The Bill that would outlaw so-called retaliatory evictions is to have its second reading on November 28.
Backed by the Government “in principle”, the Bill’s current proposals may nevertheless be of some concern to agents.
It aims to prevent landlords from serving a Section 21 notice within six months of a tenant making a “relevant complaint”.
A “relevant complaint” would have to be made in writing, giving notification of a defect; or complaining that the premises are unhealthy; or that there is a hazard at the premises.
The Section 21 procedure will also not be usable where there is no current gas safety certificate or EPC.
The private member’s Bill introduced by Sarah Teather, refers to landlords rather than agents.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has said it backs the Bill in principle.
Communities minister Stephen Williams said: “Our private rental sector is a vital asset, providing a home to nine million people across the country. So I’m determined to root out the minority of rogue landlords that give it a bad name.
“That’s why we’re backing Sarah Teather’s Bill to outlaw revenge evictions once and for all – ensuring tenants do not face the prospect of losing their home simply because they’ve asked for essential repairs to be made.”
However, the Residential Landlords Association has attacked the Bill, saying a rational debate is needed.
The RLA believes that “nightmare” tenants will use its provisions to hold up being evicted.
Shelter meanwhile has said it will be lobbying MPs hard to get the Bill passed. A petition from Shelter has been accepted by the Government.
An interesting legal opinion is here:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/09/retaliatory-eviction-reform/
One has to wonder what they will doing about rogue tenants; those that somehow pass referencing, move in, draw the curtains and return the property 2 years later following an expensive eviction process in a condition that reduces a colour sergeant to tears. Feral tenants do exist and while this bill has to be applauded for its intentions, as the RLA have said this should not be a one sided debate. The unintended consequences are likely to be that good landlords will simply stop providing the rental accommodation HM government now relies on to home the nation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is to ensure that there is plenty of room for expansion in case the cylinder experiences an increase in temperature <a href ="http://www.gassafetycertificate.info/">gas safety checks</a>
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
If one is to believe that this is good for the world, then what planet are our politicians living on. This is scary stuff. It will be interesting to see how the insurance industry will react with landlords protection, lenders agree to mortgages on let properties and the number must still be in the thousands, not on Buy To Let but switched over from not being able to sell during the recession. Repossessions are likely to sky rocket. This is utter nonsense and unworkable and hell bent on protecting tenants from landlords who have the right to have who they want in their property. All too often the minority bad landlords spoil it and this proposal is not a balanced view. How does a letting agent now tell a landlord of the peril looming. The reaction ……. would you let your property out ….. NO. Now we will start to see a shortage of housing, something the state needs to remember, private landlords have been providing social housing for years, as they can't cope!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This will complete **** up local authorities emergency housing policy. At the moment if a tenant is in a sub-standard property they can only get rehoused if they have been served notice. If landlords are no longer allowed to serve notice on a sub-standard property but has no money or interest in doing the work then tenants are going to be stuck for much longer in bad conditions.
Councils would have to be willing to use control orders to take over badly managed properties and do the work themselves. Where is the money going to do this going to come from with Sarah Teather's plan?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Defining what is a health issue will be challenging. Mould on walls can be a health issue if not dealt with. Yet it is likely to be as a result of a tenant's way of living in the property and refusal to accept they are the ones causing the issue.
There are lots of rogue tenants. Would any legislation deal with tenant self made health issue?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am sure my more learned colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but surely the way to avoid any accusations of a 'revenge eviction' is to serve a section 21 possession notice ON COMMENCEMENT of every tenancy as we always used to do… This way the landlord cannot be accused of unfair eviction if the notice is enforced even after a repair is requested. The landlord simply needs to argue that they always intended to recover possession at the end of the tenancy anyway. In 98% of cases where the landlord is quite happy to have the repairs completed this will, of course, not be an issue. In the >1% of cases where the eviction decision really is taken because the landlord does not wish to, or cannot afford to have the repairs carried out, at least he could not then be accused of acting out of 'revenge'. But I am more worried about the (I'm guessing these stats, of course) 1% of tenancies where the landlord genuinely DID intend to recover possession, perhaps because they are returning from abroad etc. If this legislation gives a vexatious tenant a tool to delay or prevent possession for spurious reasons then the prospect of letting your home while you work abroad for a couple of years becomes suddenly far too risky. Even a cracked paving slab can be considered to be a 'hazard' and I just don't believe a 'hazard-free' home exists anywhere.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register