Agent tells supporter B&Q how Shelter has allowed ‘tenants from hell’ to stay in property

A letting agent has written to B&Q to express her concern at its support of Shelter.

Debbie Cooke’s letter follows others warning the chain store of a planned boycott in protest at its backing of a ‘landlord bashing’ organisation.

Cooke’s letter, to corporate affairs director Nick Lakin, sets out an example where she claims Shelter’s last-minute intervention on a technicality prevented a landlord from regaining possession of a property from ‘tenants from hell’.

Cooke told B&Q of the landlord, Donny, who owns a restaurant above which is a three-bedroom flat.

Last year, he put in a mother and adult daughter, who he had met as customers of his restaurant. They told him they were looking for somewhere to live as their ‘terrible’ landlord was looking to evict them.

Donny thought they seemed nice people and took them on as tenants, naively without any checks.

A few months later, the tenants stopped paying rent, despite many promises and being in full-time work.

As the rent included council tax and utility bills, the landlord found himself having to pay for these.

Cooke’s letter tells B&Q: “Shelter would have you believe that the ‘rich’ landlord could afford to supplement this pair, but that can’t be further from the truth.

“Donny works as a taxi driver by day and then runs his restaurant by night. He depends on the rent from the flat to help him pay the rent for the whole building which includes his restaurant.

“He is now financially struggling as a result of seven months with no rent coming in.”

Cooke’s letter also says that the tenants display anti-social behaviour, including fighting, and have refused access for maintenance and gas safety checks.

Cooke’s letting agency helped Donny serve a Section 8 notice.

“The court case took place in October. Unfortunately the tenants had contacted Shelter and their legal representative turned up and raised a minor technical issue with the notice which meant that eviction was not granted – the judge needed time to look into what Shelter had raised.

“So it was adjourned even though a defence wasn’t filed, and Donny was ambushed with an irrelevant matter of protocol.”

As a result the tenants are still in the flat, with the next court hearing listed in a few weeks’ time. They currently owe over £5,000 in rent. Meanwhile Donny will have to pay for legal representation at the next hearing, in case Shelter is once again present.

Cooke points out that even if the next hearing results in an order for possession, the chances are that the landlord will have to pay for a bailiff: “Donny will be around £10,000 out of pocket by the time the tenants are evicted and he gets his flat back.”

The letter goes on: “Make no mistake, these are tenants from hell. It is not right that a decent, hard-working landlord should find it so difficult to evict them.

“It is not right that a charity such as Shelter should automatically take the tenant’s side, no matter how badly they behave, leaving the landlord in a dire financial position.”

Cooke ends by suggesting that B&Q support the homeless charity Crisis instead, and begs that the business doesn’t just listen to Shelter but to those in the private rented sector.

* In an era of well-documented protest which could hurt small businesses, we have changed the name of the landlord and omitted the name and location of the letting agency. EYE has spoken with the individual letting agent who tells us that she had no idea that Shelter would appear at the last court hearing. She believes that the technicality raised by Shelter is invalid and felt that the Judge was exasperated at the postponement but had no choice.

More top news stories

Hybrid agents can take up to 30% market share in next five years, Purplebricks boss declares

Continue Reading ...

UK virtual tours firm clinches global deal with fast-growing US estate agency firm

Continue Reading ...

Email the story to a friend


  1. The Outsider

    What a horribly bitter article Rosalind.

    Shelter aren’t a “landlord bashing” organisation at all, and I’m sure that at no point do they think that “this rich landlord could suppliment this pair”.

    They are a support mechanism for those without a home and assisted more than 25 thousand of the most vulnerable people in society last year alone.

    They do substantial work in prisons to help rehabilitate those finishing their sentences and are amazing at helping prevent homelessness in the first place.  They also offer support to ensure that due legal process has been carried out before any eviction happens, which in this case it seems, found that someone hadn’t followed the correct process.

    It’s incredibly disappointing that you’ve written this one sided article without any comment from Shelter at all.

