Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
rantnrave

End Section 21 - No Fault Evictions: Govt Survey

Recommended Posts

Hi all

Posting this from Generation Rent:

As you may know, the Government has published proposals to give tenants greater security. They're gathering feedback on the plans and need to hear from renters like you about what real security looks like. Click http://act.generationrent.org/securityconsultation18 to make your voice heard. 

Generation Rent would like to see the Government offer real security for renters by scrapping Section 21. Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act allows landlords to kick out renters from their homes with no reason given and just two months’ notice. This causes insecurity and stress for millions of families, disrupts children’s education and stops renters from complaining about unsafe homes. We are one of the only countries in Europe that allows this, and Scotland has already acted to restrict these damaging and unfair evictions. Without an end to these unfair evictions, renters won’t have meaningful security in their homes. We also want to see limits to rent rises to stop renters being priced out of their homes. 

We’ve prepared a http://act.generationrent.org/securityconsultation18 which you’re welcome to use, amend and add your own experiences in. 

Tell the Government to give renters real security of tenure using our consultation template response. 

 

Thanks for your support,

Generation Rent
http://www.generationrent.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rantnrave said:

Hi all

Posting this from Generation Rent:

As you may know, the Government has published proposals to give tenants greater security. They're gathering feedback on the plans and need to hear from renters like you about what real security looks like. Click http://act.generationrent.org/securityconsultation18 to make your voice heard. 

Generation Rent would like to see the Government offer real security for renters by scrapping Section 21. Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act allows landlords to kick out renters from their homes with no reason given and just two months’ notice. This causes insecurity and stress for millions of families, disrupts children’s education and stops renters from complaining about unsafe homes. We are one of the only countries in Europe that allows this, and Scotland has already acted to restrict these damaging and unfair evictions. Without an end to these unfair evictions, renters won’t have meaningful security in their homes. We also want to see limits to rent rises to stop renters being priced out of their homes. 

We’ve prepared a http://act.generationrent.org/securityconsultation18 which you’re welcome to use, amend and add your own experiences in. 

Tell the Government to give renters real security of tenure using our consultation template response. 

 

Thanks for your support,

Generation Rent
http://www.generationrent.org/

RnR - Thanks for this. Very useful. Will investigate further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had already filled one of these in as i went through the survey link on HMG website. But please do this anything that makes renting better and BTL less attractive is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ending section 21 will increase rents (higher business risk means increasing price), and you know it, which is why you included this:

21 hours ago, rantnrave said:

We also want to see limits to rent rises to stop renters being priced out of their homes. 

This never works and makes it worse for renters.

 

The first step would be a register where all S.21 attempts are permanently filed, including the landlord's name, any companies who might own the property and the property's address. There would then be consequences for the landlord and they might think twice before using S.21.

You could also make the notice period negotiable, so if you wanted to demand a 6 month S.21 notice period, you could agree to pay higher rent or more deposit.

 

Lastly, if you think that renting a property should give the renter the right to permanently stay there, then you are, quite simply, insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know why S21 needs to exist. LL can still get hold of the property if the rent is not paid or where the property is mistreated. Even where there are assured tenencies still the LL can get the property back if the rent stops being paid, or the tenant is mistreating the property, or the LL or direct family member needs to live there.

Make these processes faster under law, fine. But why no fault evictions? If the tenant has not done anything wrong why would the LL want to get rid of the tenant?

There is no legitimate need for S21 and it is just begging to be misused. The fact the government had to bring out a law helping to prevent tenants being evicted when they report issues that need fixing tells you everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Locke said:

Ending section 21 will increase rents (higher business risk means increasing price)

No, it won’t.  Most business can’t simply pass on costs, otherwise no business would ever go bust.

This applies doubly so for landlords, who are monopolists. 

In simple terms, rent is a tax. It is set by the Laffer curve, cost doesn’t come into it. 

Edited by BorrowToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

No, it won’t.  Most business can’t simply pass on costs, otherwise no business would ever go bust.

