No-fault Eviction

[Loup321]

Moderator Message:
This thread has been split off from here in order to keep that discussion focused on the OP's question. - Chris

You are correct that they will be told not to leave. If they are hoping to get the Council to house them, they have to go through the whole court process and then the bailiffs have to come and remove them in order for them to actually be homeless (they will not be homeless until then, so a month or two after the court says they have to be out). Even then, the Council will try everything they can to not have to rehome them (there are no places to rehome them, so I do have sympathy with the Council, as well as the tenant).

Have a look at the Shelter website for all the advice that your tenant will be given.

Given what you say, introducing them to helpful lettings agents that take housing benefit tenants might be a good course of action.

I have a friend who went through an eviction a couple of years ago, but had REALLY good lettings agents who knew my friend's circumstances well. The lettings agents told them to stay put and basically ignore the eviction notice until they had found the right place to go to. Everyone would be very flexible about when the tenancy ended and any overpaid rent would be returned. In that case, it was a no fault eviction, but one of the ones that will still be allowed. The landlord wanted to sell to move abroad.

[Mike4]

You are correct that they will be told not to leave. If they are hoping to get the Council to house them, they have to go through the whole court process and then the bailiffs have to come and remove them in order for them to actually be homeless (they will not be homeless until then, so a month or two after the court says they have to be out). Even then, the Council will try everything they can to not have to rehome them (there are no places to rehome them, so I do have sympathy with the Council, as well as the tenant).

Have a look at the Shelter website for all the advice that your tenant will be given.

Given what you say, introducing them to helpful lettings agents that take housing benefit tenants might be a good course of action.

I have a friend who went through an eviction a couple of years ago, but had REALLY good lettings agents who knew my friend's circumstances well. The lettings agents told them to stay put and basically ignore the eviction notice until they had found the right place to go to. Everyone would be very flexible about when the tenancy ended and any overpaid rent would be returned. In that case, it was a no fault eviction, but one of the ones that will still be allowed. The landlord wanted to sell to move abroad.

Thanks. I fear I might be in for a tussle then. My tame letting agent tells me they have no properties on the books and are getting about ten enquires a day. They say are able to let anything coming their way for <£ name my price no matter how unreasonable>.

Rental demand appears to be sky-high around here so it looks as though my tenants will find very little on the private rental market. (This is not the reason for wanting it back - it badly needs a top to bottom refurb now and I just can't do that while it is occupied.) Maybe I should reconsider and review the rent to market rate. But then this doesn't fix the house dilapidations. Just thinking aloud really...

[Loup321]

Thanks. I fear I might be in for a tussle then.

Give it two years. Give them 2 months notice. The next day apply to the courts. 18 months later get a hearing (that's how long the backlog is reported to be in the media). The court tells them to leave in 2 months, so they have time to find somewhere new. They don't leave. Appoint bailiffs who have to give notice that they will be coming round. Then the bailiffs actually get you back possession. Alright, adding that up might be 23 months rather than 24.

Plus, they may decide to stop paying the rent. If they do, it won't give you better grounds for eviction, or speed anything up at all. The courts still have an 18 month backlog. However, I think there is still a way of getting the housing element of Universal Credit paid directly to you if the tenant is in arrears. It's not as straightforward as it used to be with Housing Benefit, but I didn't actually go down that route with my tenants, since the arrears were always due to the benefits not being paid.

Best of luck!

[GoSeigen]

Sensible comments from Lou321.

Don't be a bastard.

Our family has been issued two section 21 notices by amateur landlords. A section 21 is an eviction. The landlord is kicking his tenants out of their home. For the tenant it is deeply unpleasant, there's no getting around that.

You can make the process easier by subtly letting your tenants know that you have taken on board the fact that you are forcing them out of their home. Do everything by the book so that you have the legal route available if required. But consult with the tenant as much as possible. Bearing in mind the potential costs it they are resistant, consider offering them help to find a new place as suggested by Loup321 or even a financial incentive to leave by a particular date (e.g. you'll pay the deposit on the new place if they leave by the date you've agreed with them). Much better to do it by agreement than trying to force the issue because obviously tenants leaving voluntarily is a 100% legal way to terminate a tenancy.

