I have been sectioned.

[Oracle]

Brexit even begins to bore me.

So change of topic. Section 21 repeal

The government has done little on anything else (except zoo animals) but has also dropped a bombshell. The lunacy of repealing sec 21 for rental property, the right to serve notice. Affecting all tenants and landlords.

And as a result, ( and the increasing hostility of legislation to landlords even by Osbourne) now I have been "sectioned" or threatened with it, I have sold out of all of my UK letting properties, which offered a quality of living the tenants could hever have afforded individually at affordable price to 2-3HMO tenants . All sold same day they were advertised, to people who want to live in them.

Incidentally the considerale pool of ex EU tenants, is why I know how bad it is in some of their home countries, which is part of the consequence of the failure of the euro.

My money flowing abroad to more sensible jurisdiction, away from Comrad Corbyns clutches.

I understand 40 percent of landlords are either selling up or intending to. It will be a catastrophe for tenants. In scotland when similar was enacted, it pushed up rents 20 percent. How can it ever help? Tenants when asked if they want longer terms invariably say no, not wanting to be bound by it.

The ridciulously short time given for consultation (only 8 weeks) indicates the government feel obliged to consult but have no intention of listening. Indeed intend to do it in order to steal Comrad Corbyns clothes. A report that had to be seen to be written, but was not written to be read. All the other landlords I know are quitting or seriously considering it.

It will have a disastrous effect on the rented housing sector. There are not enough properties even as we stand.

Im curious, what are the views accross the spectrum of renters and landlords.

[Witton Park]

I didn't become a landlord for investment or choice.

Both by accident you might say.

First time we were lucky. The tenant missed the last 3 months rent and we sent a letter asking for payment or we would start eviction process.
She left, otherwise it could have been closer to 12 months without rent, but she left a few grand of damage on what had been a ready to sell show home when she moved in.

Second time was worse. The home came to us on a sort of family equity release matter. We had a part share. The tenant put in a tumble dryer but didn't fix the outlet outside, so the steam was in house. She also allowed a fault in the shower sealant to be left unattended to and when a foot went through the floor board, we found out that most of the floor in the bungalow was rotten and needed replacing.
By the time we'd finished it cost around £10k to sort out.

I never had to evict as both times the tenants left, but in both cases leaving damage that could not be recovered from them.

My objection is to the stereotypical negative profile often presented of landlords.

My two daughters as students have had 11 experiences of lease agreements over the last 7-8 years and only one has been problematic and was resolved in favour of my daughter.

So yes, there are some issues, but the system as it stands is far more in favour of the tenant and the loss of section 21 only tilts it even further in the tenant's favour.

I'll never rent again, at least not in the UK.

[noel]

I have a colleague whose landlord is selling the house he lives in. He's from the US originally and is saying the rental rights for renters in the UK are worse than they are in the US.

I've rented for about 10 years in total post-student days (2 houses), but both time had nice reasonable landlords whom I could have a conversation with. I don't think that's reflective of the type of situation many landlords and tenants are in.

[DrPatrickBarry]

There are BAD tenants and BAD landlords.

If local authorties had the resources to do their job properly then a change in law would not be required to protect tenants from no-fault evections.

[Oracle]

I have a colleague whose landlord is selling the house he lives in. He's from the US originally and is saying the rental rights for renters in the UK are worse than they are in the US.

I've rented for about 10 years in total post-student days (2 houses), but both time had nice reasonable landlords whom I could have a conversation with. I don't think that's reflective of the type of situation many landlords and tenants are in.

But there is where I disagree. I think your experience is representative of landlords and tenants. It is just the few percent of nightmare landlords (and professional bad tenants) that get all the publicity. You cannot make the rules based on the 5 percent, without destroying the 95: which this certainly will.
One side contracts will fail in any walk of life: they already hurt employment, leading to more temporary jobs.

[Witton Park]

Your friend should consult Judge Judy she hasn't much time for tenants who withhold rent for months because a light bulb needs replacing.
"You're squatting" she'll say

But I am puzzled as the USA system is based on the UK and almost identical. They have the same initial short term tenancy, tending to be 12 months rather than our 6, moving in to a periodic one.

