Ben Quaintrell of estate agency group My Property Box has expressed support for calls to ban Section 21 evictions, subject to reforming Section 8.
Quaintrell, the founder and managing director of the North East estate agency group, insists that “most responsible people in the industry” accept the reasoning behind the scrapping of Section 21 evictions as part of the wider Renters Reform Bill.
“However, this can’t be done in isolation and must go hand in hand with a tightening up of Section 8 evictions following a tenancy agreement breach,” he said.
Quaintrell’s comments follow fresh calls from a group of 30 charities urging the PM to pass a bill to ban Section 21 evictions.
He continued: “I understand why charitable organisations are frustrated at the slow progress of the Renters Reform Bill and are now asking for an isolated ban on no-fault evictions, but this would have a knock-on effect if introduced without also introducing fair and balanced improvements to the wider system.”
“Currently, landlords who legitimately need to evict a troublesome tenant, whether because of anti-social behaviour, damage, or long-term arrears, face a long and overly complicated process to reclaim their property, one that can take well in excess of six months. This process urgently needs streamlining and simplifying.”
“Abolishing no-fault evictions shouldn’t affect too many investor landlords, as they tend to be content with a reliable tenant who abides by the rules. However, it’s a completely different story for ‘accidental landlords’, those who are renting out the family home having moved away for work or who have inherited a property.
“Without no-fault evictions, this category of landlord will simply be unable to reclaim their property as long as those renting continue to abide by the tenancy agreement.”
What absolute wishy washy tosh-stick to selling, the government has said they are not to set up a new housing court.
This is all about the government taking powers away from Landlords because if you retrieve your property from a non rent paying anti social family the Council have a duty to house.
So make it as difficult as possible.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I would think around 70% of S21 are due to problem tenants.
So S8 court cases will increase by this. They have brought out breathing space, my tenant had this for 3months. Did not pay a penny during the 3months even thou on UC. You can’t get a review for them not paying g rent arrears. Absolute joke so tenant gets another 3months rent free at the landlords expense.
Anti social behaviour police called out 4times. Adjorning tenant filed complaint with council and they done nothing. S8 will not be strengthened for anti social behaviour the police and council are not interested.
Landlords are selling now had enough of the attacks now due to S24 many are taxed on a loss.
The Conservative government are a disgrace and have completely wrecked the PRS.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The lobbyists behind ‘no fault evictions’ who promoted it as a way to increase donations to their coffers and business aren’t the Conservative government.
The Conservative government might be making the sector less attractive for small and accidental landlords but it isn’t in their interest the wreck the sector for all landlords
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The government (who have been conservatives for the last 13 years) enacted the changes which have brought a plethora of detrimental changes in recent years.
The government are at fault for bringing in these changes. They happen to be conservative, so yes… the logic works. Was there an outcry from moronic campaign groups? Yes, but campaign groups don’t have the power to do enact legislative change.
Are all conservatives at fault? Well do you believe in collective responsibility? Personally I don’t, but the fact remains the conservatives have done a lot of harm to the PRS in recent years (not saying labour wouldn’t have mind).
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Section 21s aren’t no fault evictions they’re the notices that reminds the tenant they agreed to an assured shorthold tenancy either fixed term or periodic
No fault eviction is spin; dressing up something perfectly reasonable as something bad.
If people want or need long term, secure homes take out a tenancy that’s agreeable to both parties from the outset, don’t agree to a tenancy that’s designed for short term, temporary accommodation.
Instead of repurposing legislation that works how about giving consideration to mending the drawbacks of assured tenancies and make them work for those who’ve invested in providing the accommodation and those who need the accommodation that’s being made available for long term occupation?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
where does it say in law, you are breaching the terms of the tenancy by staying beyond the fixed term? Alot of tenancies now, are set up , as contractual periodics, so its a never ending tenancy, until either party serve notice.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As a Scottish Agent who experienced this issue when our Section 33 was abolished, I can categorically state the impact was minimal. Landlords don’t issue notices just for the sake of it. There is always a reason – selling, rent arrears, wanting to move back in etc etc. If these provisions are included, then the bark of removing section 21 will be far worse than its bite.
Eviction bans, rent caps, tenants ability to terminate with 28 days notice at ANY time……..well that’s a different story.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think every letting agent has said something similar to part of what he has said. Good landlords don’t get rid of reliable, good, paying tenants without a reason that would be covered under S8 as it is at the moment.
The problem is that the Court process is too long. The current reasons in S8 do not give enough options. If I bought a house in my closest city, rented it out for 5 ears, and then one of my children wanted to go to uni in that city, as the owner of the house it is my right to decide who lives there, and therefore I should be able to end the current tenancy and allow my child to rent it instead. The same as if it was a niece or nephew, or heck, even a family friend.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Steady on Property Eye!! This is a sensible and logical article!! And it is getting comments.
Totally agree with this, providing section 8 is strengthened.
