Proposed changes to Section 21 Notices

[Paul Sheehan]

I would urge all landlords to sign a petition against proposed changes to Section 21 Notices.

The Citizens Advice Bureau is leading a campaign to water down the automatic right to repossess property. The CAB are worried that some tenants are being evicted under what they call retaliatory eviction. In my opinion any changes could lead to lenders viewing BTL mortgages with concern and they could stop lending as they would not be able to guarantee vacant possession.

The implications are huge and landlords need to get together to stop this in it's tracks.

[Melboy]

Yes, I have already done it.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Landlord's. The legislation is getting so great now it makes you wonder whether it is all worthwhile.

What the open-toed sandel brigade don't seem to understand is that most caring Landlord's just want to rent a property out to a Tenant with no fuss and minimum hassle and if their Tenant turns out to be the Tenant from hell they want them out asap because the last time I looked I am not running a bl**dy charity for Scummies who think they can freeload off me and quote the human rights act with bells on.

Mel.

[Trenners]

Hi Paul,

I think the Section 21 notice needs reforming to protect the vulnerable tenants from the evil landlords in our society!

I believe that the CAB and Shelter etc etc are trying to stop evil landlords from RETALIATORY eviction. The best way to fix retaliatory eviction is to add a "reason" clause in the Section 21 whereby landlords have to state why they want their property back. Retaliation would, obviously, not be a valid reason for serving the notice.

Landlords should not be able to evict in retaliation to a complaint from a tenant. The tenant is usually questioning safety issues (does a Gas Safety Certificate exist, Can the landlord fix the smoke detectors, Have the appliances been PAT tested etc). Many tenants are too scared to complain about the dreadful living conditions that they face because the unscrupulous landlord evicts (via Section 21).

Many of these tenants are vulnerable and many are claiming DSS benefits. If they are evicted then they may end up in a hostel etc etc.

Perhaps a Section 21 notice should be changed so that a "reason for repossession" field is added and it could only be served if a valid gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate accompanied the notice - as well as proof that the tenant's deposit has been protected - before it can be presented to a judge in a Court of Law. In that way, if a tenant complained about the poor safety in a property the landlord couldn't retaliate, via eviction, and could be forced by the tenant or the judge or BOTH to make the property safe ?

I won't be signing the BLOG.

Thoughts ......

Mark

.

[Paul Sheehan]

Hi Paul,

I think the Section 21 notice needs reforming to protect the vulnerable tenants from the evil landlords in our society!

I believe that the CAB and Shelter etc etc are trying to stop evil landlords from RETALIATORY eviction. The best way to fix retaliatory eviction is to add a "reason" clause in the Section 21 whereby landlords have to state why they want their property back. Retaliation would, obviously, not be a valid reason for serving the notice.

Landlords should not be able to evict in retaliation to a complaint from a tenant. The tenant is usually questioning safety issues (does a Gas Safety Certificate exist, Can the landlord fix the smoke detectors, Have the appliances been PAT tested etc). Many tenants are too scared to complain about the dreadful living conditions that they face because the unscrupulous landlord evicts (via Section 21).

Many of these tenants are vulnerable and many are claiming DSS benefits. If they are evicted then they may end up in a hostel etc etc.

Perhaps a Section 21 notice should be changed so that a "reason for repossession" field is added and it could only be served if a valid gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate accompanied the notice - as well as proof that the tenant's deposit has been protected - before it can be presented to a judge in a Court of Law. In that way, if a tenant complained about the poor safety in a property the landlord couldn't retaliate, via eviction, and could be forced by the tenant or the judge or BOTH to make the property safe ?

I won't be signing the BLOG.

Thoughts ......

Mark

.

That's exactly the logic that will get this passed into legislation. On the surface it appears to be totally logical and rational. No-one wants to see tenants evicted for retaliatory reasons and I'd agree with you. But in an effort to protect the few the majority are penalised.

Let me give you a scenario that I fear will happen most times a Section 21 is issued if this becomes legislation. A landlord issues the Section 21. The tenant immediately responds to the court saying that it is a retaliatory action by the landlord. The case has to go to court, buying more time for the tenant. In court the tenant simply needs to say that they brought a leaky tap, sticking door, stain on the wall etc etc to the landlords attention. The tenant didn't do any of this, but says in court that he/she did. The court then has to make a decision on who they believe whilst knowing that if they side with the landlord a person is made homeless without a positive reference from the landlord.

