No-Fault Evictions to be Banned

[Cicero]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47927706

[Eco]

I think you are required you get 60 days here correct? 

I haven't had a landlord in so long I can't quite remember though. 

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Eco said:

I think you are required you get 60 days here correct? 

I haven't had a landlord in so long I can't quite remember though. 

It's a law protecting tenats from being evicted for no reason. 

[Stan]

Can see both sides of the argument here. 

Not sure it's fair that S21 notices get banned outright - there perhaps need to be more clarification to this Notice and the court process instead of outlawing S21's altogether. It can be very costly and time-consuming to get tenants out and S21's can speed this up (i.e. not serving them just for the fun of it, but S21's can be served for tenancy breaches and make the process quicker and less costly for the right reasons). At the moment you can serve a S21 and the tenant has to go - technically if it goes to court a landlord isn't officially or legally required to give a reason to a judge and the judge has to give possession back to the landlord; and perhaps this is where there needs to be an improvement.

Having said that, I know some landlords who have served notices because they don't like the tenant (or over time have not liked them, want someone else in) despite that tenant not doing anything wrong. Or if the tenant has had the nerve to request a repair to the property that isn't their responsibility. And landlords who do that give any good landlords a bad name. It's grossly unfair and not good practice.

The other problem is that landlords aren't regulated, officially, in any sense in England. They're encouraged to use best practice and be fair in general, but if they were to be absolute arseholes, there's no-one that will come down hard on them and stop them being a landlord. 

[Eco]

Just now, Cicero said:

It's a law protecting tenats from being evicted for no reason. 

I understand that, but from my understanding that is already illegal here in the States correct? Otherwise you have to give 60 days notice. 

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Eco said:

I understand that, but from my understanding that is already illegal here in the States correct? Otherwise you have to give 60 days notice. 

I've read it can be 20 - 90 days. 

The legality of all of it is interesting. Obviously the landlord has his property rights, however if the tenant hasn't given you a reason to evict them, why do it? 

[Eco]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

I've read it can be 20 - 90 days. 

The legality of all of it is interesting. Obviously the landlord has his property rights, however if the tenant hasn't given you a reason to evict them, why do it? 

A host of reasons I can think of - You want to increase the rate then what your current tenants pay. Pets. Kids. 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Obviously the landlord has his property rights, however if the tenant hasn't given you a reason to evict them, why do it? 

May not like the tenant any more. May have found someone willing to pay higher rent. Tenant may ask for repairs and landlords get pissed off (rare, but it happens) even though it is their (the landlord) responsibility). Circumstances of tenant's change (kids, getting pets which aren't allowed and could potentially damage property etc)

Some landlords can just be really weird and unfair I guess.

[The Artful Dodger]

It's a step which should be basic but ultimately does little to change anything. The greedy, grasping landlords have all the power in this country, we need to a total ban on buy to let new builds and a mass building of social housing and affordable housing for the young. Enough of these leeches who sponge money off people just trying to live, hopefully one day they will face  a real judgement.