Generation Rent urges Lords to deliver stronger tenant protection from eviction

At least they recognize that selling is a valid reason for eviction in this statement.

“Last year saw the highest number of households being evicted due to Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions since data collection began in 2018”

Data collection began in 1999 and has been far higher in the past;

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/mortgage-and-landlord-possession-statistics

Good old Ben Looney. Keep doing the same thing and get the same results.

The more him and Ms Bleat beat the Section 21 drum, the more Section 21s there will be.

And when it’s ” banned” and LLs continue to sell up, what will he say then?

******* Idiot.

What did the landlord’s representative say to the Lords!
Where in my SAT does it say i need to pay tenant’s moving costs.Tenants signed that so why do they expect to overturn a legal contract.Makes a mockery of contract law.
If the government is proposing to wreck SAT’s and remove Section 21, rather like leasehold reform they need to consider landlord’s human rights and pay us compensation.
Is it any wonder landlord’s want to evict now so why is Gen Z so surprised.
Why is Gen Z expecting private landlords to supply them homes from womb to tomb, that’s what council houses were meant for, but they are still being sold off.Obviously the councils can’t cope even currently but that’s not a private landlord’s responsibility.

Reply to the comment left by David at 01/05/2024 – 10:18
wise words

“Under the current Bill, selling the property remains a valid reason for eviction with only two months’ notice provided and no financial support for moving costs.”

There’s clearly more than one issue here. Section 21 is important because under the present regime you can’t get your property back from the courts even when your reasons are valid without a disproportionate amount of time and money. There’s a lot of talk of rogue landlords but the present system leaves landlords exposed to rogue tenants.

Clearly if you need to sell or move back into your property you should be able to evict. If you have a tenant that doesn’t pay, damages the property or upsets the neighbours you should be able to evict.

I don’t have a big problem with giving good tenants longer than two months notice provided that I can get the rent off them and they don’t spend six months trashing the property. The problem with the current system is that as a landlord you can’t protect yourself. You can’t agree more than a 5 week deposit. You can’t send a tenant an invoice for damage done to your property. As it presently stands the system does not favour long-term landlords and long-term tenants and it also penalises short-term lets.

His suggestion of tenants expenses being paid has already been rejected. He should probably put his XBOX down and keep up

Reply to the comment left by Fed Up Landlord at 01/05/2024 – 10:10
He says government needs the to step in and create properties.
The problem in his mind is likely that landlords are not bad, just when they are private landlords or making ‘profit’.

Communism is the driver here.

Reply to the comment left by Retired GasMan at 01/05/2024 – 10:28
If tenants want a greater benefit from you as a landlord e.g. longer notice periods and in effect greater security of tenure (which appears to be what this discussion about moving expenses is about) then there should be some way of protecting yourself as a landlord and ensuring that you get paid and don’t lose your assets. There isn’t one and the present law actually prevents much of what you might try to do to come to some kind of agreement with someone who might appear to be a good tenant….good references, guarantor, stable job, family with kids and both parents working etc.

What is actually happening at the moment is that good tenants are finding their way around the law by offering landlords more money than the advertised rent for the property and paying rent upfront to secure the property. And it’s the fact that not only good landlords but also good tenants are having to find ways around the law that tells you it’s a s*** system.

The consequences of it being a s*** system are that this has created a situation where supply cannot keep up with demand and tenants are driving up rents as much as landlords are.

I suspect if LL provided free food to Mr Looney he’d want legislation that it should be cooked fir him, and if someone wiped his backside he’d want softer tissue.