BTL Landlord - No fault evictions to be banned
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47927706
Whilst this is obviously great news for tenants and gives a sense of security and enabling them to put down some roots (which IMO is long overdue), what does this mean for landlords?
Under the government's new plans, landlords would have to provide a "concrete, evidenced reason already specified in law" in order to bring tenancies to an end.
If for example you want to sell up, what does this mean for the landlord? Is this akin to the old "protected tenancies" prior to the Housing Act of 1988?
Do you sell with sitting tenants thus narrowing the market or do you unscrupulously jack up the rent thus forcing the tenants to move out?
Has this really been thought through? We'll see in the draft when it is produced.
Whilst this is obviously great news for tenants and gives a sense of security and enabling them to put down some roots (which IMO is long overdue), what does this mean for landlords?
Under the government's new plans, landlords would have to provide a "concrete, evidenced reason already specified in law" in order to bring tenancies to an end.
If for example you want to sell up, what does this mean for the landlord? Is this akin to the old "protected tenancies" prior to the Housing Act of 1988?
Do you sell with sitting tenants thus narrowing the market or do you unscrupulously jack up the rent thus forcing the tenants to move out?
Has this really been thought through? We'll see in the draft when it is produced.
I guess the two main reasons for wanting shot of a perfectly good paying customer is that either you want to sell up and an empty house sells for more or there is another customer outside willing to pay you more.
I can imagine it will make it more difficult to sell the investment property but frankly, in a fair society should we favour a system where the tennent has to stump up a load of money and hassle to move just so the vendor can eek out a slightly higher return? Or in some cases be able to ‘move into’ the propert for 6 months before selling?
What it means is that the more vulnerable individual has a little more protection which as rental portfolios slowly trend towards being big corporate money is actually very sensible. These entities naturally act more like Hoogstratten than the nice chap with a couple of BTLs as his/her retirement plan.
If you want a good tenant out then you’re going to have to offer them some of the upside that you’re targeting as the primary driver to move them on.
It’s not going to protect the tenants of landlords who use organised crime to encourage tenant behaviour but one upside might be that over time more white collar tenants who are new to the long term rental game as they haven’t necessarily come from that social background where it is more prevalent, may start to settle for longer in properties rather than having the current mindset that they will probably be moving on every couple of years. And that will lead to more stable investment income, fewer voids and these tenants taking better care of their home.
I think there is probably a more upside than down to giving the new type of renters more security. And I also think that given how many of these renters are now renting for much longer periods before buying it is absolutely correct that law adjusts to cater for changes in large macro trends.
Better security for the better tenants will create a higher quality investment product.
I can imagine it will make it more difficult to sell the investment property but frankly, in a fair society should we favour a system where the tennent has to stump up a load of money and hassle to move just so the vendor can eek out a slightly higher return? Or in some cases be able to ‘move into’ the propert for 6 months before selling?
What it means is that the more vulnerable individual has a little more protection which as rental portfolios slowly trend towards being big corporate money is actually very sensible. These entities naturally act more like Hoogstratten than the nice chap with a couple of BTLs as his/her retirement plan.
If you want a good tenant out then you’re going to have to offer them some of the upside that you’re targeting as the primary driver to move them on.
It’s not going to protect the tenants of landlords who use organised crime to encourage tenant behaviour but one upside might be that over time more white collar tenants who are new to the long term rental game as they haven’t necessarily come from that social background where it is more prevalent, may start to settle for longer in properties rather than having the current mindset that they will probably be moving on every couple of years. And that will lead to more stable investment income, fewer voids and these tenants taking better care of their home.
I think there is probably a more upside than down to giving the new type of renters more security. And I also think that given how many of these renters are now renting for much longer periods before buying it is absolutely correct that law adjusts to cater for changes in large macro trends.
Better security for the better tenants will create a higher quality investment product.
Most of the no fault evictions I've seen have been when there's been hundreds of pounds in fee's to pay once the contract term is up simply to renew for another year, if you don't pay the fee's then you're issued with a section 21, now there's a letting fee ban coming into place this should reduce the frequency of this occurring.
Landlords will vet their tenants a lot more thoroughly as currently people with poor finance records and in receipt of housing benefit still get to rent decent places even though they may have left a trail of destruction in their wake at previous properties.
