There has been a bit of publicity recently surrounding the government’s working group to consider speeding up evictions.
As I have been involved in this initiative (I was invited to the working group and attended one of the meetings), I am writing this post just to explain the thinking behind it – as I see it.
Its not the government wanting to give landlords the powers to boot tenants out quickly willy nilly. Quite the reverse really.
Why quicker evictions would be a Good Thing
There has also been a lot of publicity recently on Shelters report on retaliatory eviction (i.e. where landlords evict tenants because they have tried to assert their rights, e.g. regarding essential repair works).
This (i.e. retaliatory eviction) is obviously a Bad Thing.
However in my view it is equally bad when landlords whose tenants are either not paying rent, or are behaving badly, are forced to continue housing them during the long winded eviction process – which can take up to six months or more.
Why longer eviction periods for clear cases is bad
It is bad because:
- it is unfair on the landlord, who still has to pay his own mortgage and other outgoings on the property
- The landlord is also still responsible under the landlords statutory repairing obligations and the various health and safety regulations – which may be difficult for them to afford if there is no rental income
- If the tenant is not paying rent, longer eviction periods inevitably means that the rent arrears will exceed the deposit money held
- It is unfair on other tenants who are paying their rent and behaving responsibly – who will not like to see bad tenants ‘getting away with it’, and
- Anti social tenants can also cause enormous distress to their neighbours – who realistically have very limited options to do anything about it themselves, other than by moving home
Perhaps the point should also be made here, that under the current system private landlords are effectively being forced to house non paying tenants for free for long periods of time.
This is clearly not right – they are not charities or social housing organisations. Many landlords depend on their rent for their income – for example pensioners who have rental properties instead of a traditional pension.
Long term tenancies
There is also the quesiton of longer fixed terms for tenancies. This is often desirable :
- from the tenants point of view because they can put down roots – especially important if there are children attending local schools
- from the governments point of view because longer fixed terms lead to more stable communities
So far as landlords are concerned, longer fixed terms are very attractive if they have good tenants as it gives them a stable income with no voids.
However if their tenants are involved in anti social behaviour or (maybe more critically for a landlord) are not paying their rent – they have lost the more straightforward eviction route via section 21.
This is because section 21 can ONLY be used after a fixed term has ended.
The problem with other (non s21) grounds for possession
If a landlord uses the rent arrears or bad tenant grounds for eviction (the only grounds available during the fixed term of the tenancy), it is relatively easy for tenants to enter flimsy or even completely fictitious defences, which can have the effect of snarling the litigation up for long periods.
During which time the tenants cannot be removed from the property.
So unless a means is found for landlords to evict genuine cases of bad or non paying tenants quickly and easily, it is against their interests to grant tenants fixed terms any longer than a year.
The desired outcome
This is what the working party is looking at – whether a way can be found to implement a quicker eviction process for the straightforward cases, while still allowing tenants with genuine defences to put their claim before the court.
If this can be done, then it opens the way to longer fixed terms, say three to five years. Which is what I understand the government would like.
Also, as s21 would not be available, it would go some way to PREVENT retaliatory eviction – at least for those tenants enjoying the longer fixed terms.
If it can be done – what do YOU think about it?
Note: the contents of this post are my own thoughts and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department for Communities and Local Government or any of the attendees at the working group meetings.
You can read more about my ideas in my free ebook which you can download from >> here.
My biggest concern is that we’re driving significant change without any reliable or convincing evidence to back it up.
That aside, the difficulty will come in defining a ‘clear’ or ‘genuine’ case. In anything other than straightforward arrears cases the situation can only become ‘clear’ when both sides of the argument have been properly heard by a judge, and that inevitably takes time and money unless you take possession cases out of the county courts completely. The other problem is that everyone will have different opinions of what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ timeframe.
We have obtained possession on two Assured Tenancies in the last month under section 8. One was a clear case of mandatory ground 8 arrears and the other was two months in arrears until just before the hearing so we relied on discrectionary grounds 10 and 11. Both cases were heard in different courts within in 7 weeks of filing and the judge delayed the order for 6 weeks for one of them to find somewhere else to live. We were relatively happy with the outcome of both cases and I would consider this a reasonable timeframe to take someone’s home away.
