x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Generation Rent wants landlords to pay if a tenant moves

The Generation Rent activist group has once again repeated its demand for a series of reforms surrounding the scrapping of Section 21 evictions grounds.

One of them is expecting landlords to pay towards moving costs for tenants.

In its latest statement the group claims: “If Section 21 had been abolished this time last year, 10,000 households who were evicted by their landlord seeking to re-let the property between April and December 2023 would not have faced homelessness. 

Advertisement

“However, 23,000 households faced homelessness in the same period because their landlord wanted to sell up. Under the Renters Reform Bill, this will continue to be a valid ground with tenants getting just two months' notice to leave, and no financial support with the cost of moving.”

Chief executive Ben Twomey adds: "Abolition of Section 21 evictions has the potential to make a huge difference to renters' lives and reduce the number of us who have to get our council's help to avoid homelessness. 

"But the government's current plans will leave tens of thousands of us exposed to homelessness because of the lack of protection when landlords still have a valid reason to evict us, like selling the property.

"Renters need more time to move than the two months we currently get, and landlords who are uprooting their tenants' lives should support us with the costs of moving. That will both reduce the stress and hardship of an unwanted move, and reduce the homelessness epidemic that is currently shredding councils' finances."

The group says it is urging the government “to strengthen protections for renters when the House of Lords debates the Renters Reform Bill.”

Shelter is also blaming Section 21 for a substantial rise in homelessness, with chief executive Polly Neate issuing a statement saying: “The government cannot stand idly by while a generation of children have their lives blighted by homelessness.

“Decades of failure to build enough genuinely affordable social homes has left families struggling to cobble together extortionate sums every month to keep a roof over their heads. Those who can’t afford private rents are being thrown into homelessness and then left for months and even years in damaging temporary accommodation because there is nowhere else.

“With a General Election approaching, it’s time for all politicians to show voters they are serious about ending the housing emergency. To dramatically reduce homelessness, we need every party to commit to building 90,000 social homes a year for ten years, and an overhaul of the Renters (Reform) Bill so that it delivers genuine safety and security for private renters.”

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.

  • icon

    As a long term portfolio landlord I don't have a problem with the idea of exemplary long term tenants being compensated with 2 months rent if the landlord wants to sell.
    By exemplary I mean rent paid on time and in full every month without fail, maintenance issues reported in a timely fashion, no ASB, no breach of tenancy, etc. By long term I mean at least 2 years.
    A landlord can only sell a house once so it's not a massive burden to compensate the final tenant. In many cases the landlord waits until a house is naturally empty before selling it, so It would only affect some landlords. It would actually be self funding in many cases as the property could be tenanted for longer into the sales process.

    Four months notice isn't unreasonable for good tenants. In the current climate two months is unrealistic, especially if people have school age children and need to find a suitable property in a specific area and be the successful applicant.

    It's very rare for exemplary tenants to be evicted and I fail to see how it is morally right for them to be both inconvenienced and out of pocket.

    Perhaps if it became normal to compensate exemplary tenants in the rare event of them being evicted more tenants would decide to behave in an exemplary fashion. Wouldn't that be a winner for everyone?

    icon

    I disagree, Jo. I am running a business. The accommodation I provide is so someone’s home, it is never their property. The contract states they pay their rent, look after it etc and in return they get to live there in peaceful enjoyment. I am neither a social worker nor a charity. Tenants are aware that I can sell the property. I have sold two in the last two years. Tenants were given six months warning with a S21 being issued in each case four months later. Both properties were left in immaculate condition and deposits returned in full by DPS.

