Activists’ group Generation Rent says it’s to lobby MPs on Tuesday next week against the return of normal eviction notice periods in England from October.
The group, led by Baroness Alicia Kennedy, has dubbed Tuesday September 14 as “Renters’ Day” and has taken to social media to win support.
On Twitter the group says: “We are meeting with politicians outside Parliament next week. Are you a private renter who would like to attend? Send us a direct message expressing your interest, and we'll give you the details. It’s time to make private renting better, not worse. #WeCantGoBack."
Generation Rent, which also leads the Renters Reform Coalition funded by the Nationwide Foundation, is also urging people who oppose the return of normal eviction notice periods in England to email their MPs.
The activists’ campaign has been prompted by a move by the government to reinstate the pre-Covid notice periods for evictions in England from October 1.
Therefore landlords giving notice to evict via either a Section 21 or Section 8 notice will need to give two months’ notice - it will no longer be the six months period required under Coronavirus legislation, which will remain in force until October 1.
But a statement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government says: “However, we intend to retain the power to implement these measures again in the case that the public health situation worsens and these measures are required again.”
This is a nod to concerns over possible worsening of Covid infections over the winter.
Emergency Coronavirus legislation affecting many aspects of the eviction process has been in force, with minor modifications, since spring 2020 but now the MHCLG says: “While these measures were appropriate at the height of the pandemic, these restrictions could only ever be temporary. Returning notice periods to their pre-COVID lengths from 1 October will allow landlords to repossess their property where necessary.”
* Wales has separate legislation covering notice period lengths and they currently require six months in almost all cases. No announcement has been made on any change to notice periods as yet.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Baroness Kennedy :
I have the great luck of living in Belsize Park in London in a white stucco Victorian family house which was once the Rectory for St Saviour’s church. This is my home, the place to which I returned after trials at the Old Bailey and where I now find solace after trips to refugee camps. It is the place my husband and I bought from the psychiatrist, RD Laing, in 1986 when we married. It is a place of love where our children grew up and where we enjoy gatherings with our family, and with our friends. It has been the scene of many special events over thirty-odd years and is now the store of our lives’ possessions; mainly books and photographs and pieces of art we love. It is worn at the edges, as real homes usually are.
😂😂 Always hitting the nail on the head George.
Your hilarious demolition of Alicia Kennedy would be more effective if you could grasp that she's not the same person as Helena Kennedy QC.
Leics
Given your penchant for detail and accuracy, where does George state this is Alicia's home?
I thought you didn't approve of jumping to conclusions?
Robert, the article refers to Baroness Kennedy. George's comment begins "Baroness Kennedy:"
Contextually George must be referring to Alicia Kennedy because she is the subject of the article. If he had intended to refer to Helena Kennedy QC he would have referred to her specifically in order to change the subject of his comment. In the same way you know this comment refers to you and not a completely different and irrelevant Robert.
Furthermore, to believe that George always intended to refer to Helena Kennedy QC we must assume that he cut and pasted a whole load of stuff about her into a comment on an article which does not refer to her and to which she has no relevance whatsoever, assuming that we would all be interested to read about the lifestyle choices of eminent human rights QCs and this was merely a convenient place to put it, perhaps oblivious to the possibility of confusion.
Really, understanding someone's meaning through context isn't jumping to conclusions, it's normal comprehension of the type we all do constantly.
Lots more conjecture and assumptions yet again?
Both ladies are known as Baroness Kennedy and George didn't clarify which one he meant however I do agree that context can be important in reaching conclusions.
That is why I think it was valid to combine evidence of a landlord driven to take the law into his own hands when tenants were on holiday to conclude that these tenants prioritised paying for a holiday over resolving whatever issues they may have had with their landlord. I do not think it was valid to assume those tenants did not contribute to the outcome, which the landlord could not achieve in an acceptable timescale by other means.
Robert:
1) George has confirmed he mistook Helena Kennedy QC for Alicia Kennedy.
2) There's nothing in the article about landlords taking the law into their own hands or tenants falling behind with their rent.
Leics
He hadn't done so when you started your conjecture and I didn't say you were wrong - just jumping to conclusions.
You've got a short memory. . Look back at an earlier thread where you refused to accept any link between a landlord evicting tenants whilst they were on holiday. Context was equally valid then and the conclusions of other posters equally valid but rejected by you because the article hadn't spelled out the reasons for the landlord's actions.
In both cases, context adds to the written word, but you defend its use above and rejected it in the earlier thread. With such an inconsistent approach you should become a politician!
P.S. Who mentioned falling behind with rent? A valid assumption which I share but which I had not explicitly put in writing.
George, Sounds like she is a barrister with a nice little earner.
I reckon Helena Kennedy QC is worth a bob or two, yes. No idea about the completely different Alicia Kennedy.
And no concern for the people she pretends to care for!!!!!
Silly, silly woman.
Not quite as silly as not being able to tell the difference between two completely different people.
Both known as Baroness Kennedy and both champagne socialists.
YEAH! Absolutely no excuse in mixing them up!