    1. The_Maluka

      There is little doubt that Shelter is an anti landlord organisation, supporting section 24 which leads to increases in rents and supporting the abolition of section 21 which leads to the ‘No DSS’ signs.  Add to this witches brew Universal Credit and it is little wonder that Landlords will not house the very people who Shelter wish to assist.

    2. jeremy1960

      Where have you been for the last few years “the outsider?”

      Shelter constantly create and support anything that bashes landlords and agents! They have supported or instigated things such as, tax measures that go against established business practices costing landlords money, abolishment of fees in the lettings industry which will cost landlords agents and tenants money and have already resulted in job losses and housing shortages, reductions in deposits in the prs resulting in limiting tenants with pets or higher risk tenants being able to find housing, bullying of agents who are merely following landlord, bank mortgage or insurance company policy when advertising/selecting tenants.

      As a direct result of the support/instigation of the above property availability in the prs is shrinking, rents for existing tenants are rising and costs for landlords and agents are rising. Shelter in the meantime continue to accept huge monetary support from government continue to pay obscene salaries to their directors whilst the tenants who they purport to support are suffering from lack of housing increased rents and animosity from our industry.

      This bullying organisation needs to be shown up for what they really are, I for one cannot wait for all their funding to be withdrawn,  all their directors to be sacked and for them to be turned away by agents when they need housing!!

      1. wilberforce80

        FACT:    Shelter’s slogan is not “We help the homeless” it is that “We help prevent homelessness”. It is subtle. They are a network of offices of paralegals and lawyers who challenge possession applications by private landlords, particularly Section 8’s.

        My story last year: I let a flat to a decent working woman. No trouble until she let her delinquent son and 3 dogs move in. Flat went downhill, dog muck in the common hall and garden full of rubbish, drugs, no rent. For a year I gave her some free rent, £350 of free electricity and paid one gas bill. Flat got worse and I fitted a nice new bathroom to try and turn things around. It got even worse so I served a section 8. She said ok I’ll go and get a council flat. The council said no and sent her to Shelter. They told her she could only defend eviction if there was disrepair. She went home and threw coffee and tea up the walls, smashed some electric sockets, pulled out the fire alarm, flooded the kitchen and bathroom and broke 2 windows. Shelter phoned and blackmailed me to let her stay, write off the rent arrears, give her £750 “compensation” and a new contract “or else”. I told them where to go. Both Shelter and the council began legal action against me, Shelter defending the S8 and suing me for an unspecified sum but would have been around £70k for emotional damage, personal injury (ill health), for forcing her to live in “such appalling conditions of disrepair”. It took nearly nine months of my time to fight in court, the lawyer for Shelter committed perjury in writing (I can prove), and the judge eventually threw the case out because the expert surveyor confirmed it was a nice flat obviously wrecked by the tenant. The council during the case said they were going to assist Shelter by bringing a criminal prosecution against me, which they dropped. I have 30 years experience and that was my worst ever possession case, a nightmare of injustice which I can only touch on here. Shelter are a political terrorist organisation against private landlords. I now have 5 empty properties in the city which I dare not re let.

        1. Hillofwad71

          That really is a salutary tale and the very best to you .I feel very lucky with my current tenant who has been incumbent for 3 years. I am that  grateful  I reduce the rent every 6 months to make  sure she stays !

        2. RosBeck73

          What disgusting behaviour by Shelter. They parade around as though they are the good guys – virtue signalling left, right and centre and to defend – and in this case allegedly encourage – this atrocious behaviour on the part of your tenant and her son. I wouldn’t be surprised if they drove decent landlords to suicide with this appalling persecution of an innocent party. And we all know that these are not isolated events. The public can see the damage tenants do on the Nightmare tenants programme and those of us who have been in the business for a while have often suffered big financial losses and terrible stress. And these so-called advocates just stick the knife in further. They really need to be held to account. Everyone must see that this is the kind of thing they are engaging in. If necessary, as part of my campaigning on behalf of landlords, would you object if I told your story in any future articles? I imagine that in many cases it is difficult to prove exactly the role taken by Shelter and other ‘tenant’ groups as they give their advice, eg to stay put until the bailiffs come, behind closed doors. But it is very clear in these public court cases. What a way to spend your day – defending criminal tenants against people who have done nothing wrong – apart from trusting people to treat them and their property with respect.

