The End of Section 21 to gain possession

[Grampa]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47927706?fbclid=IwAR3VtpQkGb2aPItBIssnHQM-ds_wAn1O664zfOLIBr8PBw4C0qyd-chNIxQ

Another stupid idea from the government who dont understand the industry

 

[Richlist]

43 minutes ago, Grampa said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47927706?fbclid=IwAR3VtpQkGb2aPItBIssnHQM-ds_wAn1O664zfOLIBr8PBw4C0qyd-chNIxQ

Another stupid idea from the government who dont understand the industry

 

Surely one article provided by the ludicrously biased BBC doesn't allow anybody to make a judgement ? There is just not enough information about the proposed changes yet. I refuse to adopt a cynical attitude that everything the Government do regarding the private rental sector is bad.  Let's fully understand the changes to the court process that forms part of this proposal before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

[kanrent]

I've got a good idea why don't the so called government do something to help the BTL and rental business instead of trying to destroy it, that would increase the amount of properties for rent and as a result lower rent and reduce the homeless 

 

[kanrent]

Actually better if the public school boys and girls with a degree in history and geography  that are supposed to be running this country do nothing

Better if they run and hide like the spineless cameron

[Grampa]

1 hour ago, Richlist said:

Surely one article provided by the ludicrously biased BBC doesn't allow anybody to make a judgement ? There is just not enough information about the proposed changes yet. I refuse to adopt a cynical attitude that everything the Government do regarding the private rental sector is bad.  Let's fully understand the changes to the court process that forms part of this proposal before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

The writing has been on the wall for this for a while. I believe it has already happened in Scotland and is now filtering its way to England in the same manner the fee ban did.

If you look at the all the recent (last 12 years) changes although some have a duel benefit to both landlord and tenant if you were a cynical person you would see it as a ploy to make it harder to evict and with numerous pitfalls for any possession order to fail therefore keeping tenants in properties longer at the landlords expense and taking the pressure off local authorities.

Below is my list of changes and amendments that make gaining possession harder:

• Huge increase in court fees within a very short period (from £125 into £300+ ) 
• Deposit protection timescales (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Deposit protection timescales Prescribed Info (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• EPC requirements (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Gas certificates (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• S21 Shelf life added (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• How to rent guide (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Latest version of How to rent guide (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Retaliatory evictions  (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Tenant fee ban (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• HMO requirements (possession order fail if no done correctly)
• Different rules for Wales and England (possession order fail if no done correctly)

 

[Carryon Regardless]

This is seriously making me consider how to plan my future.

I do not trust the courts to make a balanced decision if and when I feel the need to get rid of a painful tenant. Already before I go through any eviction process I have suffered losses and stress, this means a person with no understanding of the situation with a  direction from above to protect tenancy security will decide the fate of my business.

The costs even if awarded against a tenant or guarantor, and I see that as a remote chance at best, won't be received, so it represents a further loss in an already lost situation. 

A judge will invariably find a way to aid the offending tenants to remain longer, no doubt with threats to them to improve, but will allow for further abuse.

I've said previously that we are becoming social landlords this is clarification. We already have great difficulty in being allowed to run our own business this will take away the one tool we really need in an adverse situation.

Since the Gov't's feel we are incapable and unworthy of running a rental business it's time they took it all over in an honest way.

 

 

[Richlist]

I'm sure tenants could draw up a list of problems that the current rules/arrangements cause them.

The Gov feel they need to balance the scales.....specifically...... note: specifically with regard to no fault s21 notices. Done correctly it will be an improvement.......when we have all the details, including all the changes/improvements to the court process, then we'll know how good or bad it is.

2 final points.

* An alternative would be a Labour Government.......who are going to be very, VERY unfriendly to landlords...but I don't think many will want that.

* In spite of all the complaints, protests, disapproval and objections landlording for most of us has been and and continues to be a profitable way to invest our money. Whilst some are selling up and moving on there is no shortage of new people coming on board.

Therefore the Gov can afford to push the boundaries out whilst looking to acieve happy tenants, happy landlords and increased revenues.

[kerbut]

I have a 2 ground floor bed flat empty at the moment, as we have  2 other holiday let properties locally and have cleaners and a weekly laundry service I have decided to furnish the flat and make it a holiday let, I have been thinking about it for a while what with tenant find fees being passed on to us but today's announcement and the proposals from Brother Corbin (if he gets in ) are frightening. To this end, I have today been in touch with Blue Chip to give me an appraisal to see if it will work, we use them for the other  2 holiday let properties, our son had 5 Airbnb /Booking. com flats that seem to get booked all year round.   

