Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
hi5lo5

End of Section 21?

Recommended Posts

Come to think of it, if landlords are running a business and as such enjoy various tax advantages, it could easily be argued that they should not be able to evict a blameless tenant because they want to live in the house themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Come to think of it, if landlords are running a business and as such enjoy various tax advantages, it could easily be argued that they should not be able to evict a blameless tenant because they want to live in the house themselves.

They cant exactly claim in their defence as they so often do that they are "providing a home for the tenant" whilst reserving the right to evict on that basis.

Share this post


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

Interesting reading, thanks. Shows the significant disconnect between tenants and landlords, with tenants wanting more security of tenure and landlords not wanting them to have it.

Yeah - it's worth reading, and the narrative reinforces the desire by government to push ahead with this. I particularly liked this bit of special pleading, followed by the government's response. 

Q25: What, if any, financial incentive could encourage longer tenancies? Please explain

The most common response amongst landlords, letting agents and ‘others’ was that tax breaks would be the most suitable financial incentive to encourage landlords to offer longer tenancies (36%). This could include reversing measures to restrict relief for finance costs on residential properties to the basic rate of income tax. Each of these groups also said that there should be a government-backed rental guarantee introduced alongside longer tenancies, to reassure landlords that they would not be at a disadvantage as a result of these changes (9%). This could come in the form of an insurance policy covering non-payment of rent or property damage, or a government supported buy-to-let mortgage for longer tenancies.

It gets slapped down with this passive-aggressive summary:

The Government wants to drive lasting change in the private rented sector that all tenants will benefit from and believes that the best way to do this is to change the legislative framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a write up in the New Statesman highlighting the political implications of what they're calling the "rentquake":

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/04/abolishing-no-fault-evictions-government-has-fired-starting-gun-contest

Reckons the next battleground will be social housing: 

Quote

With both parties increasingly competing for the renter’s vote, it demonstrates a willingness from the government to try and reach out to groups who both parties will need to secure if they are to win future elections. It lays down a marker to Labour – which has also been calling for this reform in recent months – that the party will not have housing policy to themselves. 

If a consensus now emerges on this reform to private renting, both parties will need to turn their attention to the battleground now emerging in relation to social housing, too.

 

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always a way around regulation.  Want the tenant out?  Increase the rent.  I think the proposal is to have a mechanism to prevent unreasonable rent increases forcing tenants out but how many tenants will really take legal action on this basis and hire a valuer to give evidence etc???

The key is the balance of power in the market...100 prospective tenants in the market and 50 landlords with properties and the landlords hold the cards.  100 landlords in the market and 50 prospective tenants and the tenants hold the cards.  You see the same in the labour market.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the comments:

Quote

Rand Princeton 15 Apr 2019 2:38PM
@John Francis

well said that is exactly what I'm going to do now 

I've already contacted my agent and I'm going to impose a section 21 on all my tenants within the next week

and then those the want to stay on will have to renew their contract which I will then keep renewing at the end of the 6 mnth initial period.

stuff this  Marxist nonsense

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/landlords-could-stop-letting-no-fault-evictions-banned/

And landlords wonder why tenants have been crying out for the government to protect them from landlords with legislation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of those customer-focused responsible landlords they always claim to be:

Quote

Peter Sharples 15 Apr 2019 12:04PM
i will sell   sell sell   stuff these tenants 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cool-headed businessperson shrugs and gets on with it, realising that the regulatory framework is just part of doing business in any industry:

Quote

Jennifer Smith 15 Apr 2019 1:05PM
@Rick Chadwick When the rights of property are trashed by government, beware! This is the first steps of a dictatorship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bear Goggles said:

Yeah - it's worth reading, and the narrative reinforces the desire by government to push ahead with this. I particularly liked this bit of special pleading, followed by the government's response. 

Q25: What, if any, financial incentive could encourage longer tenancies? Please explain

The most common response amongst landlords, letting agents and ‘others’ was that tax breaks would be the most suitable financial incentive to encourage landlords to offer longer tenancies (36%). This could include reversing measures to restrict relief for finance costs on residential properties to the basic rate of income tax. Each of these groups also said that there should be a government-backed rental guarantee introduced alongside longer tenancies, to reassure landlords that they would not be at a disadvantage as a result of these changes (9%). This could come in the form of an insurance policy covering non-payment of rent or property damage, or a government supported buy-to-let mortgage for longer tenancies.