    3. ArthurHouse02

      The Outsider, you are entitled to your opinion, the agent in the article and those that post on this site are entitled to theirs. Many agents who work in the industry dealing with the level of tenants who see it as their right to live in someone elses house/flat but not pay for it and have to deal with landlords who feel bitterly let down by the system, see Shelter as an organisation who will not take a balanced view. Sure there are some landlords, letting agents who dont do what they should, but (in my opinion) this is far outweighed by nasty tenants who abuse the system, supported by Shelter who in effect are encouraging them to do so.

      It would be good to hear from Shelter, good to read their point of view in specific matters rather than them encourage their “members” to protest outside agents offices, harranging them on the phone stopping them from dealing with their own tenants needs.

    4. AgencyInsider

      It’s not an ‘article’. It’s a news story report. And it is very topical, given that many people are fed up with Shelter’s stance towards the PRS.

    5. Will

      Oh dear Outsider what a horribly bitter comment you make.  It appears the truth seems to hurt when put into black and white.  If you hadn’t noticed the attack on letting agents and blatant bully tactics against agents such as Ludlow Thomson which demonstrates the mentality and direction of Shelter.  A rogue charity that does not put a roof over anyone’s head.  The likes of B&Q, the Nationwide and others supporting Shelter need to look closely at the bullying tactics or these big donating companies will become tarred with the same brush as Shelter. The people that subscribe to the PIE are mainly property professionals and not the unprofessional group being intimated.  Shelter appear to encourage tenants to stay once there is a court possession order and thereby appear to condone contempt of court which results in further misery to all, including the tenant the courts have decided needs to be evicted. It seems to me that Rosalind acts very professionally and researches her articles before publishing. Well done Rosalind I say.  For the record I am not a letting agent!

    6. JMK

      I’m thinking you’ve recently joined the site in order to specifically comment on this article Outsider.  Would that be correct?

      The ‘charity’ employs more than 1000 people and the bulk of them will be good souls that feel they can make a difference to the struggles and challenges people face that need a roof over their heads.  Nobody is knocking them.

      The problem is the rot at the top and they have indeed made Shelter into a landlord bashing organisation.  Not just landlord bashing though as they are equally critical of letting agents.  Their campaign to take up agent’s staff time and block telephone lines is a disgrace and shows they’ve morphed into something far removed from what they were set up to do, and what people like yourself apparently believe they do.

      Do they do some good work??  Yes of course they do, though I have no idea why you think helping prisoners removes them from being landlord bashing.

      The FACT is they lead or support every attack on the PRS and the result is a rapid shrinking of it.  That in itself is making people homeless, but of course great news for the 6 Directors who can sleep well at nights knowing they have great job security.  A completely despicable bunch.

    7. Rayb92

      Silly uneducated comments (the outsider) .. probably works for shelter 
      good post Rosalind .. typical example

    8. El Burro

      I agree, it’s a one sided article Outsider. From a lettings agent who has seen the effect it has had on a landlord as have a huge number of other people that get PIE.

      Just as well Shelter aren’t one sided isn’t it, they always consider the landlord’s situation before taking the tenants side don’t they.



    9. Bert

      Private landlords are providing homes to millions of people. Of course there are a few rogues, as there are a few rogue agents. But since when has it been the job of the professional and caring majority to deal with the rogue minority? Shelter needs to campaign for effective policing of the sector instead of constantly bashing all landlords and all agents which it does incessantly. Private landlords are providing almost 5 million homes in the UK. How many homes does Shelter provide? Despite its Christmas TV campaign asking for £5 so they can provide a home for a homeless child. It is laughable. Where are these homes you are providing Shelter?

      1. Thomas Flowers

        Bert, perhaps a rebrand to Bus Shelter?