In that situation which way do you think the court will act?

The CAB have stated that they want tenant law to mirror employment law. I don't know about you but have you ever employed anyone? I have and it's a nightmare. Add to the scenario above a pregnant tenant and you'll never get the property back.

If the landlord above is desperate to sell because they can no longer afford the mortgage payments the court will watch a landlord go bankrupt rather than evict.

Then there is the question of lenders. How many lenders will lend against a property where vacant possession is no longer a guarantee? I've spoken to a couple of lenders and they've told me that it's highly unlikely that they would lend. So, no mortgages, no remortgages. What happens to Buy to Let then?

As I said, on the face of it this CAB campaign seems reasonable enough, but when you delve into the implications it spells real danger for every landlord in the country. If you don't want to sign the petition then fine, just don't complain when the housing market implodes.

[J4L]

I agree with Mark here that it certainly needs watering down so that tenants can live peacefully without the threat of eviction for no reason.

I've had TWO reports this week from tenants who have fallen through rotten floorboards, 1 onto the living room floor and the other onto a gas cooker. Can I add in here that these are 2 separate houses but the SAME Landlord.

I asked the tenants why they had not brought this to the attention of the LL and they both have but were met with the usual I can't afford it, I have no money or stop moaning or i'll evict you!!

There ARE unscrupulous tenants out there who will play the system but equally there are the vunerable tenants who cower when threatened with 'a letter' and live in dreadful conditions because they are too scared to speak up.

These changes are not huge and will not affect the tidy LL's out there who are evicting for a good reason and stating the reason on a S21 notice shouldn't matter if it's being done properly.

[Paul Sheehan]

I agree with Mark here that it certainly needs watering down so that tenants can live peacefully without the threat of eviction for no reason.

I've had TWO reports this week from tenants who have fallen through rotten floorboards, 1 onto the living room floor and the other onto a gas cooker. Can I add in here that these are 2 separate houses but the SAME Landlord.

I asked the tenants why they had not brought this to the attention of the LL and they both have but were met with the usual I can't afford it, I have no money or stop moaning or i'll evict you!!

There ARE unscrupulous tenants out there who will play the system but equally there are the vunerable tenants who cower when threatened with 'a letter' and live in dreadful conditions because they are too scared to speak up.

These changes are not huge and will not affect the tidy LL's out there who are evicting for a good reason and stating the reason on a S21 notice shouldn't matter if it's being done properly.

The changes are huge, but to answer your point why are we as a society prepared to accept that tenants falling through floorboards is acceptable? Why isn't the landlord dealt with? The reality of the proposed change is that all good landlords will have to suffer because of the actions of a very small minority.

If you read the Law Commission's report into the future of BTL you'll see that being a good landlord is mandatory. They don't suggest any changes to Section 21. Why is it that an independent body who have studied the industry for some considerable time don't think that there's a need for a change and yet the CAB do?

Your last paragraph is staggering in it's implications. Say I just want to sell my property do I then have to give a reason such as I can no longer afford to subsidise my tenant? Do you have to give a court a reason to sell your own home, your car, even your dog? No, of course you don't. Then why should you have to give a court a reason to sell something else you own? BTL is a business, it's not a registered charity I'm running. Like any good business I'll look after my customers. What I don't need is more regulation to tell me how to do that. The steady march of regulation in the BTL industry only ever effects good landlords, the bad ones are below the uncaring radar of those who should be enforcing the existing regulations.

My suggestion is that YOU report the landlord you describe above, otherwise you're as culpable as that landlord.

[Simon Dewsberry]

The changes are huge, but to answer your point why are we as a society prepared to accept that tenants falling through floorboards is acceptable? Why isn't the landlord dealt with? The reality of the proposed change is that all good landlords will have to suffer because of the actions of a very small minority.

If you read the Law Commission's report into the future of BTL you'll see that being a good landlord is mandatory. They don't suggest any changes to Section 21. Why is it that an independent body who have studied the industry for some considerable time don't think that there's a need for a change and yet the CAB do?

Your last paragraph is staggering in it's implications. Say I just want to sell my property do I then have to give a reason such as I can no longer afford to subsidise my tenant? Do you have to give a court a reason to sell your own home, your car, even your dog? No, of course you don't. Then why should you have to give a court a reason to sell something else you own? BTL is a business, it's not a registered charity I'm running. Like any good business I'll look after my customers. What I don't need is more regulation to tell me how to do that. The steady march of regulation in the BTL industry only ever effects good landlords, the bad ones are below the uncaring radar of those who should be enforcing the existing regulations.