Sorry don't know about the specific question in the OP but it should be documented in numerous legal advice web pages.


Good luck.

GS

[Mike4]

Sensible comments from Lou321.

Don't be a bastard.

Our family has been issued two section 21 notices by amateur landlords. A section 21 is an eviction. The landlord is kicking his tenants out of their home. For the tenant it is deeply unpleasant, there's no getting around that.

You can make the process easier by subtly letting your tenants know that you have taken on board the fact that you are forcing them out of their home. Do everything by the book so that you have the legal route available if required. But consult with the tenant as much as possible. Bearing in mind the potential costs it they are resistant, consider offering them help to find a new place as suggested by Loup321 or even a financial incentive to leave by a particular date (e.g. you'll pay the deposit on the new place if they leave by the date you've agreed with them). Much better to do it by agreement than trying to force the issue because obviously tenants leaving voluntarily is a 100% legal way to terminate a tenancy.

Sorry don't know about the specific question in the OP but it should be documented in numerous legal advice web pages.


Good luck.

GS

Teaching me to suck eggs. Of course I know it is unpleasant for them. I'm communicating with them. They know they've rather wrecked the place and it needs dealing with. I am trying to do things by the book as you advise. Someone once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick" which is very much my style and seem to be what you recommend too.

I take on board it might help oil the wheels if I offer them a financial incentive but they are not short of money. I am also perfectly willing to co-operate and let them stay as long as it takes, but I fear if I tell them that, they will do nothing.

Thank you for your advice.

[GoSeigen]

Teaching me to suck eggs.

Wasn't the intention but obviously a danger given your long experience as a landlord (and business person). You did say this was the first occasion you've evicted someone -- I was just trying to give the perspective of a multiple "victim" of Section 21s. Anyway, you took my post in pretty good grace overall and I sense that in life in general as well as in this particular case you and I agree more than disagree...

GS

[Mike4]

Teaching me to suck eggs.

Wasn't the intention but obviously a danger given your long experience as a landlord (and business person). You did say this was the first occasion you've evicted someone -- I was just trying to give the perspective of a multiple "victim" of Section 21s. Anyway, you took my post in pretty good grace overall and I sense that in life in general as well as in this particular case you and I agree more than disagree...

GS

My reply was perhaps a bit prickly but I am taking on board what you said. Really!

It's odd how occasionally, a model tenant changes. Its as though they've found a tenant forum and soaked up everything said about bad landlords and assumed it applies to me, which it doesn't. The house needs a top to bottom refurb after 13 years of tenancy, and It just can't be done with the place occupied so I need it back. I'll do as you suggest and help them with the search for somewhere new. I wondered too if they might like to buy the place from me, but it's a really nice house in a good location and on reflection, I don't want to sell it.

[Lootman]

Our family has been issued two section 21 notices by amateur landlords. A section 21 is an eviction. The landlord is kicking his tenants out of their home. For the tenant it is deeply unpleasant, there's no getting around that.

Over the 32 years I was a landlord I had to let a number of tenants go for a variety of reasons. Some were inconvenienced more than others, but none of them took the view that I was doing anything unreasonable. All cooperated with the notice whether it was given in writing or orally.

So the vast majority of tenants do not take such things personally nor are they difficult about it. I assume that they know that a rental unit is always temporary. And with no rent control most places rent at the market anyway so another place should not cost any more.

Perhaps I was just lucky in weeding out the tenants who would be difficult at the application stage. I had a set of rules about who to pick that stood the test of time.

But sure, be civil. explain the reason (or make up a credible one) and give them an extra month or two more than you have to.

[Loup321]

Thinking about this a little more, I wonder whether there is an underlying problem. I know it's not your job to deal with it, but if you are going down the compassionate route, hearing another viewpoint might help.