Nationwide need to look closer to home, they are at this for years supporting anti- LL while their subsidiary The Mortgage Works has private LL’s as one of their biggest customer, some hypocrisy.
it has been said before, but I think it bears saying again: LLs do not evict good tenants! We are a business and throwing out good customers is not good business practice. Good tenants, who look after the property and pay their rent rarely get asked to leave, so who exactly are GenRent supporting?
It may have been said before. But the truth never gets old. A lot of us have had the misfortune to have had to deal with generation rent types and it usually involves a trip to the magistrates court.
Good tenants that pay their rent have nothing to worry about, it's the same old rogue tenants mostly scrounging on benefits that should be worried , the extra UC was only ever temporary the same as the extended notice period was only ever temporary, so we are just going back to normal.
Hear, Hear.
Tricia Urquhart - ‘spot on’ as usual. Our customers are key, which is why, when a GOOD tenant has a problem, we will do our upmost to find a solution.
The constant attacks on the Private Rental Sector by the various Activists’ Groups like Generation Rent, will result in one thing for sure, less available housing for deserving people!!
Does it really matter as LLs will inevitively charge the financial increases back to the tenant.
I therefore don't care whatever the Govt. or Councils add because I will get it back at the next contract agreement.
Leicester, gosh that’s a mouthful all conjecture and assumptions, how the place has changed it used to be just Green & Red Murphy haulage transport lorries.
Rouge landlords and rouge tenants care a ugly sector of PRS. They are only a small percentage of PRS. Most Tenants life style is supported by Benefit and inside earned on cash in hand or not paying tax . The so called rouge landlords are of the same mind set trying to cut cost and generate maximum rent . These people the out so each other as they think they have upper hand and blackmail each other to get whatever they seek. It all ends in court as one side don’t get their way. These are the people who join as Generation Rent . Then politicians and elites join in to for their gain and their influence and political connections and media influences get involved and start making money. These people would not make a living if they is no conflict and the would be out of job. They refuse to reflect that these sector in any a very small sector of PRS and try to paint a picture that all landlords are rouge and government and councils latch on ideas to fleece landlords for cash to increase their coffers.
Missing the basic Landlords are a business the have invested in rundown properties. Made it habitable Homes . Government have failed to build decent housing for last six decades.
As in any business for it to be viable and investment you need returns. Landlords are not charities that is for government and councils job.
House prices and rents will keep on going up and tenants will keep on paying rent as long as the politicians listen to them.
Most landlords wold not evict tenants if both respect their t agreement resolve issues amicably. As data and recent reports have shown. Despite scaremongering by generation rent on mass eviction by whimsical landlords.
Why would a landlords not look after a good tenants. Does not make good business sense.
Generation rent and their activities have unrealistic expectations and live in fantasy wonder land where they want to be alpha group and everyone is there to serve them
And world owes them and support their lifestyle.
Michael, George replied to an article mentioning Baroness Alicia Kennedy with a comment headed "Baroness Kennedy" which related to the entirely unrelated and irrelevant Baroness Helena Kennedy QC. What alternative explanation do you propose, other than that he has confused the two people?
Well you've really been on your soap box this week Leics, have you had any time to do a fair days work ?
Generation Rent must be very special people as the whole World seems to owe them something. Plough your own furrow as I did
Fair enough , the other one's more of the same , lefty labourite 'baroness' , i thought they din't like titles
See Lord and Lady kinnock etc
I confused them , I'm SO sorry for being a fallible human being , maybe if I was a politician everyone would just brush it under the carpet .. heh
I blame the gin and tonic
George
Don't apologise.
Everyone makes mistakes but some are too thick to realise or accept they do so.
Try Baroness Kennedy of cradley , on the parliament website. alicia.kennedy@parliament.uk
I believe that this is the baroness you are interested in.
Its not only the Kennedy’s I have to worry about, just add Sadiq Khan for good measure, Congestion Charge & ULEZ extension to north Circular/ South Circular Roads this October in L’don. £15. pd congestion charge & 12.50 ULEZ pd, = £27.50 pd, as I live just outside the zone & some of my properties are inside it I’ll have to pay, my vehicle don’t meet emissions although not old really & less than 100k on the clock, same engine as others that does comply, log book doesn’t say it. This year I spent 7 months repairing & updating within the zone often 7 days a week because that all the days is in a week, so you do the maths how many days that is @ £27.50 per day plus parking, in future the work don’t get done no wonder people are leaving London, thank you Mr Mayor good job you don’t earn a living.
So glad I don't live or own anything in London, but I fully expect one day Norwich will be the same.
Unbelievable he must be trying to bring London to its knees, it’s not enough he’s robbing our Council Tax blind.
Possession will NOT return to Pre-pandemic. ! - This is an Outrageous Lie - Con and landlords shouldn't fall for it.
Pre - pandemic, After 2 months of rent arrears, 14 days Notice was required. From October, After 2 months rent arrears, 2 MONTHS Notice is required.
