Welcome To SingingPig.co.uk

Billy Shears:

 

Can someone please explain to me how any "good guys" will get clobbered. Surely any good landlords would have kept their properties in good repair and responded promptly to any problems brought to their attention by their tenants. Surely only scum landlords would be forced to make repairs or upgrade properties by environmental health.

Because a landlord might well want to regain possession of his property for very honourable reasons - e.g. because they want to live in themselves, or want to sell it. Why on earth should they be prevented from doing so, or find it more difficult, because there happen to be other landlords who don't have high standards?

I have no objection to bad landlords being forced to make properties habitable, but why should landlords who have provided good accommodation for their tenants be prevented from regaining possession of their own property when they want to. As Lisa said in her original post:

"When the Housing Act 1988 came into being it gave landlords the right to obtain vacant possession of their property under Section 21. The ability to obtain vacant possession automatically was crucial to lenders entering the Buy-to-Let market and was the key to the huge rise in the number of landlords."

Landrace pig:

Billy Shears:

 

Can someone please explain to me how any "good guys" will get clobbered. Surely any good landlords would have kept their properties in good repair and responded promptly to any problems brought to their attention by their tenants. Surely only scum landlords would be forced to make repairs or upgrade properties by environmental health.

Because a landlord might well want to regain possession of his property for very honourable reasons - e.g. because they want to live in themselves, or want to sell it. Why on earth should they be prevented from doing so, or find it more difficult, because there happen to be other landlords who don't have high standards?

I have no objection to bad landlords being forced to make properties habitable, but why should landlords who have provided good accommodation for their tenants be prevented from regaining possession of their own property when they want to. As Lisa said in her original post:

"When the Housing Act 1988 came into being it gave landlords the right to obtain vacant possession of their property under Section 21. The ability to obtain vacant possession automatically was crucial to lenders entering the Buy-to-Let market and was the key to the huge rise in the number of landlords."

Nowhere is it said that decent landlords who have provided good accommodation and service will be prevented from using S21s as at present. It is only scummy landlords who are forced to undertake necessary maintenance who would be limited in applying S21s.

You have completely failed to address my question.

What's more, I find it very strange that some people in this thread seem to be trying to pretend that the suggested change of law/policy would hit good landlords as well. I feel that the claims that lenders would stop lending on BTLs for this reason is unrealistic, and an attempt to make good landlords oppose the suggested changes when in reality these changes would benefit good landlords.

As ever the devil will be in the detail and we shall have see what, if anything, gets drafted by the government. The CAB's proposals may appear benign, but that is no guarantee it would remain that way by the time the politicians had finished adding a few tweaks here and there.  The fact remains that, as already said, the introduction of Section 21 encouraged investors to put their money into the rental sector. If the protection it gives landlords is perceived as being watered down too much we may see investment shifting again.

Not my headline Rialto - copied from the email I recieved!!

However, should we return to effectively the old secured tenancy situation it would be the end of buy to let as we know it so not too far from reality IMHO.

Lisa

Hi Lisa

Thats called back tracking! Just because someone else says something doesn't meant yo have to copy. It just seemed a little over the top and not very reasoned.

However I get your point and we shall have to wait and see,  I signed the petition so you achieved your objective with at least one person - and I'm sure more.

I'd advise people not to sign this until it is hosted directly on the 10 Downing St website - the cynic in me does see an element of scalping in asking landlords to place their details on what is essentially a giant mailing list, also potentially a nice way to promote their site by overinflating a story about a lobbying group pushing an extreme agenda.

Not wishing to hijack the thread from a very rare interesting discussion, I shall retire from the conversation at this point. 

I'm not backtracking on anything Greg - go pick a fight with someone else. If I didn't think it was worth posting I wouldn't have done so.