You said that they used to be a model tenant with a good job, and now they have no job, are on benefits, and have stopped looking after the place. Have they lost their job and got stuck in a cycle of depression, not able to get another job because they don't feel they are worth it and not able to look after the place any more because it's not worth it? My perception is that is sometimes how homelessness starts. I could be completely wrong, and feel free to ignore me.

So the vast majority of tenants do not take such things personally nor are they difficult about it.

I do disagree with this. An eviction is a big thing - it affects you massively and you have to move house. That's up there among the most stressful things that can happen in your lifetime. Logically, it is not personal, but in the evenings, when people are tired, it really is personal. If there are other stresses in their lives, then it's because the whole world is against them and they are worthless. But as a landlord, you are not going to hear that as they don't want to make you any angrier with them, and make things any worse. For the vast majority, they won't be difficult about it because the landlord/tenant relationship has already broken down, and they don't want to live there any more. Look at GoSeigen's words. If you have never been evicted (or had a close friend evicted), you will never know how it feels. Even when my close friend was evicted, I was able to escape the feelings after I went home, but she wasn't, so I don't truly know either.

But back to Mike4's problem. If the tenant has already accepted that the place needs a major refurb, is there any way it can be done while they are there? If they went to stay with friends for a month, and took a few holidays (maybe not possible on benefits) during the majorly disruptive bits, can you work around them? It's not ideal, takes longer, and needs more planning, but I moved into a fixer-upper, and got people in to do all the work while living here. That would come with a rent increase to nearer market value and/or a rent holiday if they could move out for a bit. And then ask how you can help the tenant keep the place nice. Would more frequent landlord inspections help?

But as I said at the outset, it's not your job to make the world a nicer place for everyone. If you are going down the legal route, you need to make sure that the Gas Safety certificate is up to date (I don't think that's a problem!), they have had all the required information for the deposit (not sure what the rules on that were 13 years ago, but you may have already done that) and you have given them a copy of the How to Rent booklet at the start of the tenancy (which didn't exist 13 years ago, so give it to them now if you haven't already). https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/section-21-and-section-8-notices seems to cover it all.

[Lootman]

So the vast majority of tenants do not take such things personally nor are they difficult about it.

I do disagree with this. An eviction is a big thing - it affects you massively and you have to move house. That's up there among the most stressful things that can happen in your lifetime.

Before I bought my first home I probably lived in at least a dozen different rented homes. So moving from one to another, whether it was my choice or not, was not a big deal.

I can see it might be a big deal if you lived in the same rental for decades. But who in the TLF demographic does that? For most of us renting is something you do when you are young and mobile.

Also "eviction" is a word I would use for a situation where the tenant has behaved badly and so in a sense they evicted themselves. But a S21 notice is no-fault and so is rather different. That has to be allowed or else renting out a unit for 6 months could become a life sentence for the owner. So an owner should feel no stigma about doing that and a tenant should accept it in good faith and move on. I hope that happens in this case as was the case when I had to move and when my tenants had to leave. It is just part of life like changing a job or a car.

[UncleEbenezer]

I hope that happens in this case as was the case when I had to move and when my tenants had to leave. It is just part of life like changing a job or a car.

You might have a rather good analogy there.

You can leave a home or a job by giving notice to your landlord or employer, as specified in your contract. Or they can give you the boot, which can be very traumatic and disruptive, especially when it's your home.

But there's a system in place for the workplace relationship: the employer getting rid of an employee (in a no-fault situation) has to pay redundancy, and sometimes more. Now that you mention it, redundancy looks like a fine model for a successor to Section 21. Bearing in mind of course that Section 21 is not the only means of no-fault eviction in cases where the landlord has a genuine good reason for it - like letting ones own home while working abroad.

[Lootman]

I hope that happens in this case as was the case when I had to move and when my tenants had to leave. It is just part of life like changing a job or a car.

You might have a rather good analogy there.

