x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Abolishing Section 21 could adversely affect housing supply

The government’s proposal to scrap Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act is likely to deter many people from investing in the buy-to-let sector and encourage existing landlords to exit the market, thus adding to the housing shortage crisis, according to Just Landlords.

The landlord insurance provider fears that the government’s plans to abolish Section 21 in a bid to end so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions will have a major impact on the market.

Removing the ability to evict with Section 21 will undoubtedly concern many buy-to-let investors, especially smaller landlords, which could result in a rise in evictions in the short-term, as landlords look to exit the market.

Rose Jinks, spokesperson for Just Landlords, said: “If the government does decide to scrap Section 21 completely, then landlords will need support on how to regain possession of their properties in legitimate circumstances, such as when they need to sell.”

“We are concerned that this latest change to legislation could further deter landlords from investing in the private rental sector, as we have seen recently, which could dampen housing supply and make it more difficult for tenants to find homes.

“What we’re most concerned about is how this will negatively affect tenants in the long-term. We fully support the Government’s aim of improving tenants’ rights, but the effects need to be considered before any changes are implemented.”

  • icon

    The planned change seems fair. Why should a landlord retain the power to evict a tenant who keeps to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The tenanted property may mean cash for the landlord, but it's a stable roof over the heads for tenants, who will have built up local contacts, etc., maybe even local schools for their kids. I understand that landlord wills retain the right to serve eviction notices if the tenants break the terms of the tenancy agreement, if they wish to sell the property, or if they themselves wish to move into their property - so the proposed change result in a good balanced situation of fairness now. Everyone should be happy,

    icon

    David, we rarely evict tenants for no reason, why would we? the reason we use section 21 over section 8 is that section 21 is quicker and cheaper when we need to evict a non paying tenant.

     
    Paul Barrett

    Mate the reason why a tenant should not have security of tenure is because a a sole trader LL should always be able to withdraw his capital when he wishes.
    There should be NO security of tenure beyond the initial 6 month fixed term tenancy.
    LL should not have their capital controlled by tenants.
    Tenants know that their tenancy can be terminated at any time if the LL so chooses.
    I will not have the likes of you dictating what I do with my capital.
    As long as I CHOOSE to remain in business I will let my properties to tenants who I think can give me the most PROFIT.
    I provide good quality accommodation but I decide who occupies them.
    I haven't evicted a single tenant who wished to remain; all of them on SPT.
    However I had to EVICT 5 of the waster scum tenants for rent arrears.
    As long as my tenants wished to remain and were prepared to pay the usual annual rent increase then they have stayed.
    Only 2 tenants vacated due to refusal to pay increased rent.
    I replaced them with higher rent paying tenants.
    Tenants like you need to get over yourselves.
    The PRS is not a secure form of occupation.
    It is in the nature of the beast.
    However it is secure as long as the LL wishes to continue to profit from letting their properties.
    But LL should always retain the ability to remove tenants when they wish.
    If you want tenure security then as has been suggested go and buy your own property.
    See how you manage when you fail to pay the mortgage.
    You would find yourself homeless pretty quickly.
    Lenders don't suffer mortgage defaulting gladly like LL have to suffer rent defaulting tenants due to the dysfunctional eviction process.
    S21 at least gave LL a semblence of control over their properties

     
  • icon

    So Sorry that I was ever a LL & have to put up with this nonsense. The Tenants have all rights already & we have none, then LL is responsible for everything & criminalised + pay all incl’ trumped up penalties. So you want more freedom just buy your own & pay your Mortgage the lender don’t put up with your nonsense or have trouble getting the Property back. There is no shortage of Housing just thousands of Flats being built clearly not required because of subsidised Schemes.

  • icon

    As Paul said, the vast majority of Tenancies last over 4 years, There just simply isn't the evidence to suggest the need for removal of Sec 21. ( what Landlord is going to go to SIGNIFICANT Time, expense and Trouble to evict a compliant paying Tenant ? - think about it, - shouldn't take too long. ! )
    Another thing, its Not the Private Sector's job to provide security of Tenure, that's the Governments, and if they're not doing so because of selling off homes or not building new ones, - the PRS should not be the whipping boys. !

icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up