    Polly Bleat and Ben T need reminding of two facts. First the property belongs to the landlord , not them! 😡 Secondly, it is thanks to their relentless attacks and the removal of S21 that so many landlords are selling. 🤬

    Take a bow Polly and Ben and thank you for your efforts in raising rents to a record high! 👍

     
    icon

    I see no problem with this idea for the kind of tenants you describe.
    This would apply only for people where the eviction is a genuine section 21 (no fault) or section 8 (to sell or re-occupy) as it will be under RRB.
    It would be a lot cheaper and less stressful than the current process but I suspect that the type of tenant who thinks it is OK to trash a house and get up to a year rent free before eviction, would not be greatly influenced by the prospect of 2 months rent and their deposit ( so around 3 months rent in total).
    If the court process was quicker and around 3 months as well, it might work better.

     
    icon

    I don't think you've thought this through!

    To sell a house with vacant possession, the tenants have to leave before the house is sold. In most cases this will also involve remedial work prior to the house being put on the market. The point being you will have to compensate the tenant before the house is sold and if the house doesn't sell, you will not only have lost rent, incurred costs but also had to pay the tenant! That might be okay for you but MANY landlords simply won't be able to afford that.

     
    icon

    I disagree as well. We are not a charity. A mortgage company doesn't pay moving costs when they evict people.

     
    icon

    You’re starting to let the tail wag the dog, a very dangerous rabbit hole to go down Jo. We’re not running loyalty cards!

     
    icon

    I've had some of my tenants for 15 years, 12 years, 10 years. That's all those years of not having any voids to factor in or any between tenancy cleaning or decorating. I've had no problems with any of those tenants and no unreasonable demands should things need repairing or replacing. I've got no intention of selling any time soon but if the day comes why would I want to s**t on them when they have been totally hassle free for many, many years?

     
    icon
    • A S
    • 01 May 2024 09:34 AM

    S**t on them, just because you want to run your business in the way you see fit, being the business proprietor? Do you think if Tesco were to shut your local branch because it wasn't viable or they needed the capital to invest in another store or whatever, they would compensate you? No chance.

    It does sound like your lettings business is verging on the social side of the sector rather than the PRS. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it is at odds with most of the landlords who read this forum I would guess.

     
    icon

    A S - I let to various types of people. I wouldn't necessarily describe it as Social as none of them have sufficient priority to get onto Social Housing lists or they wouldn't want to. A couple of them have come via a Council scheme but that's because they don't qualify for Social housing and have proved to an affordability assessor they can cope with PRS rent.

    The vast majority of my tenants will be homeowners when the time is right. At the moment they're students or recent graduates who aren't ready to commit to buying a house.
    I also have some older tenants who have been divorced too many times. Some of them were homeowners but after splitting the house when they divorced find themselves too old to get an affordable mortgage. Some of them have UC top ups, some are fully self funding. All of them work except for one who has heart problems and is repeatedly in and out of hospital. All but one of my long term tenants grew up within a 10 mile radius of their current home. Most of them could best be described as salt of the earth, low income, British working class.

    The younger ones are very diverse in terms of nationality and are mainly very high achieving and ambitious young professionals or students.

     
    icon
    • B L
    • 01 May 2024 13:34 PM

    Totally wrong, Jo. As landlords, we always provide additional assistance to make the tenants more comfortable outside the tenancy agreement. But it is disgusting to make it as a rule to demand somebody else to have the responsibility for your life and take things for granted. Generation Rent should pay the bills for their own ideas to show they are genuine.

    You have extra money that you can pamper the tenants to get what you wish for, it is your blessings, and it is case by case. Lots of landlords are not loaded and try to make ends meet. Some need to sell because of finance and emergency issues. We have to consider all factors. Why make so much of the fuss when everyone has a contract.

    Opening door like this will encourage the bad tenants to abuse the system. Under today's environment which extremely lacks of justice and fairness to the landlords, why bother to add more grievance.

     
  • George Dawes

    Here’s a great idea

    Why don’t we give them the deeds to the property while were at it ?

    Change the locks too so us horrible landlords cant get back in , face it we really do deserve everything we get , thank god for generation rant !

    icon

    I never thought about that, that’s genius. Perhaps we could leave a car at the property for them too! Just an idea.

     
  • icon

    I am staying in some hotels in the coming days. I want them to pay me to go. I want someone to pay me to get out of bed in the morning. And to breathe.

    It’s just ridiculous what is coming out of people these days with over night eviction bans, rent freezes, hate crimes in Scotland, all this gender nonsense. I hope we can get back to normal soon.

  • icon

    I will not pay for people to leave MY PROPERTY. Do I get paid when I give Hertz their rental car back?? 🤩

  • icon

    And I want world peace but unfortunately we have to be realistic in life.

  • icon

    Under no circumstances should landlords be expected to pay tenants to leave their property at the end of a contract. Why would landlords not be allowed to make the decision to sell their property? Ludicrous argument!

  • Sarah Fox-Moore

    "tens of thousands of us will be exposed to homelessness because of the lack of protection when landlords still have a valid reason to evict us, like selling the property.".......
    Generation Rant are delusional and every time they open their big mouth, and embittered, and mindless vitriol like this pours out, another swathe of Landlords sell up.

    Robert Black

    I agree I don't know which planet they are on but some of their ideas will definately harm tenants Surely that cannot be their intention

     
  • George Dawes

    Im starting to think were living in a parallel dimension

    These last few years have literally flown by but not in a good way

  • icon

    As was wisely pointed out during the third reading of the Renters Reform bill when the amendments were debated, some landlords might not be in a financial position to pay those sums of money to tenants. That could certainly be the case when it comes to small landlords many of whom make only a small profit from letting property - and who are already leaving the private rental sector in significant numbers.

    An amendment in relation to landlords being required to pay relocation expenses had been proposed by Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Conservative - who grew up in social housing), Caroline Lucas (Green party) Nadia Whittome (Labour), Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour and member of the Left-Wing Socialist Campaign group), and Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat).

    icon

    I hear that Natalie Elphicke has gone over to Labour today. She was left-wing in her attitudes, so she belongs there.

     
  • icon

    Sarah Fox-Moore, tens of thousands of Tenants are exposed to homelessness because of lack of protection for landlords isn’t that a fact.

  • icon

    But, but, but, all tenants can give a months notice and they don’t seem to bleat about that, done and dusted in 31 days….

  • icon

    Perhaps GenRent should pay LLs for ruining their business & forcing them to sell. Perhaps the Govt should pay LLs for imposing S24 unfairly on LLs. GenRent are delusional!

  • icon

    What stuns me is the lack of anyone campaigning for amendments in the House of Lords which would benefit landlords in any way. It was proposed during the third reading by 52 MPs (note the signficance of the number) that fixed term tenancies should be permitted by mutual agreement, and when the government was not persuaded, it was hoped that the House of Lords would propose/support that amendment as a wise one, protecting privity of contract, so that the Government might then come round to that idea.

    icon

    Ellie: This is a really important point. Once again where are the NRLA?
    Any proposal giving an opportunity to save fixed term agreements would change the whole wretched botched RRB to something at least palatable.

     
    icon

    AJR, the NRLA has never supported fixed term tenancies, not even in relation to student lets. Their position mirrors that of the Government.

     
  • icon

    It’s just more nonsense for the never ending chaos.

  • icon

    We have just given four months notice as we want to sell. If the tenant finds somewhere within that time we are willing to waive the rent from the time they vacate, I think that is fair but I won’t be paying moving expenses especially as she has been paying well below market rate for years

    icon

    You make A VERY valid point. No one complains when they're living in someone else's house on the cheap.
    If they do bring in such a scheme, I think we'll all be adding another insurance policy to cover this, or the cost of existing LL insurance will go up to cover it. Either way, that will mean the cost of rents will go up even further.
    Alternatively... Landlords are already acting a little like a bank, taking money for deposits - but can't use that money - just holding it, and so, we might just up the deposit to cover the leaving costs, where there will be a concession that they can claim moving costs against their deposit. Just a thought!
    LL's will always pass on costs incurred back to the tenant. That's called business.

     
    icon

    This is why all rents need to increase to market rent+

     
  • icon

    Are they not overlooking the fact that there is a security deposit waiting to be returned which would likely cover the cost of any move, and then some, provided the tenants have reasonably maintained the property and thus attracted no deductions. And there are letting agents out there who are touting No Deposit Options, so once the tenants move they'll not need to fund another security deposit. Sorted! Simples!

  • icon

    If the tenants were good tenants, paid the rents on time and have no arrears, they would always get an OUTSTANDING Landlords reference from me.

    Section 21 being issued is never FOR NO REASON..It's issued for a good reason like antisocial behaviour, rents arrears or all of the above.

    Any good tenants with excellent Landlords references don't need more than two months to find another place. Only the others do, those not paying and misbehaving.

    These self entitled people should take responsibility for their actions and not expect their Landlords to keep housing them.

    Robert Black

    They might need more than two months when the rental stock is seriously diminished as a result of the RRB Why don't, supposedly intelligent, people think things through!!

     
    icon

    Landlord references are very rarely requested these days. Maybe 10% of the time or less? I usually only get asked to provide one or two a year from the roughly 20 tenants who move on. The referencing company I use tend to rely on credit check and proof of salary. Someone worked out a while ago that a good way of getting rid of an awful tenant was to give them a glowing reference. Since then references have become a last resort if people are weak on traceability or affordability.

     
  • icon

    If tenants want 4 months notice instead of 2 months that would be ok providing they also had to give 4 months notice to LL. If only 2 months notice is good for one it should be matched by the other. Tenants can't have everything their own way.

    icon

    I always think like this. What the tenants want landlords to do shd also imposed on them. Trouble is they wdnt like it ....

     
  • icon

    Let's not loose sight of the fact the vast majority of tenants move because life happens and they choose to move. No one is suggesting they should be compensated.

    Another significant amount of movement is students who would reach the end of what was always and still will be a fixed contract. No suggestion of compensation.

    There's no suggestion it would apply to Section 8 fault based evictions. In reality how many Section 21s should really be Section 8?

    How much does it currently cost to evict someone who doesn't want or can't afford to go? How much time, effort and stress is involved? It would be good if a few of you could let us know the breakdown of costs and losses when court action has to be taken.

    icon

    In the case we currently have going through Jo, by the time we can sell the property we will have lost £9,600 in rent (that is at £200 pcm below market rent because we were not able to raise the rent during that period), anticipating costs of 3-4 thousand in costs to refurbish the house to a level that we can sell at a proper market value and the costs of an empty property at around £700 per month while we refurbish and market the property.
    Court costs were covered by insurance but they will not cover the cost of trying to recover the owed rent because he already has a CCJ acquired since he moved in. If we choose to pursue this we are on our own. Not decided yet.
    This is the type of tenant I meant when I made my previous comment on your post.

     
    icon

    So sorry to hear what you've been through Emily.

    Not only a huge amount of money involved, but all the stress and misery associated with the whole thing.

     
  • icon

    Of course this is only right and fair. Landlords should also contribute to tenant i) holidays ii) car costs and iii) pensions because they too will "both reduce the stress and hardship" on tenants!

    2

    icon

    What about the purchase of a “ stress” pet dog 🐶 or even a kitty 🐱

     
  • icon

    Let's not forget that the proposed ability to serve notice on students towards the end of the academic year to protect the student cycle of accommodation is only a provisional one, and will be under review.

    Let's also not forget that the Renters Reform Bill without an amendment to pay tenants money is already wholly unacceptable to a majority of landlords; any more anti-landlord provisions could finish off the private rental sector enirely.

  • icon

    No need for breakdown its thousands anytime I done it and that was years ago but have suffered thousands of losses since without taking action because it’s there, quietly lose rent as well to avoid court action and now Court application fee alone £400.00 it was never a viable option anyway .
    So all this unnecessary twaddle by Mr Gove was never required other than to drive up rents, force out Private Landlords for the Big Boys, Institutions, Pensions Funds, Build 2 Rent etc to take over no problem, just keep us squabbling amongst ourselves.

    icon

    Evicted a tenant last year.
    1/ Refurb cost £30k ( took almost exactly a year to complete)
    2/ Add loss of rent at revised market rent £21k
    3/ Council Tax £2.1k
    4/ Utliities £1,2k (standing charges + minimul use whilst refurbing)
    5/ Court Costs for eviction inc Bailiffs £560.00
    6/ Insurance £700.00

    Total £55,560.

     
    icon

    I changed to E Energy yesterday. There are no standing charges with a smart meter. You pay a lot more in the first energy units in the day then the rate drops.

     
  • David Hollands

    This is why there are no good properties left to rent..
    and the ones left are double rental cost to cover the risk.
    This is madness.!!

  • Nic  Kaz

    If a BTL mortgage is in place there will be no waiving of payments by the lender for the last couple of months! (May even be a mortgage redemption penalty if you sell out of desperation before the end of the term) This is another thinly veiled pop at so called rich landlords - most of us are nothing of the kind.

  • icon

    Ellie, did you miss the big fish. The Mayor of London (labour) and his siblings grew up in a Council flat.
    Don’t expect him to do anything for private landlords, if you grew up on the Social everything must be provided for you for rest of your live, can’t understand why it should be any other way, its my right & I’am entitled.

    icon

    You are right Michael, of course.

    I think that Sadiq Khan might have been voted out this time, but, instead, the right wing vote will be split between Susan Hall (Conservative) and Howard Cox (Reform).

     
    icon
    • A S
    • 01 May 2024 09:36 AM

    Not a lot of people know this but apparently his dad was a London bus driver...makes all the difference, he's one of us don't you know!

     
  • icon

    Why don’t the lazy scrounging GR mob, get out there, work hard, save hard and do 4 jobs at once as I did for a while to get on in life and stop free loading from those who have.

  • icon

    If there wasn’t the threat of removal of section 21 and all the vilification of landlords there wouldn’t be so many section 21’s. Cause and effect. Landlords need an incentive to continue letting their properties!

  • icon

    We could shorten this to "GenRent want LLs to Pay."

  • icon

    Yes I'll pay towards their moving costs, that's easy I put an amount on top of rents to cover that cost

  • icon

    I’ll move them for free to get rid.

  • icon
    • A S
    • 01 May 2024 09:45 AM

    Contract law has existed and worked perfectly well, in all manner of businesses, for centuries. For some reason, people now want to rip up contract law (just within the PRS sector) and create lopsided terms. It won't end well, as we all can easily predict.

    The whole paying people a sum of money to leave if they have been good renters approach is synonymous with the recent bonus culture in the corporate sector. It used to be that if you did something amazing in your job, above and beyond what was required, you got a bonus. These days, if you just do what is contractually expected, you get a bonus. That sense of entitlement has crept in to many aspects of society and it really is not healthy!

    icon

    Contract law is supposed to be based on equal balance. risk / reward or cost / benefit. This idea of being paid to leave if brought to the scales of justice, then what goes into the other side for LandLords?

     
  • icon

    I just discussed rents with a friend of mine who has somewhat taken his eye off the ball. His rents are currently 50% below market and less than social housing. So he is about to notify all his tenants that their rent is going to double. If they leave is he supposed to pay for them to move after subsidising their life for so many years? Ridiculous!

    icon

    They want to control how much LL's can increase rent by. Even the current legislation uses the word "reasonable". SO LHA rates as a first step is 'reasonable'. Then next year (12 months to the day) you can be reasonable in expecting a fair increase, say, 10% - but market rates are a fickle thing, and the current standard of the property should be considered. Personally, I prefer to keep my rents lower than market rates - because it ties a good tenant in. They won't want to move, and I won't get a void. Oh, I would also say that its reasonable to double only if he's renewed his mortgage and that's more than doubled. You've a right to a bit of profit - that's reasonable. But I would suggest trying to talk with tenants, and set expectations. Be reasonable!

     
    icon

    If they choose to leave of course he wouldn't be expected to pay. This is about landlords evicting tenants when they want to sell. If he is simply increasing rent then they have the option to stay so aren't being evicted. Obviously there's the possibility they may choose not to pay the revised rent and would then need to be evicted under Section 8 for non payment. Several would probably find LHA or Discretionary Housing Payments would close the gap. It may put some in the position of qualifying for UC.

     
  • icon

    Did he just said that no fault eviction are not at all the main mean to repossess, the hypocrisy of this people has no limits, it's years that people say that an increase in risks will mean many people selling, taking the rent price up. What they are lacking is a bit of reality check, you can easily ask people from countries where there is no section 21 equivalent how easy it is to secure a rent. I can talk about Italy because I come from there and to rent a place over there everyone needs a guarantor and an income of more than 3 times the rent. In result you have loads of people sleeping in tents in parks or in sleeping bags out of stations and hospitals, hundred of them. This generation rent seem like a bunch of entitled kids who have no idea how hard it is to pay for a mortgage and manage properties in a proper way.

  • icon

    Several years ago i had a property subject to compulsory purchase. The "independent" valuation came in £25,000 less than the market valuation and then to add insult to injury the value to be paid to me was reduced by another £5,000 as that was paid to the tenant to compensate them to move out! (I refused to sell and said I'd go to a tribunal, at that point the extra £30,000 appeared on my offer. I subsequently discovered the valuer was under valuing the properties which were bought by a third party and then transferred for the full amount to the compulsory purchase scheme. Hence they backed down immediately if challenged as it would expose their scam. Eventually it did all come out, the scheme manager and his brother in law, who was the independent valuer, disappeared with a high seven figure sum. I was then investigated as possible accomplice because my property received the highest individual amount of any in the scheme).

    icon

    Steven: Thats a tough t..d! Someone should have been locked up!
    Compulsory purchase orders are actioned via local authorities. Never trust a Council!

     
  • icon

    Why not and when landlords evict a good tenant whose respected the property and is surplus to requirements then if they have to pay the removals costs they might think twice and stop playing the victims.

    Richard LeFrak

    Do you know any of those tenants Sandy B ?

     
    icon

    Sandra - what does being “ good” have to do with anything 🤷‍♂️ I am evicting now because I am selling up, all my tenants are good ! So what.

     
    icon

    Or like me stop renting altogether so tenants can stay away from me with all their demands, their human rights to just about everything.

     
    icon

    Sandra, apart from you and James Turner, think tenants should be paid to leave at the end of the contract? It is a CONTRACT, pure and simple. If you hire a washing machine or television, do they pay you at the end of the contract?

    How's your PIP claim? Will Sunak's proposals take it away from you?

     
    icon

    I suppose it partly depends on if it is a fixed term tenancy agreement or a rolling Statutory Periodic with no defined end date.
    Personally I prefer SPTs (except for students) so life can happen organically. A tenant may stay 6 months or they may stay until they die (however long that may be). Some tenants want the certainty of signing for 12 months at a time. That cuts both ways. It's a fixed term that may or may not be renewed by either side. I personally don't like the idea of trapping someone for 12 months at a time but equally I'm a portfolio landlord who does this as my main job (whatever the government may say about unearned investment income). I want tenants who pay the rent, look after their home and communicate appropriately. If they do that why would I want to evict them?
    However, one day in the hopefully very distant future I may develop health problems and need to sell. At that point I would like it to be as low stress as possible for both me and my tenants.

     
  • Richard LeFrak

    So Ben, and I quote

    "Renters need more time to move than the two months we currently get"

    Who are WE?? Give us names, addresses, real life people who have been wronged.

    Who also pays landlords that evict someone because they have not paid rent? Do you still have to pay moving costs if they have not paid or a reduction of the moving costs to cover lost rent?

  • icon

    To be fair, and I am a landlord, I think a tenant should be given notice at the start of a minimum tenancy guarantee. Most ASTs stipulate 6 or 12 months, but a tenant moving in reasonably expects to be able to remain beyond this. No tenant is going to go to the expense and effort of moving only to be told in 12 months they need to go. I think landlords should be required to give a minimum guarantee (of course subject to abiding by lease terms). This would give the tenant a good indication of how long they can expect to remain and make an informed choice. If the landlord wants to move the tenant on beforehand, then it's fair they pay towards the cost of moving.

    icon
    • A S
    • 01 May 2024 11:27 AM

    If a tenant wanted to stay beyond 6 or 12 months, why not just negotiate that with the landlord? An AST can be any length, it is not restricted to 6 or 12 months. Flexibility works both ways. You are suggesting terms that are unbalanced.

    But then again, what landlord will offer a contract over 12 months? They would be mad to, in the current market. It's very much a seller's market.

     
    icon

    I think tenants should possibly ask a landlord about their pedigree. How long have they been a landlord, how many properties do they own, was the house in question ever their personal residence, what are their plans over the next 5 years subject to politicians not moving the goalposts.

     
    icon

    the problem with that, Martin, is death. If a landlord dies, the heir or heirs may have no choice but to sell for a variety of reasons.

    Edit: " Presumably there would be money from the estate or other means to cover the cost." That would belong to the heirs NOT the tenants and the executors would be legally obliged to pay the heirs as much as possible. Neither the executors nor the heirs have any responsibility to the tenants.

     
    icon

    Annoyed Landlord - Sure, but that's rare, however, it's not the tenant's fault so why should they be penalised. Presumably there would be money from the estate or other means to cover the cost. If a tenant expects, in good faith, to be able to make a property their home for X number of years, they should have some commitment from the landlord that they intend to offer the property that aligns with their expectations.

     
    icon

    A lot of mortgage lenders won't allow fixed term tenancy agreements to be more than 3 years.

    Death of either landlord or tenant needs special provision. I've had experience of the death of a young tenant and while it was dreadful to deal with the system seemed to work.

    I have no idea what happens when a landlord dies but I guess it's going to become far more common. We're an ageing breed and some of us who have been in it for a long time simply won't pay the current extortionate rates of CGT. If the government don't want thousands of tenants to be impacted by the death of a landlord they need to reinstate taper or indexation relief and allow us to sell in an organised fashion.

     
  • icon

    while were here we might as well pay for their next rental premises for the next 10 years

  • icon

    It is ridiculous to pay tenants 2 months rent, when the contract has either ended or it has become periodic by mutual agreement and 2 to 6 months is given to them, depending on how long they have stayed, even if they have not breached the tenancy, bearing in mind they are supposed to abide by the terms of the contract anyway. The tenants are not doing a favour for staying a long time. It is an advantage to both the tenants and landlords. Important issue is, it is the landlord's property and it should be returned in the same manner as found on termination of contract and the tenants are refunded their deposits, after a check out accordingly.

  • Taifoor Chaudhry

    So will a landlord get a two month rent when tenant decides to leave property?

  • icon

    They are answering the wrong question with the easy answer.
    If enough affordable housing had been constructed over the past years and small to medium scale landlords given the opportunity to continue to make reasonable profit then the issue of Section 21 would have far lesser impact on families. That is not to say it wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be disruptive BUT there would be far greater supply and homelessness less of a possibility. Instead we have not built anywhere near enough affordable/social accommodation and private landlords have been effectively hounded out of the business with the end result of supply reducing and costs skyrocketing. We have lost way too many good, reasonable landlords due to current policy and demanding more of landlords just highlights the failure to recognise the complete failings of the system that has been operated for the past 14 years at least.

  • H D
    • H D
    • 22 May 2024 10:49 AM

    I just wanted to say a big THANK YOU to Polly & Ben for everything they are doing to increase rents and take my rental income to historic highs. Thanks guys. Much appreciated

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up