Landlords will vet their tenants a lot more thoroughly as currently people with poor finance records and in receipt of housing benefit still get to rent decent places even though they may have left a trail of destruction in their wake at previous properties.
untakenname said:
Most of the no fault evictions I've seen have been when there's been hundreds of pounds in fee's to pay once the contract term is up simply to renew for another year, if you don't pay the fee's then you're issued with a section 21, now there's a letting fee ban coming into place this should reduce the frequency of this occurring.
Landlords will vet their tenants a lot more thoroughly as currently people with poor finance records and in receipt of housing benefit still get to rent decent places even though they may have left a trail of destruction in their wake at previous properties.
I wonder how many landlords are aware their agents are issuing section 21 on tenants for non paying of renewal fees. A landlord would never issue section 21 for non renewal of agent fees.Landlords will vet their tenants a lot more thoroughly as currently people with poor finance records and in receipt of housing benefit still get to rent decent places even though they may have left a trail of destruction in their wake at previous properties.
The problem we have is because everyone opts for no fault evictions as its the only bullet proof method of possession, the likes of shelter can attach any made up bulls
t as to why these evictions taking place, such as retaliatory evictions which in reality its not that at all. Id like to bet most section 21’s are for rent arrears, anti social behaviour and selling up. The costs involved for court and the subsequent turnaround of the house would make retaliatory evictions a very stupid idea financially vs just doing the repairs needed.
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
For good tenants there should be a protected status....property ownership should come with responsibility and we should have fewer Hoogstratens.
Agreed. Lifestyles are changing. More people are renting and for longer periods and the laws should change to reflect this cultural shift. If this change serves to disincentivise tenant churn for no reason than fee generation then it is a good thing. Likewise if it further weeds out weaker landlords. Coin Slot. said:
I wonder how many section 21's get issued to good tenants with no rent arrears or ASB?
Why would a landlord want to evict good tenants? Except for redevelopment or a sudden change in circumstances I can see no reason.
Because a tenant becomes abusive?Why would a landlord want to evict good tenants? Except for redevelopment or a sudden change in circumstances I can see no reason.
Because a tenant is causing a nuisance?
Because tenants not looking after property?
Etc
These things are not easy to quantify or prove.
It’s good that tenants have more protection from landlords that abuse tne system.
Shame there is no consideration for the reverse situation.
Doesn’t scotland have 18 reasons for eviction?
Edited by philv on Tuesday 16th April 21:24
Edited by philv on Tuesday 16th April 21:26
Edited by philv on Tuesday 16th April 21:27
DonkeyApple said:
I guess the two main reasons for wanting shot of a perfectly good paying customer is that either you want to sell up and an empty house sells for more or there is another customer outside willing to pay you more.
I can imagine it will make it more difficult to sell the investment property but frankly, in a fair society should we favour a system where the tennent has to stump up a load of money and hassle to move just so the vendor can eek out a slightly higher return? Or in some cases be able to ‘move into’ the propert for 6 months before selling?
What it means is that the more vulnerable individual has a little more protection which as rental portfolios slowly trend towards being big corporate money is actually very sensible. These entities naturally act more like Hoogstratten than the nice chap with a couple of BTLs as his/her retirement plan.
If you want a good tenant out then you’re going to have to offer them some of the upside that you’re targeting as the primary driver to move them on.
It’s not going to protect the tenants of landlords who use organised crime to encourage tenant behaviour but one upside might be that over time more white collar tenants who are new to the long term rental game as they haven’t necessarily come from that social background where it is more prevalent, may start to settle for longer in properties rather than having the current mindset that they will probably be moving on every couple of years. And that will lead to more stable investment income, fewer voids and these tenants taking better care of their home.
I think there is probably a more upside than down to giving the new type of renters more security. And I also think that given how many of these renters are now renting for much longer periods before buying it is absolutely correct that law adjusts to cater for changes in large macro trends.
Better security for the better tenants will create a higher quality investment product.
And for the new type of landlords, joe public looking to better retirement?I can imagine it will make it more difficult to sell the investment property but frankly, in a fair society should we favour a system where the tennent has to stump up a load of money and hassle to move just so the vendor can eek out a slightly higher return? Or in some cases be able to ‘move into’ the propert for 6 months before selling?
