LANDLORDS – You Were Warned!

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "25/11/2014 - 21:12":

If I already knew the answer, then I would not have asked; life's too short 🙂

I have heard anecdotally that there are problems with S8 mandatory grounds but seen no hard evidence.

I have read the link you kindly provided, but it gives no information on S8 ground 8, so I still have no hard evidence.

My MP is clearly a dead loss on this issue and will blindingly go for the PC easy-target of landlords. Some people will swear black is white and while willing to believe there are tons of rogue landlords will deny the existence of tenants from hell. So, does anyone have any ideas regarding others to write to? I'm not talking about persuading these ones with their ears shut off, but which Minister(s) should we write to, to give them the benefit of our ideas - as we clearly know a lot more than any of them about the ramifications and the injustice of the Bill as it stands. If we could send quite a few emails to these pro-business and at least not anti-landlord people, this could help.

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "25/11/2014 - 23:28":

See the link below.
Read it in from the perspective of a private landlord, this bill being passed and section 21 being easily defended against for made up disrepairs.
Bear in mind the people being frustrated by section 8 are professionals handling possession cases day in, day out with huge resources. They know more about the process than anyone barring the most specialist of housing lawyers.
If you search and mine deep enough following my earlier link you will get to the statistics showing the failure rate of section 8 applications. It is not fit for purpose.

http://www.property118.com/district-judges-possession-question/32000/comment-page-2/#comments

Does this bill (in its current form) still look reasonable to you?

Reply to the comment left by "Rosalind " at "25/11/2014 - 08:57":

In answer to Rosalind - my understanding is that there will be no affect where a social tenant makes a complaint - the enforcement services would generally see it as a conflict of interest. However, social landlords are unlikely to be particularly concerned how a family or single tenant lives, provided it causes no nuisance to the neighbours. Where a tenant lives in filth and damages the property, housing officers who may be aware of it will not have their pockets hit when they leave thousands of pounds of damage. The private landlord is the one who pays in the private sector.

Yes, quite right Sharon. They get their wage packets at the end of every month however much damage is done. Ditto social workers et al (unless they're so bad they get the push). There are a lot of bleeding hearts out there, who protest to really care about tenants/clients, but who wouldn't get them a cup of tea out of their own pockets! Anyway: still wondering: anyone got any ideas about who else to write to? - as it would be good if we could flood a few inboxes today and tomorrow with our point of view.

Been watching the 'debate' in the commons.
Never more than 20 MPs present (but they did manage to find 60 MPs for a vote on moving to the vote).

'debate' continues next Friday.

LACK OF SUPPORT HALTS REVENGE EVICTIONS BILL

Commenting on the failure of the Tenancies (Reforms) Bill to progress past second reading in Parliament today, Richard Lambert, Chief Executive Officer at the National Landlords Association (NLA), said:

“The NLA has always been concerned that there is not the weight of evidence to justify the need for additional legislation.

“It seems the majority of MPs share these reservations given that so few were present to vote for it.

“Retaliatory eviction, if and where it does happen, is an unacceptable and completely unprofessional response. Tenants should be able to raise issues with their landlords without the fear of losing their home. However, the Tenancies (Reforms) Bill is a response more to the fear of it happening than widespread experience”.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "26/11/2014 - 11:40":

I have now had a more-critical look at the bill and considered the problems identified from your link.

On that basis you are right that there are many problems with the proposals and their likely impact on individual landlords and the PRS as a whole.

I am still of the opinion that tenants need to be protected from retaliatory evictions when they rightly ask for serious problems with their home to be fixed. I am therefore in favour of the principles of the Bill but would want to see it being fair to LLs as well as tenants.

My approach has been to write to my MP not to ask him to oppose the bill nor to attend second reading debates (it is at the third reading we need opposition if it is still unfair to LLs; the second reading is to vote on whether the principles of the bill should be taken further; see this link for the stages a bill goes through and links to a description of those stages), but to identify problems that I see with the wording of the Bill and to ask him to take appropriate steps to ensure that they are addressed before the Bill leaves the Commons. In particular I have noted that the Bill provides protection to tenants from bad landlords but does not provide protection to landlords from bad tenants.

I would suggest that all landlords do the same. You are then not asking your MP to take a specific action (with which s/he may be uncomfortable), but to use his/her judgement to address unfairness and unexpected consequences.

below is the summary from my letter to my MP; the body of the letter expands upon the points:

SUMMARY
I would like to summarise my observations as follows:
1. The bill addresses the issue of revenge evictions from the tenants position but does not protect landlords from bad tenants and has negative implications for good landlords and for the future of the private Rented Sector (PRS) as a whole.
2. Clause 1(1) gives tenants over 8 month's security of tenure after the serving of a relevant notice. Is that really the intent?
3. Section 4 makes it impossible for the landlord to obtain possession at the end of a 6-month tenancy.
4. Clause 2(8)(a) is unfair to both landlords and tenants (makes remortgaging during a tenancy unlikely to be acceptable to a lender) and will either lead to fewer properties available in the PRS or will lead to S21 notices being issued in order to remortgage.
5. Bill should allow notice from tenant to be sent by email, and should require LA to have an email address to be included so that a single send goes to both LL and LA as corroboration of tenant's claim.
6. LHAs must not be allowed to prevaricate on a complaint in order to prevent tenant becoming homeless
7. There is no requirement to notify LHA BUT if LA not made a decision, then there is a defence. Who has the duty to notify the LHA? 1(3)
8. Courts must not be allowed to put back a S21 hearing because it is challenged; they must be required to hear the landlord's rebuttal at that hearing.
9. need to provide sanctions that will be relevant to a bad tenant if they falsely claim to have made a complaint before the service of a S21. That should include criminal as well as civil sanctions. (Perjury? 2-6 month's rent to LL).
10. The effects of the bill need to be assessed for
a) unwanted benefits to bad tenants, and
b) adverse effects on good landlords and the PRS as a whole.

Finally, I understand that there is an "All Party Parliamentary Group on the Private Rented Sector". I would be grateful if you would also make my comments available to them.

Can anyone honestly say they have evicted someone for asking for a repair to be done? I haven't in nearly 20 years of being a landlord. It would be shooting yourself in the foot, as you'd only have to repair it for viewings anyway... and then you lose out with the void. The problem is that the whole premise is wrong and built on sand, but so many people have bought into it. And they've now gone and proposed stupid solutions to something that isn't a problem. It is so annoying to have non-landlords who have no knowledge of our business interfering in this way, as though they are some kind of experts. God I'm annoyed.

On a more constructive note, however, should we try and push a clause which reads something like this:
'A Section 21 notice will, however, be able to be served if the tenant is at all in rent arrears both at the time of the complaint or subsequent to it.'
That sentence would make me a lot happier and why should it be objected to?