Labour government would force landlords to offer indefinite tenancies

I worked in a council housing department for two and a half years: checking social housing forms (applications/changes to living situations), checking applications for disability adaptations to homes and managing B&B bookings for homeless people. Having recently (and extremely unexpectedly) inherited some money from the abrupt death of my uncle (whom had no partner or children), I'll be buying a flat/house on the Kent coast sometime this year, which I'll be letting to tenants whilst I'm studying for my degree.

Having scanned that article, it sounds as though the aim is to curb evictions using s21 of the Housing Act, whereby landlords don't have to give any reason for eviction. They serve the tenants 2 months notice (2 full rental months, at least that was the law in September 2016, when I left that hell job behind) in writing, then after that period has elapsed, apply through a magistrates' court for a possession order. My memory is a b it vague now but I think that once the possession order is granted to the landlord, then if the tenants don't vacate the property, police can be called in to remove them.

So everybody bleating about landlords having no recourse to evict problem tenants.... This proposed change probably has no impact on that. There are other grounds in the Housing Act which landlords can use to evict problem tenants, e.g. s8 for accelerated possession. The reason that most landlords use section 21 evictions by default is that they don't have to give reason and therefore don't have to prove to a court that tenants have withheld rent or damaged the property. In cases where those things happen, it should be quite easy for landlords to make a case; they just don't want to spend their time and effort on such things.

Anyhow, I suppose this proposed measure would have some positive impact on the private rental sector, albeit rather a minor one. The elephants in the room - which all governments have been too scared to address for decades - are the nonsense of the 'right to buy' the council house you've lived in, guaranteed 5+ year council tenancies, the planning system, developers who do nothing with vacant land for years and prioritise profit over construction standards.

I started in the law in the dying days of the Rent Acts.

The "fault" grounds for possession under the Rent Acts were very similar to the "fault" grounds of possession under the present system and the "fault" grounds for possession for Council tenancies.

You have worked for local authorities. What is the cost (at private solicitors' rates (not local authority legal department rates) plus managing agents' time at private rates) of shifting an anti-social Council tenant? £5,000 or £8,000 or £10,000?

Not sure what point you're angling at there, if any. Presumably that the reason landlords tend to default towards s21 (no grounds given) evictions is to minimise the expense to themselves? I thought that was kind of implicit with the time and energy I mentioned, perhaps I ought to have been more explicit.

I have no idea how much it costs for anybody to 'shift' a tenant of any type of tenancy. I was a mere administration drone. Anyhow, considering the things I'd see and hear on a daily basis about what tenants had done to rental properties, I'm not surprised that landlords are increasingly wary and selective about whom they let properties to.

a landlord not needing to work because she can charge so much rent.

There are many millions of people in the country who do not need to work because they own assets that give them an income. Why is it so unreasonable? I'd be surprised if you do not, yourself, aspire to join them.

That apparently millions are living off what I would term immoral earnings goes a long way to explaining why this is one of the most overrated countries to live in in the west unless you’re utterly selfish.

There are many millions of people in the country who do not need to work because they own assets that give them an income. Why is it so unreasonable? I'd be surprised if you do not, yourself, aspire to join them.

Socialists are dumb, they will do this, fail, try another form of control, fail, in the mean time the average person will suffer.

In Scotland, the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 removed "no fault" endings of tenancies by a landlord except in restricted circumstances.

The reality is that if there's a complete breakdown in relations between landlord and tenant, then a tenancy cannot realistically continue. Of course the landlord is going to find ways to end the tenancy and there's plenty of scope for that. I think you'd struggle to draft legislation that would genuinely prevent that.

The grounds for eviction remain quite lengthy. Not just wanting to sell the house, but wanting to carry out any significant renovation works, the landlord or a family member wanting to live in the house, "anti-social behaviour" by the tenant, failing to be an eligible landlord (whether by registration or an HMO licence lapsing etc).

It's no huge problem, but equally the legislation doesn't actually provide any great protection to tenants.

Not every landlord is some rich fat cat. My parent's mum died and she inherited the ex-council house so rents it off as she has no other income due to my abusive father.

Landlords contribute nothing to society

There are many millions of people in the country who do not need to work because they own assets that give them an income. Why is it so unreasonable? I'd be surprised if you do not, yourself, aspire to join them.

The people I alluded to are those who have worked all their lives and are now retired. Their assets are placed in investments that will generate an income for them. Some invest in companies who pay dividends; some invest in bonds; some buy property and let it. All perfectly reasonable and honourable.

Those who let property perform an essential service at a price the market will bear. Where would you live if you could not find a property to rent?

Presumably, upon your retirement you will simply amass a few bags of cash and hide it under your bed rather than dirty your hands with unearned income.

They provide short term housing stock.

Not everyone wants to be forced to buy a house.

Read the rest of the post you selectively quoted, and tell me then that landlords are are a positive contribution. Not everyone wants to be forced to pay off someone else's mortgage for the rest of their life, all the while with the threat of no-fault evictions hanging over them.

Disagree strongly. My parent is a landlord and already has to give them 3 months notice if they want the property back (as is their right - it is their house)

The issue is bigger than the individual relationships between landlord and tenant.

Landlords contribute nothing to society, particularly after the government guaranteed their 'investments' by bailing out the banks. Their net effect is to increase the difficulty of owning your own home (as you say, a tenant can be kicked out on the street by your mother with 3 months' notice, which you somehow think is too long) by hogging properties, inflating prices by buying even more and draining potential savings someone might have for a deposit. Sure, they'll pay someone to fix your boiler or washing machine every now and again, but that's a tiny proportion of what they charge in rent. Having indefinite tenancies is not a good solution as it does not address the underlying issues, but it does at least try to give people a secure place to live.