Section 21 not being abolished

[modellingman]

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/tim ... Z_11_10_22

Times political editor claims Section 21 evictions ban to be ‘shelved’ by Truss

A tweet by the political editor of The Times newspaper has claimed that Liz Truss is about to U-turn on abolishing Section 21 evictions.

Steven Swinford took to the social media platform late last night to claim that Liz Truss is shelving Michael Gove’s plans to end no-fault evictions, which were due to be introduced in this Parliamentary session

“The Times has been told that they are not considered a priority & could be killed off entirely, despite being a manifesto commitment,” he says.

For landlords (and I'm one) this may only be a temporary reprieve. Yet another U turn by Truss on a Conservative Manifesto committment is hardly likely to inspire trust in her or her party at election time. If/when Labour get in they probably will deliver on abolition of Section 21. This will be OK provided they improve the appalling court processes and delays involved in using Section 8.

modellingman

[Lootman]

I did not realise that abolishing Section 21 actions was under threat, so this "U turn" is really just a continuation of a policy that has been official Tory and Labour policy for decades now.

I cannot see any rational reason to prevent owners of housing units from reclaiming vacant possession of those units if they wish to, subject to a reasonable notice period and due process. That would be a basic assault on property rights.

[Charlottesquare]

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/times-political-editor-claims-section-21-evictions-ban-to-be-shelved-by-truss/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=LLZ_11_10_22

Times political editor claims Section 21 evictions ban to be ‘shelved’ by Truss

A tweet by the political editor of The Times newspaper has claimed that Liz Truss is about to U-turn on abolishing Section 21 evictions.

Steven Swinford took to the social media platform late last night to claim that Liz Truss is shelving Michael Gove’s plans to end no-fault evictions, which were due to be introduced in this Parliamentary session

“The Times has been told that they are not considered a priority & could be killed off entirely, despite being a manifesto commitment,” he says.

For landlords (and I'm one) this may only be a temporary reprieve. Yet another U turn by Truss on a Conservative Manifesto committment is hardly likely to inspire trust in her or her party at election time. If/when Labour get in they probably will deliver on abolition of Section 21. This will be OK provided they improve the appalling court processes and delays involved in using Section 8.

modellingman

The Scottish Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016Act may give some guidance as to how matters might eventually proceed down south.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016 ... ts/enacted

[Mike4]

I did not realise that abolishing Section 21 actions was under threat, so this "U turn" is really just a continuation of a policy that has been official Tory and Labour policy for decades now.

I cannot see any rational reason to prevent owners of housing units from reclaiming vacant possession of those units if they wish to, subject to a reasonable notice period and due process. That would be a basic assault on property rights.

Which is the main reason to fear the next Labour government would abolish S21. They are ideologically opposed to landlords having any property rights at all, surely. I was always deeply puzzled why Boris supported getting rid of S21. Yet another reason I'm pleased he's gone.

[modellingman]

I did not realise that abolishing Section 21 actions was under threat, so this "U turn" is really just a continuation of a policy that has been official Tory and Labour policy for decades now.

I cannot see any rational reason to prevent owners of housing units from reclaiming vacant possession of those units if they wish to, subject to a reasonable notice period and due process. That would be a basic assault on property rights.

Which is the main reason to fear the next Labour government would abolish S21. They are ideologically opposed to landlords having any property rights at all, surely. I was always deeply puzzled why Boris supported getting rid of S21. Yet another reason I'm pleased he's gone.

The policy actually originated towards the tail-end of Theresa May's administration as part of her appeal to the just-about-managings. When she was forced out due to the Brexit impasse in Parliament and Boris' manipulation of that situation to finally achieve what he had screwed up two years earlier (becoming PM), it was retained as Tory policy, presumably as part of the populism that subsequently swept Boris to his substantial majority in Dec 2019.

