Mary Latham questions landlords rights to reposess

Ben, I gave you the answer last year, I called it "The GOOD Landlords Campaign". If it ever got off the ground tenants would be able to readily identify landlords such as myself and Mary who are in the business long term. Simply Google search "The GOOD Landlords Campaign" to find the article. If only we could find the right sponsor, for an organisation like Shelter it would cost peanuts relatively to sponsor the set up and could go a long way towards building bridges with the PRS. Sadly, I think there's about as much chance of it happening as Tom and Jerry becoming best friends. I'd love you to prove me wrong though. Not all tenants want long term commitment from a landlord either so it certainly wouldn't put the others out of business.

Maybe thats the way Mark. At my end I am doing my best with tenant and lanldord training on the basis that better awareness of each other's rights and duties can contribute to improving the relationship. It isnt the be all and end all but its a good contribution. I'm also doing what I can to affect the thinking of councils and how they interact with the PRS, which admittedly at the moment is like trying to persuade Stephen Hawking to take up tap dancing.

But I have hope of a miracle cure haha

Sorry Mary I missed this one, and Marks response underneath. There are a varioety of reasons for a landlord to want tenants to leave through no fault. Usually not with people like you and Mark, professionals who play the long game and know what's what (I cant remember the last time I ever had a complaint of harassment or illegal eviction against a pro landlord) but smaller Landlords do. especially small buy to let ones who might only be renting short term until the market picks up. I see it regularly. A landlord decides to sell and serves a s21 on the tenant and simply expects them to leave. the tenant cant afford to move (London currenlty requires a month's rent in advance and 6 week's equivelant rent as depsoit which can amount to £3,000 very easily- bearing in mind that even undisputed deposits take 10 days to be returned) and when they go 'Dahn the 'Omeless' they get told to wait for a possession order. Landlord meanwhile is going through the sale process and has a date for exchange and completion until I pop up and piss in their swimming pool with a few home truths about the eviction process and then get accused of being difficult.

The world and his wife wants to make money from property but so many do it on a wing and a prayer. If their finances go down, so do the tenants. If they need to liquidate assets the tenant loses their home through no fault of their own. We only have the amount of rentals we do because of these small amateur landlords and its a quandry, on the one hand we need their properties but on the other they are the ones who create so much insecurity in the sector. This is why I keep banging on about councils working with these people to help promote security and community sustainment but supporting small local business as a way of helping homelessness is to big a stretch for many in councils

Ben, lots of tenants only want to rent a property short term (student and contractors for example) and there are plenty of landlord who are only to happy to provide that accommodation.

There are also landlords who want long term tenants and tenants who want to stay in a property long term.

Surely all that's needed is a few dating websites for landlords and tenants and a few badges they can all earn to show they are respectable?

Well yeah, there's the rub. The thing I am thinking lately. You do get tenants who want short term lets, students, people trying out different jobs, a new a career in a new town, short term employment contracts and you get tenants with kids or older tenants who want a long term home not suited to the viccisitudes and vagaries of the lifestyle of an amateur or small buy to let landlord.

Maybe the answer isnt to get rid of the no fault ground AST but to match up tenants with long term needs with landlords who want long term tenants.

Maybe it is that simple. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree calling for a law change and it is simply a case of mathcing up landlord and tenant needs, as you say like a dating agency. I know in practice it isnt that simple in terms of law but if we use that approach as a starting point you see where it takes the thinking. Its worth exploring

Absolutely, and that takes us right back to " The GOOD Landlords Campaign" which I'm sure we can find a better name for by the way.

It has been mentioned but the real nitty gritty problem is for mortgaged BTL properties the banks want to be in total control.
LL might wish to ofer better terms to tenant giving longer security etc.
L hands are tied by the banks.
I'm afraid the bank is just NOT interested on how a tenant feels, they just don't care.
they want to know they can access the mortgaged property within certain protocols.
If they coiuldn't do so they would NOT lend as has been poin terd out.
So yes I am afraid the whole BTL market is based on the bank being able to get hold of the property ASAP to sell it.
They only lend because there are laws which do eventually allow a bank to exercise that control wit6hin a certain and eventual timeframe.
None of these circumstances makes or assists for good tenant/ LL relationships.
Tenants don't understand the pressures LL are subject to and quite frankly why would or should they.
The reality though is that a rental property is only available because the bank is in control of what could happen which it allows due to the law being as it is presently.
Anything that might prevent a bank repossessing a property would cause banks to withdraw from the market as has been mentioned.
Sorry state of affairs I know and it lacks all human understanding and sympathy; but the banks don't care and you cannot make them care.
Perhaps a code of conduct which they all agreed to subcribe to would be as much as you could expect, but certainly not more.
Banks are not social charities; they are merciless organisations and have little pity for either tenants or LL.

From my experience - And I've acted for landlords, letting agents and tenants slogging my bum around the local courts - the main problems are getting the forms/dates wrong and spurious defences.

On the issue of dates, on this site in the due diligence section, you can create and have a populate section 21 emailed to you free of charge, fully completed - see here - https://aqs.infusionsoft.com/go/NPGs21/NPGL36/

Re prolonging the process - For a section 21 properly executed, the court only has the power to extend a possession order up to a maximum of 56 days. The norm is a 28 day order, but we always request 14 (the shortest period).

As for a tenant giving notice - at the end of a a fixed term AST a tenant can simply leave on the last day - the notice is explicit within the tenancy agreement - thereafter you have a periodic tenancy. A tenant is required to give 4 weeks notice in writing under Section 5 of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977.

Interestingly that landlords get lampooned for breaching their notice grounds. How many tenants comply with theirs?

As for security of tenure - this may seem like a sales plug - but it's not. But one of the key attractions of our rent to buy service is that they 10 year option with tenancy renewal gives massive comfort to tenant buyers. There is a good video here from one of our tenants where she touches on this very point - http://youtu.be/JjMtMbJpP8g

You asked the question, presumably the cases you mention had reasons for it - what were they?

Ok so we have established that there are in fact landlords who intend to offer only a short term let and those who want long term tenants. The answer is not 'forcing' landlords to keep tenants longer than they want to the problem is how can a tenant identify the long term landlord if they want a long term let. If we solve that issue both landlords and tenants will gain. A landlord who only wants a short term let will not have the problem of going through the long Posession process because he will take the tenant who intends to move on anyway.
We need to put our thinking caps on and come up with a way for landlords to make a statement of intent, which does is not legally binding but which could form part of the tenants defense if the landlord serves S21 in less than, say, 1 year. Alternatively we could have a clause, to add to the AST, for those landlords who will not be prepared to offer the tenancy beyond the firxed term to state their intentions? I'm not sure how we can do this within current legislation but there must be a way.
The only time that I wanted a short term let was when I bought a property that was in excellent condition but not as modern as I wanted it to be. It was a bargain and I bought it when I was just too busy to carry out the refub. I offered it as a 6 months only let at a lower rent. I got a young woman who had ended a relationship and was not sure what the future held and it suited us both that the tenancy would only last 6 months. Hahahaha she found a new man, he moved in and they lived there for two years. I didn't mind waiting to do my refurb because he was a fully qulaified electrician and he rewired the house while they were living there. If at the end of the 6 months I had wanted to take the house back there would have been no problem, I had served a S21 at month 3 to confirm my intention to repossess and she was prepared to move out if I had not been prepared for the boyfriend to move in.
I cannot understand why a landlord would accept a tenant who was looking for a long term home if they did not intend to let long term? There are many, many tenants who only want a short let and there is no hassle getting the property back at the end of the tenancy if the landlord has been honest and the tenant has not put down roots.
Am I being nieve?