My suggestion is that YOU report the landlord you describe above, otherwise you're as culpable as that landlord.

Some goods point on both sides here ........but almost impossible to regulate ...........I personally dont have a problem with "reason for S21" .......as I have only ever issued one in 15 years and then let T stay ........to pay off his debt .......(still there now !)

but all a LL has to do (whether good or bad , above or below radar) is simply state "due to sale of prop as vacant possession" ......regardless of any history with tenant ..............should the LL later decide not to sell the prop then that is very much his perogative to do so.........and how this is to e regulted is beyond me .........

Any T with any concern about substandard accomadation only needs to use the systems which are ALREADY IN PLACE ie call local private sector housing who will visit and put an order on the LL ...........to carry out required works ...........IF LL then decides to issue s21 at this point then clearly there is cause for concern ...........BUT each case on its own merits .......

If LL in financial trouble and decides he cant afford to install new ch system and rewire and put new roof on ......and all in all he has no choice but to sell up .......it would be ridiculous to then prevent that sale by blocking removal of t to facilitate sale of prop .........which is exactly what these proposals will do ??????????

If prop that bad the surely T would want to leave anyway ?

As usual this is only going to apply in a minority of cases (as pointed out.. mostly off the radar anyway) ....and is very much a sledge hammer to crack a nut with good and proper LL AND LA getting caught in the crossfire.........

Vunerable T NEED protecting from shyster LL ........but we have instuments in place to resolve this already ...........if private sector inspection reveals prop not safe or fit to live in the an order as such will be placed on LL/Prop and t will have to be rehoused .......LL has notice period to do works .......

But trying to control a LL actions (ie issue S21 after the event) is just not realistic ............

unless we are going to undemine the whole concept of an ast?

With the HMO licencing laws(and prop standards) now getting firmly established it is only a matter of time b4 this is rolled out to all rented prop with regular inspections to make sure that ALL prop is safe and to a reasonable standard .............this is right and proper ..........but once again the vast majority of good LL will get caught up in this unneccesssarily as thay provide good props any how.............it remains the obligation of the T to bring these problems to the attention of the relevant bodies and for them to use legislation in place more effectively ......and for any changes in the system to direct effort and energies to the specific problem LLs NOT a blanket measure that will largely affect the wrong people?

The Rodent

[Simon Dewsberry]

Hi Paul,

I think the Section 21 notice needs reforming to protect the vulnerable tenants from the evil landlords in our society!

I believe that the CAB and Shelter etc etc are trying to stop evil landlords from RETALIATORY eviction. The best way to fix retaliatory eviction is to add a "reason" clause in the Section 21 whereby landlords have to state why they want their property back. Retaliation would, obviously, not be a valid reason for serving the notice.

Landlords should not be able to evict in retaliation to a complaint from a tenant. The tenant is usually questioning safety issues (does a Gas Safety Certificate exist, Can the landlord fix the smoke detectors, Have the appliances been PAT tested etc). Many tenants are too scared to complain about the dreadful living conditions that they face because the unscrupulous landlord evicts (via Section 21).

Many of these tenants are vulnerable and many are claiming DSS benefits. If they are evicted then they may end up in a hostel etc etc.

Perhaps a Section 21 notice should be changed so that a "reason for repossession" field is added and it could only be served if a valid gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate accompanied the notice - as well as proof that the tenant's deposit has been protected - before it can be presented to a judge in a Court of Law. In that way, if a tenant complained about the poor safety in a property the landlord couldn't retaliate, via eviction, and could be forced by the tenant or the judge or BOTH to make the property safe ?

I won't be signing the BLOG.

Thoughts ......

Mark

.

See above ! Private sector Hsing already have the power to do this ................the onus is on the T to cure this problem by simply contacting them!

If LL cant afford to do works and sell up ...........you will create a problem wher LL cant sell or repair and T wont go .......then what ?

No gas cert is an offence with repercussions already as are non compliance of work orders .................if Loc Councils did their "job" properly then this would not be an issue .................but to be fair they can only act if they are informed ..........so this problem lies squarely with the T and their "fear" and ineptitude etc to report to relevant body ............