Evidence from the National Landlords Association suggests that the major use of Section 21 is by landlords for reasons which are actually covered by Section 8 - most notably severe or chronic rent arrears. Given that most tenants in arrears are unlikely ever to be in a position to repay their debt, Section 21 is by far the quickest and cheapest legal way of regaining possession and cutting losses. Unlike Section 8 there is no hearing involved, no judicial discretion not to grant a possession order, no last minute delaying tactics such as offers to reduce the debt owing on court room steps, etc.

The Scottish Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 Act may give some guidance as to how matters might eventually proceed down south.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016 ... ts/enacted

Yes, I agree.

No doubt, it is a consequence in the massive growth of the Private Rented Sector particularly over the period between 2000 and 2016. The sector accounts for approaching 20% of households and lobbying groups (eg Shelter) have been gnawing away at issues like security of tenure for years.

My own view is that the abolition of Section 21 with its no-fault/no-reason-given evictions is probably an overdue reform but that a more streamlined approach to recovery of possession under Section 8 should form part of that reform. Gove, the cabinet minister who brought the reforms to the parliamentary bill stage, understood that. I suspect his current successor, Simon Clarke, might be doubling-down on a PRS he regards as a winner. (See this speech, penultimate paragraph)

One concern about the Scottish reforms and the presumably now canned Renters Reform Bill, is student tenancies. The purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) sector seems to have lobbied successfully north and south of the border for retention of fixed term tenancies but there are plenty students renting in the more conventional PRS from landlords like myself.

It will be interesting to find out what has happened to this particular bit of the market in Scotland, where fixed term tenancies were formally abolished. I would be surprised if it has shrivelled away, PBSA needs eye-watering rent levels to support its business model. Certainly in Durham, where I operate, PBSA rent levels are largely only affordable by the very wealthy and/or state sponsored attendees from China.

modellingman

[Lootman]

Evidence from the National Landlords Association suggests that the major use of Section 21 is by landlords for reasons which are actually covered by Section 8 - most notably severe or chronic rent arrears. Given that most tenants in arrears are unlikely ever to be in a position to repay their debt, Section 21 is by far the quickest and cheapest legal way of regaining possession and cutting losses. Unlike Section 8 there is no hearing involved, no judicial discretion not to grant a possession order, no last minute delaying tactics such as offers to reduce the debt owing on court room steps, etc.

It seems odd to me that a no-fault eviction (S21) would be quicker and easier than an at-fault eviction (S8). I would have thought that the kind of things that gets a tenant evicted for cause (non-payment of rent, late payment of rent, noise, nuisance, criminal activity, damage etc.) is of a more urgent nature than merely seeking repossession because of an intended sale, wanting to move a family member in etc.

So I'd agree that some reform is needed. But I'd prefer your idea of a streamlined S8 rather than removing the ability of a property owner to regain vacant possession. It seems to me that a form of S21 should be retained, but be subject to a longer notice period (60 days, 90 days) and perhaps the payment of moving expenses.

Of course it's all moot as long as a landlord can raise the rent without limit. So that even without the ability to perform no-fault evictions, the landlord can simply raise the rent to something that the tenant cannot afford. I have done this in the past without a problem, such that I never had to issue a S21 notice at all, but often regained vacant possession. Or to put it another way, rent control and eviction control go hand in hand - one without the other is not effective.

[Mike4]

Evidence from the National Landlords Association suggests that the major use of Section 21 is by landlords for reasons which are actually covered by Section 8 - most notably severe or chronic rent arrears. Given that most tenants in arrears are unlikely ever to be in a position to repay their debt, Section 21 is by far the quickest and cheapest legal way of regaining possession and cutting losses. Unlike Section 8 there is no hearing involved, no judicial discretion not to grant a possession order, no last minute delaying tactics such as offers to reduce the debt owing on court room steps, etc.

It seems odd to me that a no-fault eviction (S21) would be quicker and easier than an at-fault eviction (S8). I would have thought that the kind of things that gets a tenant evicted for cause (non-payment of rent, late payment of rent, noise, nuisance, criminal activity, damage etc.) is of a more urgent nature than merely seeking repossession because of an intended sale, wanting to move a family member in etc.