        1. Deltic2130

          Bus Shelter! Brilliant! Will use that myself in future!

    10. Home Provider

      The Outsider is clearly a Shelter Insider, who had foreknowledge of the article and was able to post a lengthy comment within 5 minutes of receiving the email from PIE.  What a giveaway!
      The technicality was so unusual that even the judge did not know whether it was relevant or not. ARLA said it wasn’t.  See 

    11. Home Provider

      Interesting that you think that the public would be impressed if they thought that their donations were used to rehabilitate convicted criminals.  Shelter is paid for that work by the Ministry of Justice – to the tune of £3.8 million in the last financial year.

  2. kittygirl06

    Shelter constantly attack the PRS. There are thousands of landlords which have lost vast sums of money to rogue tenants. They exist! only it appears Shelter believes all what the tenant says without any back ground checks. No thought is given to the landlord who in many cases have a mortgage and a family to provide for and relies on the rent. Stories like this need to be told not hidden. The court system is a very slow expensive and stressful experience no landlord takes this route unless there is a problem. Shelter could work with landlords but seem to have taken the path of doing as much damage to the PRS. I am told anything negative put on Shelters sites rarely gets printed. Shelter recs money from the government large sums one sometimes wonders if they are in the government’s pocket. 
    If people want to give to a charity they would be better looking at Crisis.  Centrepoint is another great one for the young people. 
    Government are chasing the young vote and putting much money into FTB have they forgotten about these young people? 
     BQ would be better looking at these to support.
    Another area for BQ to look at is supplying tenants with condensation paint and explaining the causes of it.  Better still educate Shelter on the causes of black mould. They constantly blame the landlord and show pictures of tenants with walls covered   No report from damp specialist no effort to consult and work with landlord. 
    Shelter are a marketing machine and don’t give one person a roof over their head.  But they do encourage them to wait for bailiffs and hang on to the very end in the landlords property

  3. TB

    Exactly how many examples of Shelter supporting awful tenants do you need to see in order to demonstrate that Shelters view is that landlords should be supporting tenants even if the tenants are not paying their rent.  This is so obviously a political stance and it sickens me that what should be a worthwhile charity which does some good work has become unsupportable.  Crisis like the article suggestes seems a far more palitable option for those in favour of supporting the homeless but don’t want to support a bunch of chip on the shoulder socialist.

  4. Rayb92

    Shelter are an utter disgrace,  their behaviour and targeting individual landlords and agents is shocking, we stopped our own donations to them a while ago and have now stopped using B&Q for all of our materials purchases, Which was substantial, we have now switched to Wickes. We will reverted back to B&Q as soon as they stop their support for shelter
    shelter do nothing but drive landlords out making the problems worse for their very clients / tenants !

    1. beleagueredlandlord58

      Another large supporter of Shelter Marks and Spencers. From M&S website ……We’ve been working in partnership with housing and homelessness charity Shelter for more than 12 years and, thanks to the generosity of our customers, we’ve raised £2.8 million through the sale* of our festive Food on the Move range of sandwiches, rolls and drinks.
      Shelter’s free national helpline is open all year round to offer expert advice, support and legal aid to anyone struggling with issues related to housing and homelessness, no matter what their situation.
      How you can get involvedFive per cent of the sales from our Festive Collection for Shelter will go to help people struggling with homelessness and poor housing, so all you have to do to help is head to your nearest store and choose a festive drink, sandwich or snack. Right now, the money raised from these sales helps fund all calls answered by the Shelter helpline over Christmas.
      *Five per cent of the sale of each product goes to Shelter in England, Wales (263710) and Scotland (SC002327), Housing Rights Service in Northern Ireland (NIC105735) and Focus Ireland in the Republic of Ireland (CHY 7220).

  5. PossessionFriendUK39

    we must ALL get behind this letting agent and landlord. And write to B&Q

    For my Possession companies part, I offer them to contact me for Pro bono assistance.

    1. RosBeck73

      What a lovely gesture. I hope that they take you up on it – it could help relieve some of the awful stress being experienced by the landlord – made so much worse by this destructive organisation.