In the same way as a Pub landlord has the right to refuse entry ...and a shopkeeper the right to refuse to serve a customer .........A LL has the right to possession of his prop (using instruments already in place)

We have H&s laws

gas certs

dep prot

licencing

we dont need any more ......just people to use them as they were intended

The Rodent

[Melboy]

I know it's off topic a bit but I thought this was worth an airing.............I knew it was in existance but come on it's hardly fair play is it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/31/debt.renting

[Simon Dewsberry]

This practice by LAuth is completely outrageous ......period.

and people wonder why LL generally dislike dss T .....................here is a very big reason ............

unfortunately other than booking the bailiff asap there is little aelse a LL can do.....without getting accused of harrassment or illegal eviction ......

The Rodent

[Preston]

Hi

As the article says, the practice of advising tenants to wait until physical possession is obtained is not uncommon, but it is clearly contrary to the guidance and I know there are a number of legal cases where the tenant has successfully taken action against the local authority as a result e.g. where it has caused them signficant financial loss or caused other hardship. Unfortunately, its much more difficult for the landlord to do anything, because they dont have a direct relationship with the local authority.

However, I think it might be possible for a landlord who has suffered a loss to complain to the local government ombudsman, if their loss has been caused by advice from the local authority which is contrary to central government guidance. The ombudsman has the power to order compensation and making a complaint costs nothing.

I also wonder whether it would be possibe for a landlord to sue an authority which acted in this way, particularly if the accommodation in question was clearly beyond the financial means of the individual concerned, which presumably it would be if there were arrears or if the rent was not completely covered by housing benefit. Taking action in this way, though, wouldnt be cheap and might be something for one of the trade bodies to pursue on a test basis.

I suspect this will be a growing issue over the next few years.

Preston

[Paul Sheehan]

Whatever your individual feelings about how badly these changes might affect landlords I'd really urge all landlords to sign a petition. There's no way that changing Section 21 Notices will end up being good news for landlords, even the Law Commission is against changing S21. If that isn't enough reason for every landlord to sign the Petition I don't know what is.

[J4L]

The changes are huge, but to answer your point why are we as a society prepared to accept that tenants falling through floorboards is acceptable? Why isn't the landlord dealt with? The reality of the proposed change is that all good landlords will have to suffer because of the actions of a very small minority.

If you read the Law Commission's report into the future of BTL you'll see that being a good landlord is mandatory. They don't suggest any changes to Section 21. Why is it that an independent body who have studied the industry for some considerable time don't think that there's a need for a change and yet the CAB do?

Your last paragraph is staggering in it's implications. Say I just want to sell my property do I then have to give a reason such as I can no longer afford to subsidise my tenant? Do you have to give a court a reason to sell your own home, your car, even your dog? No, of course you don't. Then why should you have to give a court a reason to sell something else you own? BTL is a business, it's not a registered charity I'm running. Like any good business I'll look after my customers. What I don't need is more regulation to tell me how to do that. The steady march of regulation in the BTL industry only ever effects good landlords, the bad ones are below the uncaring radar of those who should be enforcing the existing regulations.

My suggestion is that YOU report the landlord you describe above, otherwise you're as culpable as that landlord.

I agree LL's SHOULD be dealt with but the reality of the matter is that they are NOT, regardless what you throw at them, they'll all work a line, a lie, ignore, or find their way around it.

I have read the reports and to some extent I agree with you in the way you question their uneagerness (is that a word, sorry) for change and I agree that CAB really don't have a clue at times what they are talking about (at least their 'soldiers' don't)

Last paragraph?

Not staggering, realistic.

So you want to sell your property, if the reason for selling it is that you won't / can't afford to subsidise a tenant then what is the problem in stating that?

We're not talking about a car here (your argument) because all you have to 'give' is that it's got tax, or an MOT etc you're not messing with a 'roof over someone's head' here.

A small tick box to say your reason above would suffice to get a tenant evicted for you to do this, if the tenant disagrees then they can challenge it.

Lots of LL's evict tenants because they want to increase the rent massively (especially in this present climate of new LHA figures) and this route would enable Tenants to argue the toss with them over this. And why not?? Ths is not a valid reason for eviction of your home, your children's home!

Some evict because Tenants complain they are living in unsavoury conditions and all the LL does is evict and install a new one! Where is the regulation in that?

My suggestion is that YOU report the landlord you describe above, otherwise you're as culpable as that landlord.

Nice suggestion.

You think I HAVEN'T?

Of course I have because I want these guys out of the business as much as the Tenants do but would you like to know the answer they gave me?

