Keep S21 by allowing landlords the right to buy out their tenants tenancy agreement?

Daft idea. They’re basically taking away property rights and landlords being blackmailed into making a charity donation just adds insult to injury.
‘The idea of banning Section 21 is to stop evictions because tenants are complaining about repairs and they are frightened to complain because of the threat of Section 21’
This isn’t correct since tenants are already protected against retaliatory eviction, as Shelter et al advise them https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/revenge_eviction_if_you_ask_for_repairs

No doubt the chosen charity would be Shelter.

That would help.

Stupid idea.

The real problem is that a tenancy agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Landlords have to hope that a tenant will move out as agreed. A culture had evolved whereby, because of nanny state legislation and court interference in what should be a simple procedure, it’s a total lottery as to when or if a landlord gets his/her property back.

Not the worst idea ever, but it’s in the top 3.

Stupid idea.
The biggest problem seems to be the government needs to remember who owns the property.
Therefore it should be up to the owner what they do with it. If you want a property back for what ever reason you shouldn’t need to jump thru hoops.
As for the tenant complaining the property needs maintenance. It’s in the best interest of a landlord to do work asap. What is a small leak now is a new floor decorating ect in a couple months.
It’s about time the government got on the landlords side.
After all if we all stopped renting the government would have to sort it

Stupid idea

iHowz have been promoting their proposal to retain S21 to parliamentarians since February 2022.

Our proposal offers a sliding scale of notice and compensation for tenants who have rented for longer periods and remain compliant with their tenancy.

https://ihowz.uk/the-unintended-consequences-of-losing-the-section-21-notice/

Rewarding those who fail to meet their obligations, in the manner proposed, makes no sense. Regardless of whether payments are made directly to the tenant or to a charity, such generous terms would simply force landlords to do what they would normally do with rent arrears and issue a S8 notice (for all rent arrears grounds) in the knowledge that the tenant is likely to get a CCJ.

There is already legislation (2015 Deregulation Act) which offers remedies for revenge eviction, including restrictions on serving S21 notice. The problem is that it is poorly enforced.

Apart from the fact that tenants can already contest a s21 “revenge eviction”, paying tenants to leave is already commonly happening due to the shoddy state of the court eviction system – especially when the landlord knows there is little to no chance of reclaiming back arrears/court costs etc. as the tenants have nothing to claim against. Purely because it’s a hell of a lot quicker and court evictions aren’t cheap.
Why the hell should they be hit with a 6 month loss of rent on top of eviction costs, unpaid arrears, loss of rent, double council tax during the void period, plus who knows what costs to get ready to rent again…madness!

Reply to the comment left by Wiggy at 25/07/2023 – 14:37
At last someone talking sense. These properties are ours , some outright owned and some are mortgaged with hefty interest rates so we should have the right to take back our properties at any time we like , obviously with a bit of notice without all the palarva that goes with it but we all know that’s for the council’s benefit. When tenants are handed the keys they should understand that at any given moment they may have a months notice to move out …end of.