Welcome To SingingPig.co.uk

 

http://www.netrent.co.uk/netrent_homev2/blog.asp

A Bigger Threat to Landlords than the Credit Crunch
 
If campaigners from the Citizens Advice Bureau get their way Buy-to-Let could face it’s biggest challenge since Assured Shorthold Tenancies came into being in the 1980s.

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.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) along with others like some MPs, Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and tenants associations are now pressurising Government to significantly water down Section 21.

Debbie Crew from CAB Merseyside, who won the Sheila McKechnie campaigning award for Consumer Action for her work on retaliatory eviction, said “we want a change in the law ….by putting restrictions on the use of Section 21”.

David Harker, Chief Executive CAB, offered support saying “a change in the law would end the misery endured by many vulnerable people”.

Adam Sampson, Chief Executive of Shelter, added his weight saying “Shelter strongly supports this campaign”.

The Citizens Advice Bureau claims to have spoken to 198 local authority environmental health officers and have arrived at the conclusion that “98% of those questioned said they agreed that legislative changes concerning Section 21 needed to be made”. A Chartered Institute of Environmental Health statement said “(the CIEH) is happy to support the recommendations”.

Since the CAB campaign started they have been joined by some political heavyweights. South Shields MP David Miliband and his Jarrow counterpart Stephen Hepburn have offered their support to the campaign. They are both writing to Housing Minister Evette Cooper and Hazel Blairs, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to raise their concerns.

The reality is that this campaign is gaining strength and landlords ignore it at their peril. We believe that if Section 21 is in any way weakened then lenders will start to pull out of the market. The result of that will be that landlords will start to sell and the number of rented properties will drop significantly. Landlords may find that they are trying to sell property in a depressed market and it could cost them a fortune.

If that happens it is not difficult to imagine a situation where the whole Buy-to-Let market could implode with thousands of landlords trying desperately to sell their properties.

Those who say it will never happen probably said the same thing about HMO licensing, tenant deposit schemes and Energy Performance Certificates. All of these changes came about because of pressure from organisations like CAB and Shelter. The fact is that the CAB and Shelter are highly skilled at campaigning. Can the same be said of landlords?

There are over 800,000 private landlords in the UK and probably less than 30,000 belong to any landlords organisation. The fact is that landlords struggle to compete with the organisational and campaigning skills of Citizens Advice, Shelter and similar bodies.

We believe that landlords must take a stand – in fact we believe that a change in Section 21 will affect the whole industry, landlords, letting agents and tenants alike.

NetRent.co.uk has started an on-line petition against any negative changes to Section 21. We strongly urge everyone in the lettings industry to join us and sign this petition now.

Act now, sign the petition and help us in this fight to protect the fundamental right of landlords to own and manage their own property.

http://www.netrent.co.uk/netrent_homev2/petition.aspx?id=1

 

 

 

 Ah yes, but the reasoning behind this isn't that draconian and shouldn't bother decent landlords who look after their properties. They say:

Many private tenants are living in poor housing because they fear eviction too much to complain, says a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) report published today. Evidence shows that some landlords are using a clause in the law to evict tenants in retaliation to requests for repairs or complaints about their accommodation.

Report author Debbie Crew said;

“It is totally unjust that people exercising their rights can lose their home as a result. I have visited homes that are freezing and damp but the tenant is too scared to complain. CAB advisers are constantly frustrated as there is nothing they can do to help people in this position, yet other countries have laws to prevent landlords from evicting people for exercising their rights.“We want a change in the law to stop this practice by putting restrictions on the use of Section 21 where a tenant has recently exercised their statutory rights regarding disrepair or health and safety issues. “

 

Chief Executive of Citizens Advice David Harker said:

“Everyone should have the right to live in a safe and decent home, and a change in the law would end the misery endured by many vulnerable people who are too afraid to complain. No responsible landlord has anything to fear from what we are proposing.”

Seems fair to me!

Phillip, thanks for pointing that out - the original article does not mention that and it shows there are two sides to every story. The concern I have, as I would imagine many other landlords will have, is that the changes could result in a fundamental change in the way that Tenancy's are protected to an extent by the ability to gain possession by using the section 21. If the result is that ALL cases of issuing and being able to enforce a section 21 are limited (even when this does not take into account poor property standards) but rather where the reason is rental arreas, damage to property, anti-social behaviour or any other reason, then the effect could be very severe. It would not surprise me if the government manages to mis-time some type of legislation just as they have with HIP's, EPC's, and tenancy deposits schemes, to help tip the housing market over the edge. 10% price falls could get a lot worse if the government changes things such that Buy to Let lenders view this potential change to the section 21 as undermining the security of lending on buy to let properties. An existing mortgage drought could be made alot worse. I think Landlords should accept there are cases where the section 21 is abused, but the government should not over-estimate this as they did with tenancy deposit schemes. I can't recall the exact figure but I read in a newsletter from a UK based forum that around 1000 cases of deposit disputes were raised since the introduction of the Tenancy Deposit Schemes in April 2007 - so in effect ALL tenancies with deposits have had to incur costs and paper work and additional admin to protect less than approximately 0.005% of existing tenancies - based on 2M tenancies. The governement has created an industry out of this. If the government mis-judges the proposed changes to the section 21 like they did with tenancy deposit schemes then the only ones to gain will be the government as they will no doubt set-up some other scheme or tax or other way to tax landlords, who will in the most part pass it on to tenants. It's a never ending story - a bit like my post here...I would be interested to know how many tenants living in council houses are actually satisfied with the quality of the housing they are provided with?

You do have a point, and if there's a way for the government to *** the legislation up theyr'e bound to find it!

Maybe the "get out clause" could be rendered inapplicable in cases where the tenant is in arrears and in cases where the landlord has already served a notice for breach of terms. That way both parties should have some degree of extra protection.

So once again the proposed solution to the antics of a few bad guys is to clobber all the good guys!

We seem to be going backwards again. We went through a period when, because of the likes of Peter Rackman, landlords became bogey men and so the law was changed to protect tenants. This went too far and so many landlords pulled out that rented accommodation became scarce. Then we got ASTs and Section 21 and so on and we got a pretty good balance. If they carry on making life harder for good landlords their numbers will eventually dwindle again and we will be left with the bad guys who will find more creative methods of encouraging tenants to leave than serving a Section 21 notice.
 

My experience of being a tenant (I am now a landlord) was that about 25% of landlords were theives when it came to deposits.

Maybe the fact is that landlords can't steal like they used to therefore there are few disputes?

Landrace pig:

So once again the proposed solution to the antics of a few bad guys is to clobber all the good guys!

We seem to be going backwards again. We went through a period when, because of the likes of Peter Rackman, landlords became bogey men and so the law was changed to protect tenants. This went too far and so many landlords pulled out that rented accommodation became scarce. Then we got ASTs and Section 21 and so on and we got a pretty good balance. If they carry on making life harder for good landlords their numbers will eventually dwindle again and we will be left with the bad guys who will find more creative methods of encouraging tenants to leave than serving a Section 21 notice.

 

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.

Hi Lisa

 I see how this could be something we dont want, but dont you think your headline is a over sensationalised?.....

Re: V IMPORTANT - ACTION REQUIRED or the end of buy to let!

If the worst happens it wont mean' the end of buy to let', and Im sure you know that too.

I will look at the site and probably sign the petition too.