So I'd agree that some reform is needed. But I'd prefer your idea of a streamlined S8 rather than removing the ability of a property owner to regain vacant possession. It seems to me that a form of S21 should be retained, but be subject to a longer notice period (60 days, 90 days) and perhaps the payment of moving expenses.

Of course it's all moot as long as a landlord can raise the rent without limit.

Really?

I am under the impression that a tenant faced with an unreasonable rent rise can appeal to the Rent Tribunal which has the power to set the rent at (broadly) market rate. Including with private landlords.

Is is wrong?

[Lootman]

Evidence from the National Landlords Association suggests that the major use of Section 21 is by landlords for reasons which are actually covered by Section 8 - most notably severe or chronic rent arrears. Given that most tenants in arrears are unlikely ever to be in a position to repay their debt, Section 21 is by far the quickest and cheapest legal way of regaining possession and cutting losses. Unlike Section 8 there is no hearing involved, no judicial discretion not to grant a possession order, no last minute delaying tactics such as offers to reduce the debt owing on court room steps, etc.

It seems odd to me that a no-fault eviction (S21) would be quicker and easier than an at-fault eviction (S8). I would have thought that the kind of things that gets a tenant evicted for cause (non-payment of rent, late payment of rent, noise, nuisance, criminal activity, damage etc.) is of a more urgent nature than merely seeking repossession because of an intended sale, wanting to move a family member in etc.

So I'd agree that some reform is needed. But I'd prefer your idea of a streamlined S8 rather than removing the ability of a property owner to regain vacant possession. It seems to me that a form of S21 should be retained, but be subject to a longer notice period (60 days, 90 days) and perhaps the payment of moving expenses.

Of course it's all moot as long as a landlord can raise the rent without limit.

Really? I am under the impression that a tenant faced with an unreasonable rent rise can appeal to the Rent Tribunal which has the power to set the rent at (broadly) market rate. Including with private landlords.

Is is wrong?

You may be right there although none of my tenants ever did that. Just because a rent increase is large doesn't mean the resultant rent is above market - it could just be a catch-up increase. For instance the last tenant I had did not receive an increase in 5 years. Then I increased it by 20%. Not unreasonable for 5 years, but it was more than she could pay, so she moved out.

Also if a tenant is on housing benefit then the landlord is still free to charge more than that with the tenant making up the difference.

To be honest most tenants just moved out when I asked them to. The percentage of tenants that bang on about their "rights" is not high in my experience. Most people are reasonable.

[Charlottesquare]

I did not realise that abolishing Section 21 actions was under threat, so this "U turn" is really just a continuation of a policy that has been official Tory and Labour policy for decades now.

I cannot see any rational reason to prevent owners of housing units from reclaiming vacant possession of those units if they wish to, subject to a reasonable notice period and due process. That would be a basic assault on property rights.

Which is the main reason to fear the next Labour government would abolish S21. They are ideologically opposed to landlords having any property rights at all, surely. I was always deeply puzzled why Boris supported getting rid of S21. Yet another reason I'm pleased he's gone.

The policy actually originated towards the tail-end of Theresa May's administration as part of her appeal to the just-about-managings. When she was forced out due to the Brexit impasse in Parliament and Boris' manipulation of that situation to finally achieve what he had screwed up two years earlier (becoming PM), it was retained as Tory policy, presumably as part of the populism that subsequently swept Boris to his substantial majority in Dec 2019.

Evidence from the National Landlords Association suggests that the major use of Section 21 is by landlords for reasons which are actually covered by Section 8 - most notably severe or chronic rent arrears. Given that most tenants in arrears are unlikely ever to be in a position to repay their debt, Section 21 is by far the quickest and cheapest legal way of regaining possession and cutting losses. Unlike Section 8 there is no hearing involved, no judicial discretion not to grant a possession order, no last minute delaying tactics such as offers to reduce the debt owing on court room steps, etc.