You can leave a home or a job by giving notice to your landlord or employer, as specified in your contract. Or they can give you the boot, which can be very traumatic and disruptive, especially when it's your home.

But there's a system in place for the workplace relationship: the employer getting rid of an employee (in a no-fault situation) has to pay redundancy, and sometimes more. Now that you mention it, redundancy looks like a fine model for a successor to Section 21. Bearing in mind of course that Section 21 is not the only means of no-fault eviction in cases where the landlord has a genuine good reason for it - like letting ones own home while working abroad.

In jurisdictions with rent controls and protections against no-fault evictions, tenants have been known to try and extort money from landlords in return for "going quietly". In places like New York City and San Francisco, tenants have demanded sums of several tens of thousands of dollars for vacant possession.

I am not sure that is the direction we should be going in, as it makes the LL-TT relationship more adversarial.

[UncleEbenezer]

You might have a rather good analogy there.

You can leave a home or a job by giving notice to your landlord or employer, as specified in your contract. Or they can give you the boot, which can be very traumatic and disruptive, especially when it's your home.

But there's a system in place for the workplace relationship: the employer getting rid of an employee (in a no-fault situation) has to pay redundancy, and sometimes more. Now that you mention it, redundancy looks like a fine model for a successor to Section 21. Bearing in mind of course that Section 21 is not the only means of no-fault eviction in cases where the landlord has a genuine good reason for it - like letting ones own home while working abroad.

In jurisdictions with rent controls and protections against no-fault evictions, tenants have been known to try and extort money from landlords in return for "going quietly". In places like New York City and San Francisco, tenants have demanded sums of several tens of thousands of dollars for vacant possession.

I am not sure that is the direction we should be going in, as it makes the LL-TT relationship more adversarial.

In a redundancy situation, if the employer and employee can't reach agreement (e.g. one or both is being totally unreasonable), it would be for an independent arbiter to decide. Is that such a bad model? The arbiters already exist to make decisions on tenants' deposits!

[Lootman]

In jurisdictions with rent controls and protections against no-fault evictions, tenants have been known to try and extort money from landlords in return for "going quietly". In places like New York City and San Francisco, tenants have demanded sums of several tens of thousands of dollars for vacant possession.

I am not sure that is the direction we should be going in, as it makes the LL-TT relationship more adversarial.

In a redundancy situation, if the employer and employee can't reach agreement (e.g. one or both is being totally unreasonable), it would be for an independent arbiter to decide. Is that such a bad model? The arbiters already exist to make decisions on tenants' deposits!

But again all these types of protections for tenants make it more likely that a landlord will try and avoid long-term lets, and instead do something like Airbnb where you know an applicant won't say he wants a place for a year and then ends up staying a lifetime. If I think that I might never be able to get rid of you then I might decide not to rent to you in the first place. And that does not help you.

Ironically it is locations with rent controls, like New York City and San Francisco, that have the highest rents because landlords do not want to get stuck with a lifer, especially if they cannot raise the rent to market. Such cities have had to start trying to restrict AIrbnb because so many landlords refuse to take on a long-term tenant whom they are then stuck with.

[Loup321]

I do disagree with this. An eviction is a big thing - it affects you massively and you have to move house. That's up there among the most stressful things that can happen in your lifetime.

Before I bought my first home I probably lived in at least a dozen different rented homes. So moving from one to another, whether it was my choice or not, was not a big deal.

I can see it might be a big deal if you lived in the same rental for decades. But who in the TLF demographic does that? For most of us renting is something you do when you are young and mobile.

So no one other than the "normal" TLF demographic matters in this world? Both my friend and Mike4's tenant have been in the same rental for a long time. 13 years in the case of Mike4's tenant. But that means they are "not like us" so it's okay to treat them with a lack of humanity and respect? Absolutely not!

