Could adding a reason for eviction change landlords’ image?

Giving a reason on a Section 21 might be an interesting data gathering exercise.

However, the reason would be unproven and could be wholly inaccurate. A tenant may not agree that the data is accurate and, as this would be a public record, they would need the right to object to it.

Some landlords (according to Shelter) evict tenants rather than do repairs.

Some landlords are issuing Section 21 because they wish to sell. That is ‘no fault’ of the tenant. Some may want to move in themselves or for family to move in. That is no fault of the tenant. The latter would be a ‘no fault’ Ground under Section 8 (with prior notice potentially). Rising interest rates has caused some landlords significant financial stress. If the property is repossessed by the lender, a Section 8 Ground allows the lender to seek possession. Again, ‘no fault’ of the tenant.

Arguably, the government sold all the houses off and didn’t replenish them; now the government (non party specific as this has been going on for decades) are demanding that PRS landlords pick up the slack and cheerfully genuflect in their direction whenever tighter legislation is imposed. Let’s not forget, we are private businesses meeting the demands of a situation that the government has imposed on itself with a short-sighted, cynical vote grab. Banning landlords is their way of correcting a mistake they made by eradication of the evidence.

There is always a reason, when issuing a section 21, just alot easier to gain possession within reason that is.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 18/04/2024 – 11:54
I think this is a straw man argument.

If the law states that no reason is required, that doesn’t mean:
– you can’t have a reason
– that the government isn’t allowed to gather relevant supplemental information
– that the information collected would suddenly become a valid reason for the tenant to challenge the S21. It’s just information.

Reply to the comment left by John Frith at 18/04/2024 – 20:28
It’s not “just information”. It would be an unsubstantiated public allegation which the tenant would have no opportunity to challenge.

The idea is nonsensical.

Why should the government get involved in the contracts between private parties.

Surely allowing landlords to freely offer price and terms mutually agreeable is the solution.

Very simple make sec 8 mandatory same as other sec for anti social behaviour.

Then sec 21 would rarely be used.

This new legislation policy is going to give councils and government the excuse sorry rent arrears you made yourself homeless or antisocial behaviour sorry your behaviour made yourself .

They can absolve their duties to rehouse

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 18/04/2024 – 15:54
There is no intention for the reason-given-for-statistical-purposes to be considered by the court since Section 21 remains No Proven Reason unlike Section 8 where the reason must be proven.
The point of a statistical reason is purely to better inform the debate not to have any impact on the court proceedings.
Since the statistical reason isn’t proven it’s just what the landlord’s motivation is which should better inform the debate.
As already stated this good idea is overtaken by the bad idea of completing the RRB regardless of the Ombudsman, Portal, Courts reform required to actually deliver it.
Bad law, done badly..

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 18/04/2024 – 11:54
It’s a ‘no fault’ eviction

Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 19/04/2024 – 08:51
S21 is good law, used badly (by landlords) who have consistently abused the process rather than use S8 when there are valid grounds.