.....and Lo.....the Landlords, the Providers of houses, the Protectors of tenants. They spoke unto thee and proclaimed that as much as they were Shepards of superior wisdom and strength, help would not be cast aside by them, but embraced on their journey to bring salvation to tenants and others who chose to forgo taking on a f*** load of speculative magiked up QE debt.

Edited by Arpeggio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

From the comments:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/landlords-could-stop-letting-no-fault-evictions-banned/

And landlords wonder why tenants have been crying out for the government to protect them from landlords with legislation...

Would landlords act like this if they thought they may have a lengthy void period...? No.

This is about power. And who holds it. This step by UKGOV is tinkering. Tenants will suffer abuse and injustice until the balance of power changes and this only comes with a change in the supply and demand dynamics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LesDawson said:

Just seen the newsreader on Sky News at 11.15 (a blondish middle aged type, unpleasantly smug in this case) talking to a woman is is currently in the process of being kicked out because of this 21 thing.

 

The tenant explained how the landlord was kicking her and her partner out for no good reason, they had paid their rent, etc, and was clearly upset. She was saying how they needed to try to find another place in London, which was almost impossible for a decent amount, and the high fees they have to pay (only renting as they can't afford to buy).

 

The newsreader took this all in and said that in the past she (the newsreader) had rented, but now was renting out flats, etc. She then proceeded to show NO sympathy to the tenant, and infact was bringing up the landlords side, "what about their rights ?", and also said this current generation of renter's complained about the littlest things such as light bulbs and heating 'they don't know how to change light bulbs, or how to turn the boiler on'....

 

She was SO smug, and had a big smile on her face when the 'interview' ended. 

 

I felt physically reviled. Had never noticed this newsreader before, but what a disgusting creature.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sky-news-anchor-criticised-over-patronising-rant-about-about-young-people-not-being-able-to-change-a4118971.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, btl_hater said:

Jayne Secker is receiving plenty of negative feedback on Twitter. Nervous breakdown incoming....

But she's on again today, business as usual :(.

People who do a bad job, whether it's as a TV presenter or a traffic warden, should be sacked and their job given to someone who will do it properly.

Where I encounter it, I always take the time to report rudeness or other such bad attitude to management and do my best to have the offender sacked. Everyone makes mistakes, but that sort of smug, patronising, attitude is unforgivable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

But she's on again today, business as usual :(.

People who do a bad job, whether it's as a TV presenter or a traffic warden, should be sacked and their job given to someone who will do it properly.

Where I encounter it, I always take the time to report rudeness or other such bad attitude to management and do my best to have the offender sacked. Everyone makes mistakes, but that sort of smug, patronising, attitude is unforgivable.

 

Especially as the only reason she has a job is because her mum was in 'the business'

 

 

Share this post


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

But she's on again today, business as usual :(.

People who do a bad job, whether it's as a TV presenter or a traffic warden, should be sacked and their job given to someone who will do it properly.

Where I encounter it, I always take the time to report rudeness or other such bad attitude to management and do my best to have the offender sacked. Everyone makes mistakes, but that sort of smug, patronising, attitude is unforgivable.

 

Bet they love you in Tesco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

But she's on again today, business as usual :(.

People who do a bad job, whether it's as a TV presenter or a traffic warden, should be sacked and their job given to someone who will do it properly.

Where I encounter it, I always take the time to report rudeness or other such bad attitude to management and do my best to have the offender sacked. Everyone makes mistakes, but that sort of smug, patronising, attitude is unforgivable.

 

not  to mention blatant bias and utter lack of impartiality...she should have as they do in the US legal system recused herself from the interview due to her partisan views on the subject magnified by being heavily invested in those partisan views financially......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

Bet they love you in Tesco.

I've not had a problem in Tesco. I was instrumental in the manager of a branch of a chain restaurant receiving his P45 last year though and richly deserved it was too. 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 142 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.