The Scottish Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 Act may give some guidance as to how matters might eventually proceed down south.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016 ... ts/enacted

Yes, I agree.

No doubt, it is a consequence in the massive growth of the Private Rented Sector particularly over the period between 2000 and 2016. The sector accounts for approaching 20% of households and lobbying groups (eg Shelter) have been gnawing away at issues like security of tenure for years.

My own view is that the abolition of Section 21 with its no-fault/no-reason-given evictions is probably an overdue reform but that a more streamlined approach to recovery of possession under Section 8 should form part of that reform. Gove, the cabinet minister who brought the reforms to the parliamentary bill stage, understood that. I suspect his current successor, Simon Clarke, might be doubling-down on a PRS he regards as a winner. (See this speech, penultimate paragraph)

One concern about the Scottish reforms and the presumably now canned Renters Reform Bill, is student tenancies. The purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) sector seems to have lobbied successfully north and south of the border for retention of fixed term tenancies but there are plenty students renting in the more conventional PRS from landlords like myself.

It will be interesting to find out what has happened to this particular bit of the market in Scotland, where fixed term tenancies were formally abolished. I would be surprised if it has shrivelled away, PBSA needs eye-watering rent levels to support its business model. Certainly in Durham, where I operate, PBSA rent levels are largely only affordable by the very wealthy and/or state sponsored attendees from China.

modellingman

Re PBSA a lot of them, in Edinburgh at least, use a financial model predicated on leasing to non students over the summer (eg festival lets) at higher rents, if students have rights to remain over the summer this might well be quite damaging to their outline business financing models.(Though how many students would so wish is moot, the percentage is likely pretty small)

[modellingman]

Don't ya just lurve a government that knows what it's doing?

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/tru ... Z_12_10_22

Truss reveals banning Section 21 evictions WILL go ahead despite yesterday’s leak

During a packed Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons this morning, she confirmed in a terse two-word statement that a key plank of the Renters Reform Act would be proceeding.

During PMQs Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton Graham Stringer asked: “Spooking the markets and increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages was almost certainly an act of gross incompetence rather than malevolence.

“But going back on the commitment to end no-fault evictions is an act of extreme callousness – can the Prime Minister reassure the UK’s 1 million private renters that she will carry out the commitment to get rid of no-fault evictions.”

In answer to his question, Truss answered: “I can”.

So, a U turn on a U turn. Haven't seen the term "W turn" anywhere yet, but I expect I will. Stringer's question is at 12:01:37 here

Editted to add Parliament TV link.

[Charlottesquare]

Don't ya just lurve a government that knows what it's doing?

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/tru ... Z_12_10_22

Truss reveals banning Section 21 evictions WILL go ahead despite yesterday’s leak

During a packed Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons this morning, she confirmed in a terse two-word statement that a key plank of the Renters Reform Act would be proceeding.

During PMQs Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton Graham Stringer asked: “Spooking the markets and increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages was almost certainly an act of gross incompetence rather than malevolence.

“But going back on the commitment to end no-fault evictions is an act of extreme callousness – can the Prime Minister reassure the UK’s 1 million private renters that she will carry out the commitment to get rid of no-fault evictions.”

In answer to his question, Truss answered: “I can”.

So, a U turn on a U turn. Haven't seen the term "W turn" anywhere yet, but I expect I will. Stringer's question is at 12:01:37 here

Editted to add Parliament TV link.

This is Liz, did she understand the combined in the question, positive ("commitment) negative (to get rid of) negative (no fault) ( evictions) and thus understand what she was actually saying?

[UncleEbenezer]

None of these look like particularly reliable sources, and one has to wonder if a site like landlordzone might be lobbying. As might a journalist posting in a personal capacity. The government of course could just kick it into the long grass (as they've done so far) if they've been lobbied by someone who ... erm ... matters.