It would be very useful to hear of Scotland’s experience of this change please.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ben Quaintrell of estate agency group My Property Box is pushing for an immediate ban on Section 21 evictions.
No, no, no , no, no, no. Ludicrous idea. The tenancy is a short term contract in the private market. It is not social housing, the tenant does not own the property and anything that infringes on the rights of the landlord should be approached with extreme caution. Sec 8 often does not work where it is clear that the tenant has to be moved, lawyers jump in with all the excuses and arguments to retain a problem tenant and the court system has been failing for many years with delay, after delay. Sec 8 dos not cover every eventuality and not all sections are mandatory. There are so many cases where without Sec 21 the property cannot be managed and is indirectly a warning to behave. As has been said many times, a landlord does not get rid of good tenants, so the argument is landlords get rid of good tenants …. nuts. As for bad tenants, why should the landlord have their rights removed for a temporary contract and that is the real reason to scrap S21. Get off the political looney left bandwagon. Unless you are an experienced letting agent, you have no idea!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Well said landlords rights are being removed and we are losing control of our properties
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
To be a slightly dissenting voice here, landlord’s do get rid of good tenants.
Accidental landlords, people who just decide they want to sell, move someone else in and many other reasons.
So perhaps the debate should be, are these types of landlords the sort we should be seeing in this industry?
Where should the PRS be heading? An interesting debate?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
But those Landlords do have a good reason for getting rid of a good tenant. Sometimes it is a family member to move in, sometimes to sell, or sometimes it is to move back in themselves. A landlord doesn’t get rid of a good tenant without a reason simply means that there is no reason on the TENANT’S side for their contract to be ended. So there are no rent arrears, damages, anti-social behaviour, illegal activity etc.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yes, good reasons, but they are not always honest with the tenants when they move in.
‘Oh yes, we are going to rent The house out for the next five years.’
Six months later, the agent gets call from landlord.
‘Give notice we are going to sell.’
It happens and it gives the industry a bad name.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There are occasions that a landlord circumstances change where they need their property back (even from a good tenant). That’s was and is the sole reason for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The clue is the middle word and the 1988 Housing Act. This is the private sector, not long term housing of the masses for failed governments and local authorities policies to house the general population. Breaking it down into simplest form, its the landlords terms you agree to or go and find another property. Lobbyists who are destroying the industry wish to take that manter away with tenants and their supporters dictating the landlord’s rights, with the result landlords are selling up, often on principle but looking ahead to their lack of control of their investment in £k’s and risks. PRS today is very biased in favour of tenants and has practically no redress over financial losses, other than end a tenancy asap before they increase further.
Section 8 has not been it for purpose for a long time, requires debts to escalate with little to no hope of recovering them and has more holes than a cullender. Lobbyists know this and are hoping to close the landlords only lifeline by banning Sec 21. Court process is a joke.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Woodentop I agree, but the 1988 Housing Act was brought in so that the government and councils no longer were responsible for the mass provision of housing.
Times have changed and I personally do not feel that section 21 is fit for purpose.
A lot of section 21’s that go to court are to do with rent arrears and damage, meaning the statistics quoted by shelter etc as to the huge number of s21 evictions a not accurate.
Bring section 8 up to standard and section 21’s should no longer be needed for any professional landlord.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree with you, we have used Sec 21 more than when we could have used Sec 8 because of the certainty of an end result. But that only confirms that Sec 8 doesn’t work as it should or that Sec 21 did achieve what the landlord wanted as an end game and there where so many occasions where Sec 8 can’t be used.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There will be mass evacuation by landlords if they go ahead banning Sec 21 and mass evictions to sell off rented properties.
What does a financial advisor give an investor on advice regarding their investment and risks? What do you say to your landlords as letting agents when they ask. They are investors and you are managing their investment and often comes with the caveat of being asked for advice when regulatory matters are about to or have changed as you are at the forefront of what’s happening. Or do you look the other way and say nothing! I can hear the telephone rings … “why didn’t you tell me”!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Be honest. Nothing is in law yet. I am not a member of ARLA or any of the landlord associations, but I would hope a sensible discussion about the future of the PRS is being had.
I do not see mass sell off’s by landlords as anyone who has owned a property for more than five to ten years will crystallise a large capital gains tax bill, due to the huge uplift in property values.
Where else do they invest the money as safely as in property?
It will all come down to people’s personal views on the risk.
I personally sell landlords legal insurance in order to mitigate risks on my landlords.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In Wales an MP said they have lost over 40% of landlords over recent regulatory changes or fear off and they retained Sec 21 (by another name). It will come down to personal view until the hammers is dropped, for some it will be too late but one thing that is very clear ….. landlords do not like risk, do not like losing money and do not like being told.
The whole point of prohibiting Sec 21 is to stop landlords and is no longer an investment if you are prevented from getting at it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I wonder if his landlords read this and, if they do, will they still stay with him. I wouldn’t.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register