Government will ‘shelve’ plans to abolish Section 21 evictions

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 11/10/2022 - 21:03
i.e. dealing with anti-social behaviour.
"It is however catered for by S8 ground 14 which I agree is difficult to sustain without strong evidence but that is more of a reason to strengthen the S8 grounds than to retain S21."

Anti-social grounds are totally inadequate.
Rent arrears grounds are easily defeated.

But the Lefties want S21 scrapping *before* strengthening the grounds
-'Cos they know it can't be done.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 11/10/2022 - 21:28
How are rent arrears grounds easily defeated?

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 11/10/2022 - 21:50
... by spurious Disrepair counterclaims. Consider yourself fortunate not to know this, first-hand as many landlords have discovered.

Its a hugely cost-intensive process for landlords, funded by legal Aid for tenants ( aka Tax-payer, aka landlords )

Even if Tenant looses their disrepair claim, it adds several months or a year or more in some cases, often with no rent being paid and a massive accumulating legal expense and loss of rent for a landlord.

A Disrepair claim by a tenant could easily cost a landlord £20 k +

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 11/10/2022 - 18:01
Exactly Alexandra,

Next to my rent rent arrears, we've all had people that are just torturing us, totally unreasonable, awful horrible people. Why should we have to do business with them if we don't want to? It's our house, we've allowed them to live there. And many of mine have stopped there over 20 years if we all get along well. But an awful horrible vile person that puts us down every week, we shun't have to put up with that. There is no evidence, only our word. We shun't have to put up with this wearing us down, take away Section 21 & What do we just have to accept it? Many if us will choose to pack up for this too, not being allowed to get someone out OUR HOUSE. May seem cruel, but we human too-Which Govt & Councils fail to recognise.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 11/10/2022 - 21:03
Hi Seething Landlord - thanks for the clarification and reply.

I have only been a Landlord since early 2000s so was not involved in the industry when 1988/89 legislative changes were introduced. Can you tell me why you say that S21 was never intended to tackle rent arrears. I can see that prior to 1988/9 (as part of Rent Act 1977) rent arrears was discretionary rather than mandatory grounds for eviction (which tbh I find quite frightening) and they were only made mandatory as part of S8 during the 1988/9 legislation changes if I have my facts right.

Is the fact rent arrears evictions were made mandatory as part of S8 your reason for saying that S21 was not intended to tackle rent arrears or was it something specific that was said or done when S21 was introduced?

From a personal basis S21 serves as a safety net for me in that I know if push comes to shove I can repossess a hugely valuable asset should I need to and the power to control this does not lie in the hands of some arbitrary judge. I have used it only when absolutely necessary. In my local town I have seen a lot of ex rentals come up for sale as soon as S21 abolishment was announced - particularly HMOs which I have never seen for sale in 20 years. I suspect many Landlords will not risk being part of the PRS without the safety net of S21 regardless of any beefing up of S8 because the power to decide lies in the hands of the not fit for purpose Court system and tbh I do not trust them.

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 11/10/2022 - 22:08
...which is why S21 is a better way of trying to counteract this situation. The irony is that I for one would happily take a tenant to task for rent arrears with a S8 IF I knew the process was going to be quick.

The fact that the tenant will inevitably claim disrepair (as a way of elongating the process further to avoid eviction) is in itself unjust if the LL can prove at the immediate point of this 'defence' this is untrue. Unfortunately as most benefit tenants claim Legal Aid, again when the S8 process is started they are pushed to make a claim for disrepair by the solicitors who represent them - again to beef up the claim by whatever means possible and add more costs. These ambulance chasing LA firms go all out to try and prove the LL is rogue at every opportunity.

Been there done that. Was in a personal battle with such a firm for YEARS. Started in 2018 and got through 4 judges. Each one was a circuit judge who just kept kicking the can down the road as none were experienced enough to want to make a decisive call. 'Disrepair' was actually all due to tenant damage. She has removed the fitted carpets after her pets shredded them then lust let them urinate all over the exposed floorboards.
The kids drew all over the doors, kicked in the doors and removed the door handles, smoke alarms etc but apparently all this was my fault! She even 'fitted' an internal door in the hallway that was not safety glass and removed the flooring to do this. A total botch job. There was so much furniture and belongings in one room she broke the floorboards due to the weight but again apparently that was my fault too. I even shouted at the judge at one point that even if I wanted to repair the floorboards I coudn't even get into the room to do it as she refused to move anything out!

Eventually the last time we got to court I got to cross examine the tenant myself. She cracked on the stand and basically admitted that she had been told to claimed disrepair as a way of holding up the eviction and possibly getting some money by her LA solicitor! The judge ordered the case adjourned and myself and the defence barrister (yes they decided to ask a barrister to step in - just to up the costs even more!) to come to an agreement. Went outside of court and I gave the barrister a piece of my mind and sent him packing to take advice from her client (what a joke)! 30 seconds before we were due back in court the barrister came up and said they would settle if I repealed the request for the S8 if they agreed that the tenant caused the £20k of damages. The same day I issued S21 was issued. Was not contested (as LA solicitor dropped the tenant like a hot potato as now there was no money in it for them defending her ( S21 doe not ask for grounds for eviction).

The result - tenant out and money order for personal claim for damages and rent arrears in progress...
Downside? Total waste of public money to defend something indefenceble

Now its always a S21 for me!

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 12/10/2022 - 09:46@Alexandra, some people posting on sites claiming to be ' landlords ' are Not. ( and I'm not referring to you ) br />
They are imposters trying to stir up debate to lead towards their cause.
This can be seen in some of their ' mild ' leanings toward tenant sympathy.
Especially if you notice a string of posts from a particular individual ( to keep their subterfuge.) - these faux posters don't openly criticise Landlords, or vehemently defend tenants.
They pose the debate in no-mans land, with intention of weakening the landlords point of view.

Hi, I am a landlord and I have had a tenant since 2019 Nov.
From the very first month never paid rent on time. Even after that whenever she wants to pay she pays. Sometimes Little money after 2 months. Section 21 was served nothing happened. Now again section 21 and section 8 are served by the solicitors.
I am struggling with my family, the rules are made for tenants but all tenants are not the same, they take advantage of government policies.
And all the landlords are not the same, they struggle as well.

After she was given section 8, she texted me on my mobile,
"do whatever, I won't move"

It is such a long procedure, it's a headache.

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 12/10/2022 - 09:46
You have correctly identified my reasoning, the fact that a mandatory ground for possession based on rent arrears at the prescribed level coupled with a discretionary ground for persistent late payment were included in S8 of the 1988 Act indicates that this was what was considered necessary and reasonable at the time.

If S21 was intended to give landlords unrestricted ability to regain possession, what was the point of having the very detailed grounds for possession contained in S8 when landlords could simply circumvent them by using S21 instead?

In practical terms it is understandable that landlords have chosen to use S21 in preference to S8 but it is arguable that in doing so they have strengthened the case for its repeal.

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 12/10/2022 - 10:34
Hi Chris - thank you for the comment - I am aware of the possibility and therefore ALWAYS post with this in mind but appreciate what you are saying - rgds 🙂