Section 21 should certainly go, and as a quid pro quo for that landlords should be consulted on streamlining processes for at-fault eviction. The one case where no-fault eviction is genuinely justified is a homeowner renting out his/her own home while spending time away (e.g. working), but from memory there is already separate provision for that - albeit unused because with section 21 on the books landlords have no need for it.

And we could do with more professional/institutional landlords. Someone to do for rented flats what Premier Inns have done for hotels: a name or two that mean fair quality without costing the earth.

[modellingman]

None of these look like particularly reliable sources, and one has to wonder if a site like landlordzone might be lobbying. As might a journalist posting in a personal capacity. The government of course could just kick it into the long grass (as they've done so far) if they've been lobbied by someone who ... erm ... matters.

With the exception of the link to Twitter, itself part of the quote lifted directly out of the Landlordzone article in my OP and the second, and later, Landlord zone article reporting Truss' confirmation that Section 21 will be removed, all the other links in the thread to date are from UK government websites and I suspect these were not the target of your remark doubting the reliability of the sources.

So I must assume your remark is targeted primarily at Landlordzone which is a news reporting website, picking up on anything which is of interest to those operating in the private rented sector, including local authority housing officers dealing with the PRS.

Landlordzone is not a lobbying site and all the two articles I quoted did were first report a leaked intention not to repeal Section 21 on Monday and then, on Tuesday, the exact opposite intention. If I had quoted from, say, the National Landlords Association or an estate agent's trade body then your suspicion of lobbying would be well-founded, but that's not the case here.

Section 21 should certainly go, and as a quid pro quo for that landlords should be consulted on streamlining processes for at-fault eviction. The one case where no-fault eviction is genuinely justified is a homeowner renting out his/her own home while spending time away (e.g. working), but from memory there is already separate provision for that - albeit unused because with section 21 on the books landlords have no need for it.

Section 8 provides a number of grounds for re-possession of a property by a landlord, including that of re-possession when the property was formerly the landlord's main home and will again become his/her main home again after re-possession. In fact it it is Ground 1 in a list of 17. But all Section 8 grounds require a formal court hearing, whereas all a landlord seeking re-possession under Section 21 has to do is correctly fill out the paperwork and send it to the local court. Providing the paperwork is correct and a number of other conditions are satisfied (including several things required at tge start of the tenancy), the judge reviewing application must grant a re-possession order. No court hearing and, importantly where rent is not being paid, much quicker than Section 8 (though typically 4-6 months from service of notice to re-possession if the tenant refuses to go and can be much longer if it is necessary to involve bailiffs to effect re-possession).

And we could do with more professional/institutional landlords. Someone to do for rented flats what Premier Inns have done for hotels: a name or two that mean fair quality without costing the earth.

Unfortunately, wherever land and property is involved it is often accompanied by financial engineering that leaves the users of that property in dire circumstances. As you are, if memory serves correctly, a reader of Private Eye you will have seen the reports.

Southern Cross care homes was one of the most notorious but there have been plenty of others. Although not housing related, the emergent disaster at Worcester Warriors rugby club, also has the hallmarks of financial trickery and mismanagement focused on land assets.

The temptation to liberate the value locked up in land and property is great and the financial engineers are very good at doing it, though often very uncaring about the consequences on others. Definitely a case of be very careful about what you wish for in the context of rented housing.

One area where corporates have made inroads is in purpose built student accommodation. Whilst standards seem good, at least initially because it is mainly all brand new, rents are also very high. Those I am aware of seem to be like private halls of residence but without some of the advantages - such as a bar and on-site catering. Rents are often higher than for accommodation provided directly by educational institutions and much higher than those that can be found in the PRS.

However, for investors, PBSA is now just another asset class, so to offset risk returns have to be relatively good and that means sky-high rents. Again, it is a case of being careful about what is wished for.

modellingman