That's 6 weeks longer, assuming the Freeloading tenant doesn't avail themselves of the recently introduced Debt Respite Legislation commenced on 4/5/21 which would add ANOTHER Two Months.
The debate should be about why do landlords evict and unfortunately using section 21 hides the real reason. Section 21 is used as there is a myth introduced by lawyers that Section 21 is an easy way to evict for rent arrears. It is a load of rubbish . I have done over 350 evictions by the courts with 100% success and a lot more by using charm and bribery. I always evict for cause ie use Section 8 and for rent arrears and antisocial behaviour though I have never had to evict for antisocial behaviour as all antisocial tenants also do not pay their rent so it is always for rent arrears.
Personally, I welcome the abolition of section 21 eviction without fault as it will put a stop to the idea that landlords evict for no reason. As we all say we do not evict good tenants, it is one of these urban myths that needs putting an end to as it is causing enormous harm to landlords. All that will happen if section 21, the no-fault eviction is abolished, is the same number evictions will take place but it will be for cause which I believe will be mostly for rent arrears.
Landlords and landlord associations instead of moaning about the loss of section 21 should welcome it but ensure that suitable grounds to evict are in place: that the eviction periods, delays and cost are reduced and the enormous bureaucracy of the court process is simplified.
Councils should also be compelled to support landlords during the eviction period, The government have told them that they must do this but very few councils have done anything to help landlords to avoid the need to evict. Councils and those who operate an anti landlord agenda should be stopped telling tenants not to pay the rent and wait until the bailiffs arrive when the Council will rehouse them. In one of the areas I operate, Sandwell in the West Midlands, Sandwell MBC have introduced support for landlords with their Call Before You Serve initiative (cb4ys) and so far I have not had to evict a tenant in Sandwell. Once the cb4ys team get involved the tenants, once they realise they will not be re-housed by the council either pay up or leave.
Now does that not make sense ?
Jim Haliburton
The HMO daddy
Jim
Excellently put!
Yet again this will come back to bite bad tenants as the reason for their evictions will be known and they won't be able to rent decent properties from decent landlords ever again, be forced to rent from rogues and wished they could still hide behind " no fault eviction " claims.
On the other hand, once this becomes evident, more tenants might behave to avoid eviction?
No Jim, no sense I disagree totally with you on this one although normally supports you.
When I have problems I want my property back as a whole because I let property as a whole, not individual HMO rooms where you are dealing with probably one or two persons / one room at a time piece meal, I don’t have that option it’s all or nothing joint & several. Removal of Section 21 is a power shift encouraging Tenants to play up and misbehaviour, ASB, stop paying rent when they know there’s nothing you can do. As for Council supporting LL forget that had it all, when I had them having loud parties, drunken carry on, Council supported them and threatened me with prosecution and didn’t want me to get rid of them either. I fought long and hard to have S.21 introduced and ask yourself why was it introduced ?, there was virtually no letting market prior and Certainly no buy 2 let LL’s or schemes which from memory was started by Woolwich Building Society long since disappeared.
Michael
You also have a good case but your fears could be allayed if both parties are still allowed to agree a mutually acceptable fixed term tenancy. Do the English plans allow this?
Unfortunately in Scotland this right was removed I December 2017 but the resulting drop I availability of rental properties resulted I a 30% rise in rents for the best properties, so some consolation for landlords but yet again higher costs for decent tenants!
Robert, we have Assured Shorthold Tenancies minimum 6 months but usually we do 12 months. However, although fixed term, only the Tenant or the Court can end it, LL can’t end it without Court Order which is expensive and takes months, Tenants goes when it suits them whether end of term or months later or years even when your Agreement has become Periodic, if they don’t keep to the Agreement Court is only option, it seems to me when Section 21 goes we’ll not even be able to do this. Assured Shorthold Tenancies will disappear with S21 which is the guarantee of getting your property back. Why on Earth would you burden yourself with a massive financial commitment for some one to walk-in and take control of the property.
I can see them now ; comrades our demo starts in my mum’s basement, and ends there
Michael can I reassure you that using section 8 and I have unfortunately and with deep regret possibly evicted more tenants than most private landlords that section 8 is a quicker method to get rid of of bad tenants.
If there is no adjournment I have possession order within 10 weeks of the tenant defaulting. A 2-month head start over section 21. I agree that even 10 weeks is far too long to have to put up with a bad tenant. Then there is the time to takes the bailiffs to act which again take far too long.
Jim haliburton
The HMO daddy
OK, but I am a Section 21 man and the one thing is more important than all others. I have to be able to get my property back with Vacant possession without un due delay. I have attended loads of LL, Council meetings and the University green horn rule makers forgetting it’s our property to hear them talking you would swear it was theirs. One thing is loud & clear they want to stop you getting Vacant Possession unless you want it for a Family member or you want to sell it but then you’ll have to Sell. I say none of their business whether you want to sell or keep or give it away not their property, we didn’t need their advice when we bought it or received any of their funds. Do they not understand the Tenant is Renting the Property not buying it, how difficult is that to understand. Watch the Regulators they are determined to write that in, it outrageous.
Please login to comment