    2. debbiedoesalot

      How kind of you. I’m sure the landlord would be extremely grateful.

  6. WiltsAgent

    Shelter have given plenty of comment over the last 12 months that clearly demonstrate they are anti landlord and anti agent. Their bullying of Ludlow Thompson, a company going about it’s lawful business is a disgrace and they should be prosecuted.They act as judge and jury with no thought for the livelihoods of others. They don’t have to earn a living as their very generous salaries are paid by the taxpayer, you and me.

  7. Robert May

    Shelter don’t home the homeless; they’re an advice service for those facing or suffering homelessness.  Apparently the help extends to a free telephone support line.
    I  don’t recognise them as a charity for the homeless and give what I can to charities that provide direct , practical help; accommodation, meals or clothes.  
    I am not critical of the telephone advice line,  it is a service people will have genuine need for but the surplus reserves ought to be used for the purpose I would suggest most  givers  mis-understand is provided by Shelter.  
    Funding an advice line is  great but it contains an obvious contradiction.  Some section 8 tenants will be provided support keeping them in a property but that denies other tenants a home.  
    Section 8 tenants with genuine need are catered for by the social housing system, not brilliantly or ideally but there is provision for them.  Low paid  working individuals and families are those  truly disadvantaged by the housing crisis; being  unable to compete properly in the PRS but not having enough challenges to fulfil  social housing criteria.  
    Shelter might be best advised to sort out what the priorities ought to be before continuing a political crusade against the only  provision many tenants have as an available option.  They aren’t really helping anyone but themselves at present.

  8. Jim S

    I have written to the Residential Landlords Association that I am a member of asking them to stop the B&Q Trade point reward card account that they offer to their members, and have brought it to their attention that B&Q offer support to the immoral charity Shelter.

    1. Will

      I also contacted them by email to question why. The y did not even bother to answer their member (me).  I suspect they are going the same way as being in it for themselves rather than their members!  Might consider changing to the NLA but I suspect they might not be any better.  Good luck though I hope you get a response!

  9. Eyereaderturnedposter12

    IMHO, it is entirely incorrect that Shelter should be referred to as a ”Charity”…it simply is not, by any definition, a Charity (other than by taking duplicitous advantage of the financial status, attached to the moniker).  
    The commonly accepted definition of a Charity is as follows: ”An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.”
    This article clearly sets-out a narrative whereby Shelter has created (entirely immorally and with the either unintended, or with deliberate intent) a situation where a hard-working individual (namely, Donny) is now significantly disadvantaged financially (and most probably psychologically) and is now ”in need”, following Shelter’s intervention. Therefore, this supposed ”Charity” has failed at even the most basic level to fulfill its raison d’etre , and contrarily added to the problems it purports to improve upon.
    Shelter, your organisation is utterly contemptable.

  10. CountryLass

    I’ve just seen an article on the BBC website regarding tenant fees etc, and submitted the following;

    I’m a Letting Agent, and although I am aware that some Agents charge unreasonable fees to start a Tenancy, I do not believe that a complete Ban is the right way to go about it. When this idea was first put forward, I put my support behind a fee cap for starting a Tenancy, which I felt was a much better idea. We need to get references and credit checks, carry out Right to Rent checks, negotiate clauses in contracts and then either carry out and inventory ourselves or pay someone to do it. Including VAT, I charge £200 for all that. The Landlord pays a similar for their contributions towards the whole thing, plus a marketing fee. So for a £750 rental, the tenant would pay me £200, and the landlord £450 including vat. So in total I get £520 once the VAT has come off. That is for weeks of work, accompanied viewings, phone-calls, at least 2hours for the inventory, advertising, boards etc.

    Why should Tenants not have to pay anything towards moving house? I had to pay solicitors fees, mortgage arrangements fees, survey fees etc, as well as a deposit of over £10k to buy mine!

