I have been called by the local authority for serving s21 as, without a s8, they are obliged to house tenants .
I served a s21 and was asked why?
To which I questioned why they were asking . If I provide evidence that although a s21 was served there was rent arrears, drug use in the property etc. the tenants goes to the bottom of their priority list .
The local authority is looking to deprioritise as many s21 tenants as possible .
I cannot speak for your borough but only of my experience with mine.
There are reports on here all the time of local authorities telling tenants to stay put , case law or otherwise .
I know first hand of it mysef, even now .
3 Likes
I think I’ll beg to differ. I’ve seen how they are used in the private sector and think that they are useful. I know of employers who’ve not taken on staff based on outcomes and have had a lucky escape.
I love your positive attitude. I used to see the world through your lens too.
However , as I said to a lawyer the other week a pessimist is just a wise optimist.
He had no experience of dealing with NPD. He gave me sound legal advice but I thanked him and told him I would handle the situation psychologically. Now he’s experienced first hand what I tried to explain he’s come around .
You really have to live it to understand what it is to be on the receiving end .
As the saying goes….
Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a day in his shoes
When you have high turnover with students you see it a lot. Once you spot the pattern it becomes more visible .
Landlords write about it all the time. They just don’t know what pathology they are dealing with.
A psychologist told me recently that the university is taking on a lower calibre of student ( students who would not have been taken a decade ago because it’s financially lucrative for them -they’ll get their fees pass or fail ! ) and that cluster b issues are very much on the rise .
To simon90
Yes, that was the arrangement and completely awful for everyone involved.
It also meant that tenants in that situation ended up with a CCJ (unless they were able to pay baliff costs) so not only were landlords inconvenienced, relationships broke down to animosity ensued, but the tenant was unable to rent privately for 7years (I think) because they had a CCJ not to mention anything else that would be affected by having bad credit. I think it’s probably also a bit traumatic especially with kids.
However they have to help from the start now and they are supposed to have a plan for the end of notice. I’m not sure if they are managing that yet, but it should be negotiated amicably and no bailiffs.
I’m so glad you and your tenant avoided this!
How many social houses would need to be built in order to significantly reduce the value of the currently over 25 million houses in England?
2 Likes
Whilst I accept your point about agents playing the system, it is not reasonable nor advisable for any landlord to put tenants under the financial pressure of paying a high percentage of their income on rent. The market sets the rent levels and many people cant currently afford the property they would ideally want. Landlords that dont impose affordability limits may find that in future judges are less sympathetic to tenant arrears claims.
2 Likes
I don’t think on the amount of houses realistically that could be built would be sufficient to drive the effects you describe.
It would help to balance ‘supply & demand’, and that is fine. I’ve been a landlord for 27 years and it has never been this unbalanced before.
4 Likes
Section 11.5 says tenants served with a valid section 21 notice are to be deemed as already homeless and offered a personalised housing plan. Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities - Chapter 11: Assessments and personalised plans - Guidance - GOV.UK
I wonder if the rumours still abound and tenants (maybe even some landlords) are unaware of the change and when to ask for help?
Idealism and realism are two different entities
You write about the gold standard and not about reality
Tenants know what to do as do the local authority but what really happens and what is meant to happen are not the same.
Are you an academic or a landlord ?
4 Likes
Im afraid the code of practice and the Homelessness Reduction Act that’s behind it are largely ignored by local authorities.
2 Likes
A tenant DOES NOT have to leave a property AT ALL until a possession order is sort from a court by the landlord.
Treat your tenants right and you won’t go through this pain.
“Treat tenants right” ? Read the Romanian story first before ignorant commnts
2 Likes
all landlords know this does not happen… L/ Councils do not have “spare” capacity to house people, having rashly sold off their housing stock in the past for short term gain. Landlord will not want to help them as 1. L/C are not on our side. 2. Rent is not paid direct to us. 3 They will want to unload the “worst” tenants. 4 they WILL tell tenants to wait till the bailiffs call as this kicks the can further down the road and causes more pain/costs to the landlord
1 Like
That vast casm between theory and reality eh
2 Likes
To
Louise66
A tenant many not have to leave the property. However if court proceedongs are issued those fees are charged to the tenant. If they can’t pay it becomes a CCJ against them.
They will then have poor credit and probably a bad reference, previously this was no fault of their own.
Unless the tennant lives in an area where council housing is just sitting empty and waiting for new tenants I would advise against waiting.
