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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Four out of 10 landlords call for a fast track housing tribunal

Almost four out of ten adults would like to see the government introduce a fast track housing tribunal if the Section 21 ‘no-fault’ eviction process is scrapped, new research shows.

According to Paragon’s PRS Trends Report for Q2 2019, which surveys the views and experiences of over more than 200 landlords, 39% of landlords would like to see a fast track housing tribunal introduced if Section 21, introduced in The Housing Act 1988, is abolished as planned.

The government announced its intention to abolish Section 21 in April this year, which would mean that landlords could no longer give tenants two months’ notice of their intention to take possession of a property at any time after the initial fixed term of the tenancy agreement has expired.

In its place, the government proposes that landlords should follow the Section 8 process which requires them to demonstrate that tenants are in breach of their rental agreement when serving notice.

Alongside a fast track tribunal, almost 24% of respondents to Paragon’s survey said that they would like to see a shorter court process, 15% would like a guaranteed way to cover their costs, while 7% argued for the ability to submit evidence online.

Some 84% of landlords said they felt the maximum time from serving notice to taking possession should be no longer than eight weeks.

According to the MHCLG’s recent English Private Landlord Survey, the vast majority of tenancies end at the tenant’s request.

John Heron, director of mortgages at Paragon, said: “Some of the main concerns for landlords around a move to the Section 8 eviction process relate to the efficacy of the existing court process.

“What we see here is widespread support for a fast track housing tribunal that can deliver a fair and timely solution for both landlords and tenants.”

Poll: Would you like to see the government introduce a fast track housing tribunal if the Section 21 ‘no-fault’ eviction process is scrapped?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • icon

    Does that mean six in ten landlords would prefer a purposefully slow housing tribunal if S.21 is scrapped?

    Also, for the love of all that is sacred, STOP calling it 'no-fault'...we're not exactly helping the cause by doing so (inverted commas or otherwise)!!

    icon

    Agreed, it's not no fault, it's the accelerated eviction process .

     
  • icon

    Agree we want simple process, proven facts that if tenants are antisocial or non payers of rent can be removed asap.

    icon

    Yesterday I was told by my local housing options team that I could only get an eviction with a section 8 for antisocial behaviour if the tenant had a conviction. The police have rarely if ever obtained a conviction of one of my tenants for antisocial behaviour and I am sure that if they did it would only be after several years.

     
  • Paul Barrett

    No fault whilst technically correct is also technically wrong!!
    S21 may be used when there is no fault of the tenant.
    It is the only method of formally terminating a tenancy.
    Of course if the tenant COMPLIES with the S21 then NO eviction is required.
    It is only those tenants that REFUSE to comply with a S21 that the eviction process has to commence.
    So I would suggest that any tenant who has to be evicted has breached their AST conditions.
    But S21 is a vital facility that enables a LL to be in ultimate control of their property albeit that the S21 eviction process can take many months to achieve.
    S21 can be used when the tenant is at fault and when they aren't.
    It depends on the reasons why S21 has been issued.

    icon

    Very well put P B.

     
  • icon

    We have lost sight of the fact that it is the tenants home and the landlord's property.

    Paul Barrett

    It may well be the home of a tenant but that only remains the case as long as the LL wishes it to be so.
    The LL is the only one who should have the right to determine who he wishes to let to.
    It is irrelevant that a tenant uses the LL property as their home.
    This does NOT give any rights for the tenant to maintain it as their home if the LL doesn't wish it to be the case.

     
  • icon

    s.8 is not fit for purpose.
    A tenant can pay on the day before or even a few seconds before the hearing to win the case, costing LL high legal costs.
    I have seen this happen whilst helping a neighbor, an elderly couple.
    The Tenant transferred funds whilst the usher was calling them, after being advised by the duty solicitor! Result-case dismissed as the judge couldn’t issue an eviction order with the knowledge that the rent was paid.
    Poor LL ended up with £000’s legal costs, and an anti social tenant continues to damage their property with the support of (another case) Hounslow council.

    There should be simplified laws to help homeowners repossess their property from unscrupulous tenants (& lodgers).
    We see so many homeowners with the change of circumstances, them wanting to use 2nd or more properties for personal/family’s usage but they are unable to do so without spending high legal costs due to convoluted eviction processes in England-especially if the tenant is an EU citizen/or a Refugee who suddenly loses the capacity to speak/understand English or has made false allegations against LL to the local council.
    Even Fast Track Housing Tribunal won’t help LL’s, unless judges are authorised by enhance laws to issue an eviction order without requiring a hearing for certain reasons-eg
    Lodgers refusal to leave, a Police report for anti social behaviour (not requiring a criminal conviction & another legal case result), 1 month’s unpaid rent.
    Let’s wait and see what happens and how many false promises are made by the political leaders nearer to GE voting periods.

    Paul Barrett

    As you are aware lodgers are able to be removed speedily based on what was agreed in the Lodger Agreement.
    Tenants are of course another thing entirely.
    Tenant abuse of the system has been going on for decades.
    I am very unsure as to whether S8 could replace the efficacy of the S21 process.
    Unless the S8 process is radically amended with Court availability and costs kept the same as for S21 the eviction process is unlikely to become as effective as S21 which is currently very dysfunctional.
    S8 doesn't look like giving a similar process as S21 as you have pointed out.
    This will result in more LL selling up especially once they see the proposed S8 amendments.
    Without a radical investment in the County Court service S8 will take even longer than S21 to get rid of tenants.
    Very concerning for all quite frankly.