In the case of my friend, it absolutely wasn't her fault. The landlord had moved abroad, rented out the property for a few years, and then decided to sell to fund a property overseas. I think we all agree that should be allowed. However, with two young children and only just about managing financially, you cannot believe the stress my friend and her husband went through just before Christmas (the notice was to end on 24th December). But they are not TLF demographic, so in your opinion we shouldn't be concerned with them. Some of us are just not that heartless. Yes, it might just be business to you, but I would rather be nice.

[Lootman]

they are not TLF demographic, so in your opinion we shouldn't be concerned with them. Some of us are just not that heartless. Yes, it might just be business to you, but I would rather be nice.

I was always civil to my tenants and in fact two of them from the 1980s became lifelong friends.

But you are right, it is a business and I cannot get too emotionally involved in the welfare of my tenants. I am not a charity and I am certainly not their keeper.

Look at it from the other side. How would you feel if you let someone live in your home for 6 months and then they refused to move and ended up there for decades? You buy a home and then you can never get it back?

And again, why would I ever do rentals if I know that the contract is totally one-sided - the tenant can leave at any time but I cannot get them to leave?

[UncleEbenezer]

Look at it from the other side. How would you feel if you let someone live in your home for 6 months and then they refused to move and ended up there for decades? You buy a home and then you can never get it back?

Letting your own home is different to being a regular landlord, and is one of the situations where provisions for no-fault eviction exist entirely separately from the notorious evict-on-a-whim Section 21.

The landlord had moved abroad, rented out the property for a few years, and then decided to sell to fund a property overseas. I think we all agree that should be allowed.

Allowed, yes. Though in the case of a house that was never the landlord's own home, selling to another landlord should be the norm if a tenant is in residence. Those cases where it's a business, not a home, to the landlord.

I just thought being fired looks like a rather good analogy. It can also be somewhat traumatic and potentially disruptive. So the fact there's a well-established process and a formula for how much compensation the redundant employee is entitled to seems worth looking at.

And of course, just as Looty argues that it will deter landlords (I think it will tend to deter those who shouldn't be landlords in the first place), we have the same arguments over employee protections being a deterrent to hiring.

[Lootman]

And of course, just as Looty argues that it will deter landlords (I think it will tend to deter those who shouldn't be landlords in the first place), we have the same arguments over employee protections being a deterrent to hiring.

And that is exactly what is happening. The "nice" mom and pop landlords move out and the bastards move in.

The two biggest tenant protected housing projects in the US are in Manhattan and San Francisco. Both are now owned by hedge funds. And why? Because nobody else wants those tenants. And those tenants will be royally screwed over.

[Mike4]

And that is exactly what is happening. The "nice" mom and pop landlords move out and the bastards move in.

As was the case here in the UK, before no-fault eviction was introduced IIRC. When I got married in 1977, the options were wait for decades for a council house, buy a place of our own, or live with mum and dad. Renting privately was universally advised against as an option to be avoided at all costs. I'm not sure why but I think it was because the only private landlords around were mini-Rachmans.

The introduction of no-fault eviction kicked off the whole BTL industry as it gave lenders the confidence to grant mortgages on rented properties, and renting your own place became an option instead of being forced to buy.

If no-fault eviction gets taken away as seems likely by the Renters Reform Act currently passing through parliament, I can see BTL lenders all disappearing again and as you say, the nice 'mom and pop' type landlords (e.g. me) backing out of the market totally.

[GoSeigen]

If no-fault eviction gets taken away as seems likely by the Renters Reform Act currently passing through parliament, I can see BTL lenders all disappearing again and as you say, the nice 'mom and pop' type landlords (e.g. me) backing out of the market totally.

Agree 100%. Yet another example of the utter ineptitude of the current majority party. Banning letting fees was actually a pretty positive step. Removing no-fault eviction is unnecessary and a mistake.

IMO a better change would be to make holding deposits symmetrical, i.e. both tenant AND landlord post a holding deposit -- if the landlord pulls out he loses his deposit, same as tenants do now if they pull out. There are probably other small adjustments that would benefit both parties, abolish EPCs for example.

GS