    And I’d also like to point out that Shelter are more of a political bullying group rather than a charity. They do not actually house anyone, and their entire agenda appears to be a hate campaign against the private rental sector. Look at for more information.

    1. Rent Rebel

      Why should Tenants not have to pay anything towards moving house?

      Because they are not the letting agent’s customer – the landlord is.

      As for capping fees instead of banning them; well, that’s what comes of getting so greedy and showing themselves to be so immoral. Govt stops trusting them to do the right thing anymore cos the industry has shown us time and again that it won’t.

      1. Robert May

        What is your view on bad tenants remaining in a property that  could be let to a financially identical tenant but who would respect the property and the opportunity to live in a property owned by someone else?

        If you had the power would you ask a section 8 bad tenant  to leave in favour of a low wage public sector worker who has a family to house?

        There is not enough accommodation for everyone who wants it, so prioritising those who need accommodation ought to be the base line priority of a solution.



        1. Rent Rebel

          See my comment below Robert. 

          1. Robert May

             Your comment doesn’t answer the question.
            A good landlord deserves a good tenant and a good tenant deserves a good landlord
            bad landlords with bad tenants? well that’s a match made in heaven too.
            The problem arises when circumstance mixes things up.  I’m genuinely interested  to hear why deliberate section 8 tenants should have any rights over circumstance section 8  and those who simply  don’t have the means to compete in the PRS but  are not disadvantaged  enough to qualify for  social help.

      2. Will

        Why should landlords risk paying for a reference where a tenant is not suitable. Some fees are reasonable for a tenant to pay referencing being one of them.  This is going to back fire on tenants, particularly those close to the  acceptability leve and below.

      3. CountryLass

        So why should I have to pay thousands of pounds in fees to move house?


        Some of the charges for Tenants is ridiculous, especially when they are also charged to the Landlord. Charging a Tenant for referencing is not unfair, or out of order. I get charged £50 for a full reference, credit history and Right to Rent check for two Tenants. There may be ones out there who can do it cheaper, but I’m not convinced that the cheapest ones do a good job.


        The contract and negotiations over it are from both parties. So therefore both should contribute towards the cost.


        The Inventory protects something of value for both parties. The property for the Landlord, the Deposit for the Tenant. Again, asking both to contribute is not out of order.


        As I have said before, from the Tenant fee, once the VAT is taken off, I make around £30 per property. I make more from the Landlord. Banning fees is punishing the good along with the bad. Its basically like saying that a person with brown eyes stole my handbag so all people in the town with brown eyes should be locked up.

  11. RosBeck73

    Another example is on Property118, as follows:

    ‘A very similar thing had happened to me when I attempted to evict a tenant from a property where the tenant owed me over £3,000 and had caused a lot of damage within about 3 months,.I think it was two days before the hearing, that I received a letter from shelter’s solicitor stating that my application was invalid and that they would be representing the tenant. On the day of the hearing, the barrister that attended, pointed out some minor errors in the forms that were filled in (Not the section 8 form). In order to prevent the case from going any further, I suggested to the barrister that I would be prepared to agree to wipe out the debt of £3000 plus, as long as we agreed that the tenant vacates the property within 28 days. The barrister insisted on letting her stay a further six months and wipe out the debt as it would be difficult for the lady to find accommodation, but I totally disagreed. As we were called to the hearing, the barrister agreed to the tenant vacating within 28 days. At the hearing, the judge stated that the hearing would have to be adjourned and, an agreement signed so that it was agreed by both parties and I would have to pay the days court hearing costs and he would allow me to amend the documentation ready for the next hearing. At that point, I did not realise, that had I agreed if not drafted properly, the tenant could have still stayed on after the 28 days and I would have had to start the same process again but this time using a section 21 notice as I had wiped out the debt. After the hearing, I engaged counsel at a cost of around £500 (as once again the shelter solicitor was not initially agreeing to the tenant leaving within 28 days) who drew up a Tomlin order and all this was very stressful as, it transpired that the barrister’s costs at the hearing was £1400 plus I would have had to pay shelter’s solicitor’s costs from the start of the case which was quite shocking. The counsel who was very good managed after a lot of stressful days for me, managed to get them to agree that I wipe out the debt and the tenant leaves within 28 days where, she would get away with getting a CCJ. So all in all, I ended up losing around £4000 and a flat that needed to be fully redecorated and the tenant who was a nasty person got away with it all. I believe the solicitor and barrister were paid with tax payer’s money as, the tenant was on legal aid.’