[Melboy]

Let's not get carried away. The new legislation proposed in only in the consultation stages so far. It's a long way off from being passed into law.

The BBC, as usual, have only given out half a story and if anyone had listened to Mr Brokenshire, the government housing minister yesterday, it is not quite so bad as it is made out by the BBC report.

Personally I have no intention of selling up, in fact, I am about to expand my rental properties by one more. 

 

[Carryon Regardless]

TBH I lost faith in the industry when the deposit protection came in.

There is always some reason or other used to justify additional loading on the property landlord but the truth is the Gov't can't manage the housing needs and so pass the responsibility on to us in legislative forms. It is indirect taxation and more as it costs us extra and causes more effort with crazy threats of penalties for non compliance.

The deposit protection is a very good example. It's said some LL's abused deposits but the courts are there to address these claims by T's. The holding system (I realise there are other options at extra cost and admin) aids the DPS as they hold £millions and unfairly redistribute following claims that are biased by design toward T's. I wonder how much remains unclaimed.

The trend for many MP's to have a go at the dirty LL has been going on for a good while. Too many look for another way to protect the T in some fashion. Is our legal system so deficient that it fails them? I would have thought with Shelter, Citizens Advice and the internet there would be enough tools at their disposal, and that's beside going to a solicitor, ££££'s, as we are expected to do.

[Richlist]

The various changes to the PRS that have been proposed over the years often surprise me, firstly that they get so far and secondly that they often become law. Let's not forget that many MPs are also landlords. You would think they might have some first hand experience of the problems that some of the proposed changes might create.

[Melboy]

Couldn't agree more with the latest 2 comments on the subject but to quote...............Carry On Regardless.   

[Grampa]

There is now an even stronger argument for regulation in the letting industry and for landlords to use a good/competent  agent. But it wont happen and a higher % of self managing landlords with come a cropper and make the decision to sell up therefore reducing housing stock.

 

https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2018/4/more-than-half-of-btl-landlords-to-offload-properties-says-property-partner

 

[Grampa]

24 minutes ago, Melboy said:

Couldn't agree more with the latest 2 comments on the subject but to quote...............Carry On Regardless.   

I think carry on screaming is more appropriate 😱

[Carryon Regardless]

Each of us will have our own result from the appraisal of the effects of this. Mine is somewhat of a risk assessment.

Many of my properties are in the higher risk sector where T's have very limited resources of income, some dependant on social welfare.

This brings additional, to some, risk of T's (and G'tors) failing to meet financial needs, and some times look for ways to blame me.

I am heavily mortgaged, an intentional strategy back in 07 / 08 when I saw lean times ahead so created a cushion in anticipation of a return to more bouyant times within 6 years. That still hasn't occured 11 years on.

Interest rates are and have been unexpedely low supporting my portfolio profitability. Potential sale values are no where near an attractive value to make selling attractive.

Each time the Gov't creates a new initiative T's, or more likely their agents (I refer to Shelter specifically) will look to aid the T, this can even mean an opportunity of compensation to the T.

As Grampa, the legal system becomes more expensive to us. That system sympthises heavily toward the T (from my experience and others). Some of these initiatives actually incentivise T's to take on the LL. Our risks increase continually while our profits are diminished, and there are extra admin responsibilities and worse stresses can and do become significant.

I gave up on the S8 route years ago. While some grounds don't allow a judge choice most do, 'asking' a judge to sympathise with me isn't intelligent so I prefer the S21 as when used correctly it is a mandatory repossession order. It may take longer than can be achieved but it's less of a gamble.

As said it's early days but I believe the removal of our S21 tool is coming. Somehow Westminster will see that we like to repossess nice people and throw money away because we are immoral in our dealings. I think they are using the mirror too much.

For all there will be a point where the risk for the reward is too great. As these initiatives arrive progressivley we are given time to get used to the previous before the new so we are acclimatised. It's only when a list like Grampa's is put up we see how the evolution has taken place. 

For myself I see a great danger that as T's realise that 'I' do not have choice to evict that they can become more abusive. I see a time where we will not expect the 1st eviction attempt to be successful but that a court will want to see a pattern of behaviour before we get any sympathy. This is comparable to the criminal system where the abusers are given several chances to change their ways, but here it is at our expense both cost and stress wise as the continued abuse effects us soley.