     
  • icon

    Private LL's haven't got a hope we might as well give them the Property now, my MP advises me that he is fully committed to strengthening Tenants rights, does he not know that the balance of power is already heavily in the Tenants favor. He in in support of doing away with no fault evictions / (s21) of course there is always a fault otherwise we would not want to remove a Tenant but want to keep them forever like I have some 10 yrs +. Its a completely different scenario when they know they can't be removed, then they are sure to play up. HM0's are a bad joke costing me tens of thousands just because persons are not related, damaging property / over crowding etc but we must have control of the property but they having giving us no instrument to do this & worse still exclude us from our own Property, well done. HM0's introduced in 2006, taken our Deposits away in 2007, taken away our 10% wear & tear, "Right to Rent" increasing our work load, "How to Rent" by Shelter not needed how did we all manage all the decades before & legally inept / changed so many times in just 5 yrs ie, introduced 10-4-2014 / 11-6-14 / 25-9-14 / 1-10-15 / 1-2-16 / 17-1-18 / 26-6-18 / 9-7-18 / 31-5-19 just how many goes do they want at it, and if you didn't serve the latest one each time couldn't use s.21. are they are really in charge of us OMG. Private members Bill / Sarah Teather failed not a problem for them they got it in the back door with Deregulation Act, Article 4, s.24, 3% SDLT surcharge hike, 8% capital gains tax surcharge hike, unlimited fine / charges / penalties, confiscation orders, criminalization of LL's previous civil matter, fake help to buy schemes, we fund all totally in every respect, can't use s.21 if ? we didn't give them Gas certificate before signing Contract previously as long as we had one in place, any repair issues, haven't given them latest How to Rent guide, haven't given them prescribed information, haven't given them Energy Performance Certificate, haven't protected the Deposit, have taken more the one wk's holding deposit, have taken more than 5 Wk's Deposit, haven't given the copy of HM0 license or haven't got one if required, haven't done your ICO check etc, etc. What on earth has all this to do with Quality Affordable Housing. I have to thank them for helping us so much. Please go away.

    Paul Barrett

    Indeed there are many hoops to jump through just to be able to manage one's business effectively.
    LL have every right to justifiably moan about a these circumstances.
    But we are where we are!!
    It is pointless LL bemoaning the situation.
    Primarily it seems it is all to do with the paperwork.
    This ISN'T really too onerous though it is very boring.
    All a LL has to have is the paperwork in order.

     
  • icon

    Yes Paul dear, we are where we are through no fault of our own, we are where we don't want to be and don't want to continue under such Draconian regulations but they have put another huge tax penalty to try to stop us getting out, they want to keep us there to supply Housing, pay taxes and for them to be able to torture us in the future.

    Paul Barrett

    Yep totally agree with ALL that you contend.
    So where does that leave us?
    We know that the PTB have no intention of making our lives easier.
    Indeed we know it is going to be made a lot harder especially if a Labour Govt comes to power.
    So what are we to do!?
    I confess I have no idea
    To me it just means knuckling down to comply with all the stupid requirements.
    It is pointless railing against the system
    We won't win.
    Manage the bureaucracy correctly and then things should be OK
    But I know few LL or even LA are prepared to manage all this.
    Well I say that is their lookout and if you can't be bothered to manage all this ridiculous bureaucracy then anything that then happens is your lookout!
    I appreciate that we have an ever moving sequence of ducks which try as we might never seen to stay in a row and always seem to be flying off just when we believe we have them all in a nice convenient row!
    Unfortunately we cannot be complacent and we must keep on the case continually to keep those bloody ducks flying in a row!!
    Being a self-managing LL is far from a passive occupation.
    It is my belief that any LL just can't be bothered with a the boring paperwork and it is they that will come unstuck.
    It may not be fair but this is the reality.
    So get used to it and comply or get out of the PRS!

     
  • icon

    Re: Tenants for 10+ years-not sure if that’s a risk worth taking, in light of ‘Tenants (multiple) Human Rights to stability and long term security of a home’.

    If a tenant is over/nearer to 60, has an accident or falls into vulnerable categories whilst living in PRS-the Council can attempt/ask the judge to grant the lifetime occupancy rights for tenants or even worse forcing to sell/transfer the property to a council if they can convince the judge re HMO operation with license (even if the tenant is subletting without LL’s knowledge).
    Tenants with sensory pets for medical reasons have additional ‘tenants/human rights’.
    My colleagues helped to evict a tenant (EU Citizen) in situ for 5 years, 60 years of age, broke both arms in an accident by climbing a tree to release football, no rent paid for a long period (2 years), had friends living at home without informing LL, Council attempted to declare the rented property HMO without license requested the judge to hand it over to Council as LL had a home but Tenant won’t have one if evicted (multiple human rights and housing plus HMO acts used, long term tenants, home improvements paid by the tenant (a bath curtain, 2 light bulbs and a feature wall), inability to work or mentally cope with a change of home after the accident, and accused LL running HMO, when LL had denied it in face to face meetings.

    Antiquated laws favouring tenants of Residential and Commercial properties need to be changed for a Fair and Balanced treatment of both Tenants and LL’s.
    Unscrupulous Council should be heavily penalised, with unscrupulous staff to be immediately fired, should they enter a home without the homeowner’s/LL’s permission, especially in cases of lodger complaints.

    Paul Barrett

    As far as the council entering a residential homeowner without a Court injunction that would be breaking and entering.
    Have them removed by Police.
    The council should engage with the homeowner first where it would be reasonable for the homeowner to allow the Council to enter and inspect.
    If the homeowner declines then the Council would need an injunction to enter.
    Lodgers do not have the same rights as tenants though of course it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the lodger has access to safe parts of the property to carry out normal lodger living.
    I cannot see why any lodger would choose to stay in a home where it wasn't providing the facilities that a normal lodging situation would provide.
    Using the S21 process should facilitate eviction of a tenant in about 10 months.
    Their medical situation has NO bearing on the matter.
    Which of course is the beauty of the current S21 process!

     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up