    1. Will

      Personally I would have taken this all the way and got a bankruptcy order against the tenant to stuff up their life.  And yes it would cost!

  12. Rent Rebel

    Landlords who want the law changed to stop non-paying tenants defending section 8 possessions with counterclaims are same landlords who can’t face the thought of changing the law to #EndSection21 baseless evictions. Landlords won’t get the former unless they concede on the latter, though

    1. Will

      Landlords want to keep decent tenants. The reason, in most cases, for eviction is because the tenants are not complying with the terms of the rental agreement.  Every one seem to forget the ones that normally are evicted is for a reason, not for the fun of it.  Of course, some should not rent on an assurred shorthold if they want long term accommodation. The clue is in the name Shorthold. They should use the social housing market. Smart lawyers are just in it for the fees like insurance ambulance chasers.

    2. CountryLass

      Ok, say you are a Landlord, and you have a Tenant in your property. Everything is fine, but then you lose your job. You need the property back, so that you can sell it and use the money to keep your family fed, housed and clothed. Without a S21, how do you propose to get the house back? They arent in rent arrears. They havent broken the Tenancy Agreement, and as you didnt live there, you can’t uses that ground to get it back.
      In this scenario, the Tenant has done nothing wrong, the Landlord simply wants his house back. Or maybe your child has had a relationship breakdown and needs to move back near you. A parent can’t live by themselves a long way away, and needs to home near family.
      The whole point of S21 is that THERE IS NO BLAME! No-one has done anything wrong. No-one is at fault. Simply put, the owner of something wants it back. If you were borrowing my car for a week, but I let you use it for a bit longer as I didnt need it, but then my circumastances changed and I needed that car, It’s mine! give it back. I shouldnt have to go to court to get my rightful property back!

    3. sanctuary45

      The point is, RR, that it isn’t their property to begin with. It belongs to someone else, the tenant is simply ‘borrowing’ it for an agreed amount of time. Simply referring to it as a baseless eviction without knowing the reasons why the landlord wants the property back (a few examples excellently explained by CountryLass above) is ridiculous, they’re two entirely different things and can’t be compared. If you want to avoid the risk of Section 21, do what I and many, many other people did. Work hard, save harder, cut back on all the things that aren’t strictly necessary, make sacrifices (including looking at areas where you may not necessarily WANT to live) and buy a house!

      1. Simonr6608

        November 23, 2018 at 17:02 #42
        If you want to avoid the risk of Section 21, do what I and many, many other people did. Work hard, save harder, cut back on all the things that aren’t strictly necessary, make sacrifices (including looking at areas where you may not necessarily WANT to live) and buy a house!”


        Easier said than done, after spending many years living quite happily in a marital home, was hers when we met and I moved in I now find myself renting and have done so for the last 8 years. Due to how house prices have rocketed I cannot buy a house within in a commutable distance of my work place that I can afford, I work hard, save as much a s I can and am making sacrifices just so I can keep a decent roof over my head. many people have been priced out of the market and the current lending criteria makes it difficult to get a mortgage so renting is the only option.

        I do agree with CountryLass however but on the flip side the whole section 21 and 8 notices as well as the whole PRS need to be brought up to date, it just isn’t fit for purpose for today.

    4. proper21

      Don’t like renting ,  Lovely? Think life as a poor tenant is ‘unfair’?

      Buy a house.

      Problem solved.

      youre welcome

  13. DarrelKwong43

    I remember one Section 8, being thrown out because the landlord had written in BLUE ink instead of BLACK

  14. Home Provider

    This article explains why everyone should boycott Shelter: 


You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a reply

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.