The problem is that many tenants and landlords may not be aware that the local authority becomes responsible at the s21 notice. If they don’t seek help they may not get it or they may be misinformed. This doesn’t mean a tenant would be necessarily offered a council house (we know there is a shortage) but there are options in terms of hotels/small temporary flats/other private rented with whom they have relations/negotiating longer notice if the LL can, support looking for somewhere new. The aim is to prevent homelessness.
Landlords have a responsibility then to ensure tenants know they can and should expect support. It might also be in a landlords interest to advocate for their tenants in these circumstances to ensure councils do as they are obliged.
Of course if landlords are open to all sorts of tenants they help each other out (there are properties for tenants to move in to)
Colin 3
I just want to point out (this has been raised a few times) that rent is not typically paid to landlords anymore because they rallied against it.
In the bad old days when local authorities were inundated with housing benefit applications (before UC)
Rent could be paid directly. However the system for informing the council of achangeof income was slow and could take up to three months in certain areas.
When this happened the claim was suspended, therefore the landlord ceased to be paid by the council.
In other circumstances any overpayment was recoverable from the landlord (not the tenant) it was therefore deemed to be unworkable and part of the trigger for not wanting to let properties to benefit claiments.
This is not the case anymore uc is a responsive system and it can check income on a monthly basis. Bye bye privacy, but hello reliable accurate payments. Any mistakes are now rectified by the claimant.
Hi Louise66
I think we share a number of opinions (although not all) I think I would caution against over simplifying because it runs the risk of inflaming tensions. There are definite problems in the current and looming system for tenants and landlords, but there have been improvements too.
I think the most beneficial purpose of this discussion is to try and find out what is a genuine concern (both sides) and where do both parties have overlapping concerns because both parties can work together on those.
It’s also important to dispell problems that were born out of situations that have changed. A lot has changed, some for better, some not. However using examples of problems that occurred under old systems ideally need to be challenged so neither party makes an ongoing judgment based on situations that are not longer relevant .
Most of the landlords contributing in here have made, I think quite fair representations of their interests and concerns. I’d like to encourage that dialogue, I think it’s helpful, potentially to tenants too.
1 Like
If it’s being ignored, this is causing a problem for both parties. It’s also against the law.
Tenants in that position probably feel quite vulnerable and don’t have a strong voice, but landlords do.
Would you be willing to phone the department with your tenant, meet with the council with them? Push for the council to meet their responsibilities?
I think if it’s clear that the legislation can’t be ignored, it won’t be, but its probably action for both tenants and landlords to work together on.
You can’t force a tenant to involve you obviously, but I think given lots of tenants aren’t aware they need to contact the council early it’s wise for you to reiterate the council obligation and bolster them in persisting. After all it benefits the landlord as much as the tenant.
The other side of that is to realise that persistent calls from the council about your vacant property will not just be ‘bad tenants’ but may also be from your fellow landlord down the road who has had to sell for some reason and the tenant has gone straight into accessing help to find somewhere else as well as looking privately.
I have been a Landlord for 40 ish years and do not remember “landlords rallied against it” . . The way to ensure tenants gave correct info to the council was to get all the relavent info off the tenant and tell the council so they could compare with what they were told
2 Likes
Tenants do have a strong voice …
Shelter etc…
The RRB was brought in on the back of such bodies lobbying on behalf of tenants.
The n r l an arguments have fallen on deaf ears.
What are you talking about?
David Smith said that a lot of labour MPs are young and renters and the tides have turned in Westminster. It is these MPs that have the voice .
The last government were home owners and landlords. That is not the case for this current government. Hopefully there will be a change because people really don’t like Keir . His popularity is worse than that of Boris.
The reality is my parents are of the war generation and anyone raised by that generation have a different mentality to those growing up since Blair’s generation.
Credit with no consequence started under the last labour government and resulted in a global economic collapse.
I look around . Tenants have stuff. I don’t have stuff but I have a home. That’s the difference. If you have money for collectables and horse riding lessons you won’t save that money for a deposit. Living hand to mouth was a DSS / some labourers mentality 40 years ago . It’s now everybody’s mentality.
We have become Americanised. An economy floating on loans .
The majority cannot have both . They can have either or. It’s a choice.
Life for the majority of us is a sacrifice . Today no one wants sacrifice they want instant gratification with no consequence.
Everyone wants to be insta…
3 Likes
With respect
I really don’t know which utopian universe you live in but you need to take your head out of the clouds .
At first I thought it was a PMA. Now I’m concerned it’s delusional