This applies doubly so for landlords, who are monopolists. 

In simple terms, rent is a tax. It is set by the Laffer curve, cost doesn’t come into it. 

Landlords charge the market rate, but it's a bit more complicated that it may at first seem. Is the market rate the amount a property will be listed for, or is it the average rent? The average rent will probably be lower as some landlords don't increase rents much or at all if they are happy with their current tenant. These kind of landlords may be tempted to ask for higher rent. Even if this backfires for the landlords and they don't achieve a higher rent (or if the higher rent doesn't outweigh the cost of voids), tenants will incur moving costs and inconvenience.

Landlords won't only consider increasing the rent due to increasing costs and risks. They will also consider selling. This will put upward pressure on rents as there are fewer places to rent and downward pressure on rents as more renters (especially the more affluent renters) buy. I believe the downward pressure will be the greater of the two, but I don't think the dynamics will be simple. I think renters will benefit, but perhaps not in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Locke said:

Ending section 21 will increase rents (higher business risk means increasing price), and you know it, which is why you included this:

This never works and makes it worse for renters.

 

The first step would be a register where all S.21 attempts are permanently filed, including the landlord's name, any companies who might own the property and the property's address. There would then be consequences for the landlord and they might think twice before using S.21.

You could also make the notice period negotiable, so if you wanted to demand a 6 month S.21 notice period, you could agree to pay higher rent or more deposit.

 

Lastly, if you think that renting a property should give the renter the right to permanently stay there, then you are, quite simply, insane.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with this argument. My opinion is that the rents are always going to increase, they will put them up at any chance they get and to as much as possible. The fact is, section 21 is wrong, and it shouldn't be legal that tenants can be kicked out with 2 months notice without even a decent reason, and also mid contract. If a tenant moves out mid contract they are liable for the rent, bills, fees and anything else they want to charge. If a landlord wants to kick someone out 6 months into a yr long tenancy it's perfectly fine and they don't have to give them any kind of compensation. 

Plus, I think a lot of people would be happy paying a little more knowing they will not be made to leave until the end if their contract. How many other businesses can break contracts without any penalty at all? 

People can only pay what they can pay, nd what the market can take- can't get rent out of a stone if you know what I mean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Locke said:

Lastly, if you think that renting a property should give the renter the right to permanently stay there, then you are, quite simply, insane.

Really strong argument there Locke, bringing your A game today.

Even a lifelong tenancy isn't permanent - it lasts as long as the tenant does. Social housing shows that lifelong tenancies can and do work in practice.

Home is where we build our lives. If you aren't willing to provide housing on a timescale that fits with people's lives, don't become a landlord. If you want to sell up, fine - sell it to the tenant or another landlord.

In my industry (pharmaceuticals) multidecade planning is normal. It takes decades to get a drug onto the market and once it's there you'll probably be selling it for decades. If mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords are incapable of operating on this kind of time horizon then mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords should be driven out of the market and replaced with somebody who can.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Really strong argument there Locke, bringing your A game today.

Even a lifelong tenancy isn't permanent - it lasts as long as the tenant does. Social housing shows that lifelong tenancies can and do work in practice.

Home is where we build our lives. If you aren't willing to provide housing on a timescale that fits with people's lives, don't become a landlord. If you want to sell up, fine - sell it to the tenant or another landlord.

In my industry (pharmaceuticals) multidecade planning is normal. It takes decades to get a drug onto the market and once it's there you'll probably be selling it for decades. If mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords are incapable of operating on this kind of time horizon then mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords should be driven out of the market and replaced with somebody who can.

Surely if you plan on being a life long tenant you should be buying not renting.  

When I rented it was because I had no intention of staying permanently and I would not have wanted to pay a premium for having long term security.  

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Really strong argument there Locke, bringing your A game today.

Even a lifelong tenancy isn't permanent - it lasts as long as the tenant does. Social housing shows that lifelong tenancies can and do work in practice.

Home is where we build our lives. If you aren't willing to provide housing on a timescale that fits with people's lives, don't become a landlord. If you want to sell up, fine - sell it to the tenant or another landlord.

