Notice (unaffected by these changes) still allows eviction for rent arrears, anti-social behaviour etc.

I think the main risk for landlords is that it's unclear what repair and maintenance standards the council would require. The changes allow tenants to complain about the state of the property to the landlord, and if no response is forthcoming in 14 days, approach the local authority. If they, in turn, apply anything like the standards that a tenant in social housing would expect, then a good percentage of private sector landlords may have some issues. During my time in the UK I never lived in a rental property that met the Decent Homes Standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really about non-payment as the s.8 Notice (unaffected by these changes) still allows eviction for rent arrears, anti-social behaviour etc.

I think the main risk for landlords is that it's unclear what repair and maintenance standards the council would require. The changes allow tenants to complain about the state of the property to the landlord, and if no response is forthcoming in 14 days, approach the local authority. If they, in turn, apply anything like the standards that a tenant in social housing wcf23ould expect, then a good percentage of private sector landlords may have some issues. During my time in the UK I never lived in a rental property that met the Decent Homes Standard.

If it's something to do with the walls not having been given a fresh coat of magnolia emulsion it's unlikely to be an issue. But if it's something like a damp problem then it'll be another matter. As the article said it needs to be a health and safety issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/articles/assured-shorthold-tenancies-and-the-deregulation-act-2015

'Revenge' evictions (i.e. avoiding basic maintenance by evicting the complaining tenant and moving in a more compliant specimen) just became that bit harder.

Legal grey areas over securing deposits have also been cleared up. Now more in the tenant's favour.

Good job BTL landlords can always depend on capital appreciation.

This is worth a bump. One of the relevant sections in the statute is titled "Preventing retaliatory evictions".

Now where am I getting this wrong? Consider this hypothetical

I rent a property under an 6 month AST

The property has a damp problem

I complain after two months, long before a Section 21 Notice is issued

The council rock up and agree that the damp is a health and safety issue and needs to be made good

The landlord cannot now boot me out until the damp is fixed

It's almost worth seeking out properties with minor damp problems, (because of the improved security of tenure). :blink:

For a tenant, surely you ought to find something superficial to complain about just so you can stall the Section 21 process, should you desperately need to for some reason. It needn't be much and you could do it in a very off hand way. An e-mail with a some routine nonsense about forwarding post or whatever and just toss in a by your leave reference to damp. "The small patch of mould in the upstairs hall is still there".

This was enacted in March this year. Did we have a bunch of threads on it that I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only served one section 21 - and then right at the beginning of the tenancy. The agent forgot to ask about renewal so I simply told them a day or so before to collect the keys as we would be moving out on the agreed date. Hopefully dealt them a nice void.

Edited by StainlessSteelCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.