What it means is that the more vulnerable individual has a little more protection which as rental portfolios slowly trend towards being big corporate money is actually very sensible. These entities naturally act more like Hoogstratten than the nice chap with a couple of BTLs as his/her retirement plan.
If you want a good tenant out then you’re going to have to offer them some of the upside that you’re targeting as the primary driver to move them on.
It’s not going to protect the tenants of landlords who use organised crime to encourage tenant behaviour but one upside might be that over time more white collar tenants who are new to the long term rental game as they haven’t necessarily come from that social background where it is more prevalent, may start to settle for longer in properties rather than having the current mindset that they will probably be moving on every couple of years. And that will lead to more stable investment income, fewer voids and these tenants taking better care of their home.
I think there is probably a more upside than down to giving the new type of renters more security. And I also think that given how many of these renters are now renting for much longer periods before buying it is absolutely correct that law adjusts to cater for changes in large macro trends.
Better security for the better tenants will create a higher quality investment product.
New laws to protect them aswell?
Integroo said:
philv said:
And for the new type of landlords, joe public looking to better retirement?
New laws to protect them aswell?
They have plenty of other places to invest their cash.New laws to protect them aswell?
And that’s even before we consider what ‘property is theft’ Corbyn will be doing to our investments if he makes it into power!!!
Anyone complaining about how the Tories have managed to intelligently deleverage the BTL market, removing the weaker and toxic landlords without damaging the market, forcing banks to make their clients lodge more margin on their leveraged transactions so as to slow excessive growth and remove higher risk holdings, slowing the inflow of overseas investment that causes all indigenous property owners to pay more than they need and the continued efforts of small changes such as this to help with tenant stability needs their head examined. It is the only single thing the bunch of incompetent schmucks have got right and it benefits every single one of us whether home owners, renters or investors.
First and foremost in the UK, houses are homes. Not investment assets to be driven for capital and yield returns at all costs. No investor is forced to be a landlord, it is a choice that we make and we lack the financial means to handle market evolutions then it is actually important for everyone that they are weeded out while the market is stable and not be allowed to be points of devastating instability when the market softens.
Property costs are only increasing and if an investor has dealt in such a manner that their investment can’t handle this at this stage in the market then they are not an investor but a speculator and there is no place for speculation when it comes to the thing that puts a roof over peoples heads.
We've been fortunate with tenants, only had one skip off after falling 3 months into arrears and minimal damage done. Wed just started proceedings based on failure to pay and more than 2 months arrears.
We've also got a good tenant who fell into arrears but communicated and eventually had benefit support for a year. We didn't rush to evict as we knew he was unfortunate and would get back in work, which he did, but landlords do need some protection. Luckily we aren't mortgaged and in dire straights if tennants don't pay, it's not the same for all tho.
We've also got a good tenant who fell into arrears but communicated and eventually had benefit support for a year. We didn't rush to evict as we knew he was unfortunate and would get back in work, which he did, but landlords do need some protection. Luckily we aren't mortgaged and in dire straights if tennants don't pay, it's not the same for all tho.
I agree but those landlords who are not able to financially cope with the risks of this market are basically spivs and shouldn’t be in it. Punters, speculators and spivs have plenty of investment markets to play around with without ever being a systemic risk to a whole society’s wellbeing. I simply don’t see a valid argument for them playing in the housing market where the primary role of the house is as a home providing stability and security to people and families.
I rent mine to two English Indian families who are young professionals and who have lived there for years. I met them myself at the outset and when a problem is looming at a property they let me know in advance and we plan a solution that works for both of us and with plenty of time to spare. I send them Christmas cards and just sent a present as one just had their second child. For their first child I paid for the second bedroom to be repainted as the nursery. They know the flats are for my girls eventually and I don’t relish them eventually moving on.
I rent mine to two English Indian families who are young professionals and who have lived there for years. I met them myself at the outset and when a problem is looming at a property they let me know in advance and we plan a solution that works for both of us and with plenty of time to spare. I send them Christmas cards and just sent a present as one just had their second child. For their first child I paid for the second bedroom to be repainted as the nursery. They know the flats are for my girls eventually and I don’t relish them eventually moving on.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff