Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
A court process is essential to stop bad LLs evicting without good reason. It is too slow now, but it is needed, even if it does not always stop the bad LL - https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/press-rele...d-jailed-2
Which is why a fast eviction process should only be allowed in rent default cases.
A tenant either has or hadn't paid the full contractual rent.
If they haven't then they should vacate.
Even if there was a fast S21 process in cases of rent arrears, it still wouldn't work as every tenant would just cite disrepair issues.
Thereby putting the eviction process back months.
It is clear nothing will change which is why I have to use RGI to protect myself from the worst effects of the existing eviction process.
This unfortunately does restrict me to whom I may let to.
But it is my business decision to do so.
If I suffer voids because of my stringent requirements then that is my fault.
I will be forced to operate this way unless the eviction process in rent arrears cases is amended to be easier.
How about requiring LL licensing schemes to pay the courts for a guaranteed service level for their "members". Maybe a requiremnent that all requests for possession orders be heard within 4 weeks (instead of the 6-8 weeks it takes now according to property118).
Whilst I like a lot of the ideas being suggested I really don't think they are vote winners. Our best chance of getting anything adopted as a policy is if it can be seen as a way to secure votes at an election.
Extending the notice period for section 21 gives tenants more security so should be a vote winner. If it comes with making it faster/easier to evict non-paying tenants it could also be good for LLs.
I thought it had been mentioned on this thread, but I can't see it. I think removing / reducing CGT if selling a BTL to a FTB or tenant would be good. I can't see it happening tbh, but no harm in trying, especially if it can be emphasised that it could win votes from various demographics i.e. FTBs and LLs.
I'm not sure if this should be run alongside the Judicial Review, and I know C24 should be removed altogether, but if chances of that are slim, can't we push for it to only be applicable for future purchases? Not sure this is a micro policy, nor am I sure how it could be managed, so maybe not a great idea!
Direct payment of housing benefit to LLs to increase their likelihood of renting to benefit tenants and freeing up courts by reducing evictions for non-payment.
Reinstatement of some sort of green policy to encourage LLs to make energy efficiency improvements to their houses. I once tried this years ago with loft insulation, and could never get old of them to arrange for the work following the survey.
Somehow sorting out law so that ASTs can be made longer without LL risking long notice periods. I thought there was a court case a couple of years ago which set the precedence of 2 months however long the AST; if so, lenders should be forced to permit long ASTs. This benefits LLs and tenants.
Some sort of incentive (tax benefit) for not increasing rents.
Will get my thinking cap on, and see if I can think of anymore ...
"Change is a prerequisite to longterm survival".
The establishment is rigged so that the rich stay very rich, and the poor get poorer.
I don't see why there should not be a separate eviction process in cases of rent arrears.
It should not require any legal process.
In any other circumstances where someone doesn't pay for something and continues to use any facilities that would normally result in police being called to arrest the person if they refused to give up possession of those facilities.
Only those who let residential property seem to have to provide the accommodation without being required to pay for it.
It is manifestly unfair to expect a person to effectively provide free accommodation until due legal process can evict the non-rent paying tenant.
De facto theft occurs and that is why police should be involved at the earliest opportunity.
I doubt many voters would consider it unfair if LL were able to recover their property quickly as it would allow the LL to source new rent paying tenants..
Voters are fed up with scroungers of all sorts.
A tenant who refuses to vacate a property he is no longer paying for is a scrounger.
So I believe the public would support timely eviction assisted by police if necessary without having to attend court.
It is possible to evict a lodger just by giving a written notice as agreed in the original lodger agreement.
If the lodger refuses to vacate NO court process is required.
Refusing to surrender keys to the LL all a LL has to do is change the locks.
This should be the same process for a normal tenancy.
If the lodger attempted to gain entry, that would be a criminal offence.
Voters would see nothing wrong with a tenant being removed by police if after 2 months of S21 notice in cases of rent arrears only this occurred.
It would simply be a case of a scrounger being removed.
The public would support that.
No one likes a scrounger.
A 2 month notice to vacate when rent hasn't been paid would be considered as more than reasonable.
There should be no case of allowing a tenant to cite disrepair to prevent S21 from working, but only for rent default cases.
I believe the vast majority of the public would agree that a tenant maybe removed by police if after no more than the 2 month S21 notice period they have failed to vacate.
The problem is Govt wouldn't wish this to occur as it would face the prospect of more homeless tenants to house.
Councils don't have the wherewithall currently to meet the demand for social housing.
Councils rely on the existing protracted eviction process to delay the point they have to provide accommodati
The public won't see it as fair that a LL has to provide a rental property to an effective thief.
But we know Govt won't change the eviction laws.
They have shown their complete misunderstanding over this whole process with their recent Abandonment proposals.
Govt has proven it is clueless
They seemingly don't understand that a LL needs complete possession of their rental property so they can manage their business.
Govt seeks every way it can to prevent this occurring.
This is not likely to change anytime soon.