They also have deposit protection now like us.

They also have similar legal process for a landlord to move on a tenant, but if a tenant leaves prior to the end of the lease, recovering the money due is rarely done as it's costly and often not recoverable.

Perhaps it varies state to state?

[Oracle]

There are BAD tenants and BAD landlords.

If local authorties had the resources to do their job properly then a change in law would not be required to protect tenants from no-fault evections.

The oddity in the governments logic is a presumption that landlords want to evict or use sec 21 . They DONT!!! Landlords love long staying tenants. It is allowing an escape for when things go wrong, short of taking a tenant to court.

The court system is totally dysfunctional, and played by professional bad tenants already. And if pushed into using the court system the landlord has to recover the substantial costs.

With sec 21 they can close the door quietly have lost some but not a fortune. Personally I have never seen the merit of demanding money from people with none. In two cases I have brought a tenancy to a close having gifted a £1000 to tenants. Only the threat of sec 21 gives the climate in which such a negotiation can succeed. If both are forced legal using section 8 it can never end well or quickly: worse still the court case remains on the tenant record and blights them.

[Witton Park]

There are BAD tenants and BAD landlords.

If local authorities had the resources to do their job properly then a change in law would not be required to protect tenants from no-fault evections.

What about the right of a landlord to evict a tenant when the tenant is in arrears, let's say beyond a month? That would be fair wouldn't it?

You see of course professionals who rent, which is common place these days, are generally fine, as they have income and tend to rent because their jobs move.
That has been my two daughters for most of the last few years and still is for one.

But the people who rent who are boracic, perhaps not working, living hand to mouth, unless that have that level of up-bringing that means they respect the property and the landlord are more difficult. You can quite easily let someone in to a tidy house, and within a couple of months have a property in decline, rent arrears and a 6-12 month battle to get them out, whilst all the time they live rent free.

Flip that around, you couldn't as a landlord take 12 months rent for a house in advance and then lock them out of the property.

Some of my White Lightning drinking mates on the canal here (seriously) have been evicted from Salvation Army accommodation. Their day is about where they get their alcohol from, not cleaning the toilet after they've pebble dashed it.

I wouldn't be a landlord as I say. People expect the right to a good home, but many when they get one, don't care to look after it as if it was their own.

I actually think the role of the LA would be best placed as having (say) an ombudsman, that to keep the matter out of court if possible, could visit the property with tenant and landlord in a timely manner following a dispute, and adjudicate on the spot.
They could force a bad landlord to do what is needed and could also mandate a tenant to do what is needed.

It shouldn't need the court, except as a last resort.

[DrPatrickBarry]

I am not a landlord and know next-to-nothing about the law in this area so I can't get too involved in this thread. All I can say is what I hear on the Irish Radio. Dublin has a cronic accomdation problem. Ireland also has a law stopping unreasonable rent rises. So if a landlord thinks he can make more from a property than the current long-stay tenant is paying, he comes up with a reason to terminate the tenancy so he can re-let it the next day at much higher rent.

That is nice for the landlord, not so nice for the tenant. You also have the issues of tenants are afraid to upset the landlord by making very reasonable complaints in case the same thing happens.

And yes I know the opposite happens, where a landlord struggles to get rid of a tenant from hell. A good friend mine has a very stressful and expensive few months because of that.

[Witton Park]

and the point I make is about balance.

If a landlord wants to terminate a tenancy and let's say they don't have good reason, in the UK they have a process to go through which is the tenant wants to object to, can take quite a while. We are talking 6-12 months if the tenant wants to be difficult and that's not a criticism of the tenant, just how it works.

But if a tenant wants to walk away they can.

But what if a landlord has found themselves in a financial fix? Maybe their mortgage rate has changed, insurance gone up.... or maybe they have just fallen on hard times as they have lost their job or suffered an income drop.
Shouldn't they be allowed to sell the property with vacant possession?

A rental house is temporary. Yes we get attached to "our home" but we also get attached to our cars, and people don't get all prissy over a hire car from Sixt.