"we are in the process of re housing these tenants but unfortunately due to the lack of suitable properties in the area and the "lack of funds" we are struggling, in light of the present climate, to find suitable accommodation for them. Unfortunately at this present time unless environmental health 'close them down' we can do no more."

And environmental health have said to me

"We have written to Mr ***** and requested he does the recommended works immediately"

So, hey ho, he can evict the tenant (giving NO REASON) and install a new one the day after, environmental health will do nothing unless/until they receive a 'new' complaint against him.

I'm not as culpable as these LL's because I care about what I do and I'm trying to do it. I can't be blamed for red tape!

The system is trying to put procedures and rules in place so that society gets the knowledge that all agents / LL's are honest people. What's the problem in putting a system in place to justify this!

[Paul Sheehan]

I agree LL's SHOULD be dealt with but the reality of the matter is that they are NOT, regardless what you throw at them, they'll all work a line, a lie, ignore, or find their way around it.

Then that law should be changed not the S21

I have read the reports and to some extent I agree with you in the way you question their uneagerness (is that a word, sorry) for change and I agree that CAB really don't have a clue at times what they are talking about (at least their 'soldiers' don't)

The CAB do know what they're talking about and they're very good at it.

Last paragraph?

Not staggering, realistic.

So you want to sell your property, if the reason for selling it is that you won't / can't afford to subsidise a tenant then what is the problem in stating that?

Very simple really, I may not want any a prospective purchaser to know I have to sell. Besides this is my property and I should have the right to do what I want with it without having to explain that decision to a court - or a tenant.

We're not talking about a car here (your argument) because all you have to 'give' is that it's got tax, or an MOT etc you're not messing with a 'roof over someone's head' here.

And that's the emotive language the CAB use. A BTL property is an investment, it's not a registerd charity. If the tenant wants certainty of tenure they should but their own property but as long as they rent the ownership of the property remain with the title holder.

A small tick box to say your reason above would suffice to get a tenant evicted for you to do this, if the tenant disagrees then they can challenge it.

Lots of LL's evict tenants because they want to increase the rent massively (especially in this present climate of new LHA figures) and this route would enable Tenants to argue the toss with them over this. And why not?? Ths is not a valid reason for eviction of your home, your children's home!

Why not? As I've said this is a business. I don't run it as a charity and HMRC certainly tax me as a business.

Some evict because Tenants complain they are living in unsavoury conditions and all the LL does is evict and install a new one! Where is the regulation in that?

There isn't. However the Law Commission's report addresses this very issue. Changing S21 will not stop landlords doing what you suggest.

My suggestion is that YOU report the landlord you describe above, otherwise you're as culpable as that landlord.

Nice suggestion.

You think I HAVEN'T?

Of course I have because I want these guys out of the business as much as the Tenants do but would you like to know the answer they gave me?

"we are in the process of re housing these tenants but unfortunately due to the lack of suitable properties in the area and the "lack of funds" we are struggling, in light of the present climate, to find suitable accommodation for them. Unfortunately at this present time unless environmental health 'close them down' we can do no more."

And environmental health have said to me

"We have written to Mr ***** and requested he does the recommended works immediately"

Then environmental health are as guilty as everyone else. They have access to legislation that could end the problem if they choose to do so.

So, hey ho, he can evict the tenant (giving NO REASON) and install a new one the day after, environmental health will do nothing unless/until they receive a 'new' complaint against him.

I'm not as culpable as these LL's because I care about what I do and I'm trying to do it. I can't be blamed for red tape!

The system is trying to put procedures and rules in place so that society gets the knowledge that all agents / LL's are honest people. What's the problem in putting a system in place to justify this!

The same argument was used over tenancy deposits. All the good landlords and agents comply, but are you seriously telling me the type of landlord you describe above complies, or even gives a damn? Getting rid of bad landlords should not punish all landlords, it should not increase the costs and risks of BTL for good landlords. The CAB report is full of inaccuracies. If you read the Guardian report you'll see that authorities all over the UK are advising tenants to get evicted and yet no-where in the CAB report do they even acknowledge this practice exists.

Your desire to get rid of bad landlords will not be helped one bit by changing S21 and at the same time you run the risk of lenders pulling out of BTL and decent landlords being unable to reclaim their property if S21 is changed. If you're happy to run that risk then fine, if not I suggest that you do something like sign the Netrent Petition or start your own. Good landlords will never marginalise bad landlords by allowing organisations like the CAB to dictate policy we will all just get caught in the same net.