In my industry (pharmaceuticals) multidecade planning is normal. It takes decades to get a drug onto the market and once it's there you'll probably be selling it for decades. If mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords are incapable of operating on this kind of time horizon then mom 'n pop get rich quick landlords should be driven out of the market and replaced with somebody who can.

You don’t understand, a piece of paper from the government’s land registry is absolutely sacrosanct, a piece of paper from any other part of the government is evil state violence.  

Unless it’s being used properly to enforce ownership of natural resources, government violence is wrong and you are a very bad man/woman for supporting wrong violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Surely if you plan on being a life long tenant you should be buying not renting.  

When I rented it was because I had no intention of staying permanently and I would not have wanted to pay a premium for having long term security.  

 

 

Staying permanently and staying for as long as you want/need to are not the same thing.

Having the option to buy would be great, unfortunately the government and financial sector have colluded to push the price of buying a house way out of the reach of the average working age person who doesn't already own property. There's even a website called housepricecrash.co.uk where you can read about it.

With buying an unrealistic option for most working age people for the forseeable future the need/desire/moral obligation to make private renting more secure for those who want it is much higher.

Also, who said anything about paying a premium for long term security?

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 10:56, AdamoMucci said:

I dont know why S21 needs to exist. LL can still get hold of the property if the rent is not paid or where the property is mistreated. Even where there are assured tenencies still the LL can get the property back if the rent stops being paid, or the tenant is mistreating the property, or the LL or direct family member needs to live there.

Make these processes faster under law, fine. But why no fault evictions? If the tenant has not done anything wrong why would the LL want to get rid of the tenant?

There is no legitimate need for S21 and it is just begging to be misused. The fact the government had to bring out a law helping to prevent tenants being evicted when they report issues that need fixing tells you everything.

It is simply to give lenders the security to kick out a tenant after only two months if they need to repossess and sell the place. Not being able to do this will significantly increase risk for the lender and therefore interest rates for the BTLers. If the market starts to decline, delaying a repossession because you need to give the tenant a year's notice (and possibly then up to another year chasing an eviction) could cost tens of thousands.

The landlords know this which is why many are so terrified of longer notice periods. 

They know as well as we do that, when the time comes, they will need to get out as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Staying permanently and staying for as long as you want/need to are not the same thing.

Having the option to buy would be great, unfortunately the government and financial sector have colluded to push the price of buying a house way out of the reach of the average working age person who doesn't already own property. There's even a website called housepricecrash.co.uk where you can read about it.

With buying an unrealistic option for most working age people for the forseeable future the need/desire/moral obligation to make private renting more secure for those who want it is much higher.

Also, who said anything about paying a premium for long term security?

I think it is inevitable that rents would rise if private sector landlords had to provide potentially lifelong tenancies. Most people would want a premium for in effect losing control of their asset, and if they didn't the banks that loaned them the money to buy the asset certainly would.

My own view is that social housing could be better and more cheaply provided by public bodies borrowing directly from the government to fund the building/purchase of properties than small scale private landlords borrowing funds from the banks on 2 or 3 year deal ever could.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oatbake said:

It is simply to give lenders the security to kick out a tenant after only two months if they need to repossess and sell the place. Not being able to do this will significantly increase risk for the lender and therefore interest rates for the BTLers. If the market starts to decline, delaying a repossession because you need to give the tenant a year's notice (and possibly then up to another year chasing an eviction) could cost tens of thousands.

The landlords know this which is why many are so terrified of longer notice periods. 

They know as well as we do that, when the time comes, they will need to get out as fast as possible.

The ones who know that would have got out already.

When the time comes the market will seize up overnight like it did in the late 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LL wont be prevented from breaking the min term if they have to sell I bet.  Seems like an OK concession to them. There really isnt a good reason to need to 2month no fault evictions. Why should these people be able to borrow fractional reserve QE money, and then control a bunch of houses? A very finite and very necessary resource that everyone needs to survive, and these leeches get to control them like that with borrowed funny money? F em. They have got no defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I think it is inevitable that rents would rise if private sector landlords had to provide potentially lifelong tenancies. Most people would want a premium for in effect losing control of their asset, and if they didn't the banks that loaned them the money to buy the asset certainly would.