With time I'll be looking at the figures to see if a strategy of disposal looks favourable. I do have T's that continually fail to meet thier financial responsibilities and imho would stop trying as they see and understand this advantage (it will be newsworthy to inform them), so they are top of the disposal list. So far the threat of S21 is a good management tool.

[Grampa]

At present with the ability to serve a s21 a landlord can take certain balanced risks with questionable potential tenants. Without that, all that means is it will be harder for tenants with  a questionable history to be housed. 

I see us as a agency raising the bar at the referencing stage and also having to document every little incident during a tenancy in case it is needed to bolster a potential s8 hearing in the future. 

I also see rents being raised to push undesirable tenants out or to encourage rent arrears as a ground to evict at a s8 hearing.

 

[Richlist]

So you are both very upbeat then ?.......there's no sign of doom and gloom whatsoever .......we can all look forward to a very profitable future !

Can't wait.....isn't it exciting ?😂

[kanrent]

14 hours ago, Grampa said:

At present with the ability to serve a s21 a landlord can take certain balanced risks with questionable potential tenants. Without that, all that means is it will be harder for tenants with  a questionable history to be housed. 

I see us as a agency raising the bar at the referencing stage and also having to document every little incident during a tenancy in case it is needed to bolster a potential s8 hearing in the future. 

I also see rents being raised to push undesirable tenants out or to encourage rent arrears as a ground to evict at a s8 hearing.

 

Can't raise rents they are capped or soon will be

[Grampa]

1 hour ago, kanrent said:

Can't raise rents they are capped or soon will be

Link?

[Melboy]

Well, perhaps I am upbeat more than most but it goes point to one fact that we have all been saying for years on this forum and that is to ensure that your prospective tenant who is going to occupy your rental property passes all the positive vetting that you can possibly have in place before you hand over the keys.

I do accept that even then you can have tenant woes but the key is to minimise that risk right from the start and even I follow Richlists comprehensive list of "must do's and must have's" before accepting any tenant which is an extremely useful tool.

[kanrent]

On 4/18/2019 at 2:09 PM, Grampa said:

Link?

I thought that your not allowed to raise rents more than a certain percentage each year but maybe I'm wrong correct me if I am wrong

[Richlist]

As far as I'm aware....you can raise the rent as much as you like and provided the tenant accepts the rise thats ok.

However.....the tenant may look elsewhere for rental property or may choose to have the increase determined by the rents tribunal.

[Grampa]

Well, there is a mechanism for a tenant to question/fight a rent increase if they think it is too high. I have never known a tenant to use it but never the less the option is still there and with all the info out there on the web and "Shelters" web site it could become more common if a rent increase is used  as a weapon to push tenants out once the s21 ban comes in.

If you read the prescribed info on a s13 notice (rent increase notice) you will note  it states:

3. If you do not accept the proposed new rent, and do not wish to discuss it with your landlord, you can refer this notice to your local rent assessment committee. You must do this before the starting date of the proposed new rent in paragraph 4 of the notice. You should notify your landlord that you are doing so, otherwise he or she may assume that you have agreed to pay the proposed new rent. 4. To refer this notice to the local rent assessment committee, you must use the form Application referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy or Agricultural Occupancy to a Rent Assessment Committee. You can obtain this from a rent assessment panel, housing advice centre or legal stationer (details can be found in the telephone directory). 5. The rent assessment committee will consider your application and decide what the maximum rent for your home should be. In setting a rent, the committee must decide what rent the landlord could reasonably expect for the property if it were let on the open market under a new tenancy on the same terms. The committee may therefore set a rent that is higher, lower or the same as the proposed new rent.

I would guess this mechanism can be used for any rent increase such as a renewal of a tenancy with a large increase and the tenant can refer it to the First-Tier tribunal. I dont believe it can be questioned if the increase/new tenancy has already started. The rent assessment committee can change any planned increase to what they consider the market rent but it is not unknown for the committee to increase the rent further if they think its too low.

But there can be a quite a difference between the lower and higher end rent for say a 2 bedroom flat. So If I had a tenant paying £725 pcm and wanted to increase the rent to £900  pcm though it may raise eyebrows it would still be (just) within the area of 2 bed flats prices in my area. That may encourage a tenant to leave or trigger enough arrears for a S8.  I am not suggesting anyone or myself does this I can just see it being used by some landlords in the near future to gain possession. 

 

[kanrent]

Has anyone got the detail yet 

Suppose I want to sell my property

What then

[Nev M]

You list is very useful Grampa as my agent currently has being doing most of this for me. I will check on some aspects on this with the new let property for private rental (still through same agent).