Landlords and banks want lots of things, that doesn't mean they get them. As a tenant I'd like my rent to be 1 penny per annum. The market decides what the various actors actually get.

Where's the link between BTL mortgage rates and rents? Interest rates dropped rapidly after 2008, rents didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 08:50, Locke said:

Ending section 21 will increase rents (higher business risk means increasing price), and you know it, which is why you included this:

This never works and makes it worse for renters.

 

The first step would be a register where all S.21 attempts are permanently filed, including the landlord's name, any companies who might own the property and the property's address. There would then be consequences for the landlord and they might think twice before using S.21.

You could also make the notice period negotiable, so if you wanted to demand a 6 month S.21 notice period, you could agree to pay higher rent or more deposit.

 

Lastly, if you think that renting a property should give the renter the right to permanently stay there, then you are, quite simply, insane.

No your right we must stop slavery.. 😂

The world would be a better place without them! 

They are pure evil.. greed and stupidity all rolled into one.. a guy at work is a landlord.. he rings me every weekend for technical support as he is too stupid to do his own job.. 

I’ve started charging my time to the calls, hopefully once they clock on he’s thick as a castle wall they will sack the landlord scum.. 

They are landlords because they exploit those more intelligent than themselves, to take their wages.. you go to work, then give me all your earnings.. 

Slavery must end, people must remove the Tory scum! 

Edited by macca13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AdamoMucci said:

LL wont be prevented from breaking the min term if they have to sell I bet.  

OK but only on condition that they have to auction the property immediately with no reserve.
This country will never be truly free until we cast off all the carefully constructed legal protections for the landed and propertied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/08/2018 at 00:44, macca13 said:

They are landlords because they exploit those more intelligent than themselves, to take their wages.. you go to work, then give me all your earnings.. 

Yep, and they can only do that because they use the State to steal from everyone.

In a natural market, these people would be sweeping the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 13:09, BorrowToLeech said:

Most business can’t simply pass on costs, otherwise no business would ever go bust.

Wrong.

On 09/08/2018 at 13:09, BorrowToLeech said:

In simple terms, rent is a tax. It is set by the Laffer curve, cost doesn’t come into it. 

This is so stupid. If it cost £2000 a month to provide a house for rent, what is the minimum rent a landlord can charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 16:13, kirstieb said:

My opinion is that the rents are always going to increase, they will put them up at any chance they get and to as much as possible

Yes, but renters have the option of not moving. Landlords make up part of a local economy. If they gouge prices, then local businesses suffer as fewer people move there.

Rents are prices, which are a compromise between the landlord who wants the highest price and the renter who wants the lowest price. Your statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

On 09/08/2018 at 16:13, kirstieb said:

it shouldn't be legal that tenants can be kicked out with 2 months notice without even a decent reason, and also mid contract

They can't be. section 21 can only be applied after the inital period. I can't remember whether this is 6 or 3 months.

If you want greater protection, this should be negotiated with the landlord. Demand a year long contract with specific penalties for the landlord if they try to kick you out within that period.

On 09/08/2018 at 16:13, kirstieb said:

Plus, I think a lot of people would be happy paying a little more knowing they will not be made to leave until the end if their contract. How many other businesses can break contracts without any penalty at all? 

Well this is exactly what I actually said (maybe you didn't read it?). However, most people are on rolling contracts, which are in effect month long contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/08/2018 at 09:30, BorrowToLeech said:

You don’t understand, a piece of paper from the government’s land registry is absolutely sacrosanct, a piece of paper from any other part of the government is evil state violence.  

Unless it’s being used properly to enforce ownership of natural resources, government violence is wrong and you are a very bad man/woman for supporting wrong violence. 

Dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.