Other cases based on nuisance have taken much longer and resulted in conditional possession orders. The outcome itself seems reasonable given the ambiguous nature of what constitutes a nuisance. People can change their behaviour more easily than their financial situation so it seems reasonable to give someone a chance to change before taking their home.
Assuming the tenant is paying rent (otherwise you would go for ground 8,10 & 11 surely?) the timeframe in itself wouldn’t be too much of an issue – its the legal fees that make it so cripling! The other problem is that the conditional order is not permanent for the duration of the tenancy and you must apply for extentions (more expensive legal fees!).
Agree standard, simple model agreements by all means, but I just don’t see the case for messing about with the types or length of tenancies. In my experience I simply don’t see tenants bemoaning the lack of security. Our company already use a mixture of fixed term ASTs from 6 months to 5 years, statutory periodic tenancies, and assured tenancies. If you can’t find something to suit your situation then I’m guessing the agent or landlord don’t understand the options that are already available.
….or, you can’t afford the risk and you shouldn’t be letting property in the first place.
“So far as landlords are concerned, longer fixed terms are very attractive if they have good tenants as it gives them a stable income with no voids.”
Sorry it does not:
a) Most tenants that want long term (e.g. not looking to buy a home) will be hard to get any money out of if they choose to leave early, so in real life it does not give the landlord any benefit over a tenant on a periodic tenancy.
b)A tenant that wishes to leave will just make so much trouble for the landlord that in the end the landlord will give up and allow them to leave before the fixed term is up. (However much damage the tenant started to do the police will take no action)
c) The landlord will be expected to minimise loses, so will have to find a new tenant quickly anyway.
However an eviction system that is cheap and quick may get landlords to stop issuing S21 notices soon after the tenant moves in. So a tenant does get given a real 2 months notice.
The least I would expect is for a case to be hard within 14 days, and the tenant to then be removed by the police within 7 days of the judgement with a fixed charge to the landlord of no more than £250 for the complete process and no possibility of having to pay the tenants legal costs.
Otherwise it will be “home owning guarantor” or the “shop door” if s21 is removed or tenancies are forced to be a lot longer.
There is no trust from landlords that the legal system will ever be on their side.
“In my experience I simply don’t see tenants bemoaning the lack of security. ”
Really? The following organisations are all discussing the topic: Advice4Renters (previously Brent Private Tenants’ Rights Group), Camden Federation of Private Tenants, Digs (hackney Renters), Haringey Housing Action Group, Islington Private Tenants, Lambeth Renters, Southwark Renters, are given longer Tower Hamlets Private Renters, Waltham Forest Renters, Oxford Tenants’ Union and EPTAG (to name a few). Blogs like LAG Housing Law, Rentergirl and Nearly Legal aswell. And Shelter of course.
I welcome this news; making it easier to evict non-paying tenants is a good idea, but only if you match it with similar efforts to remove the issue of an S21 for no good reason. Suffice to say the “6 months and you can be out again” is no premise on which to supply homes and it’s the reason that many BTL landlords weighed it up, dipped in and went for it. Many have suggested that longer term tenancies wd not make it “worth their while”. And that is no loss.
Before any steps are taken to remove or weaken section 21, a more effective and credible system needs to be in place and shown to be working.
Otherwise landlords will just become ever more selective in their choice of tenant.
Re long term tenancies, how many tenants actually want them? (and are willing to pay the financial and/or practical cost for them.)
A vocal minority clamouring this is a universal good thing doesn’t necessarily make it so.
An interesting survey here from 2008 showing the majority of tenants don’t want longer tenancies (p.51);
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/264996/0079349.pdf
Most tenants also did not want longer formal security, with a majority preferring six month tenancies or less..
..The review found that the high level of turnover in the sector largely reflects the decisions of tenants rather than landlords
That is not to say I don’t think there is a need for improving the availability of longer secure tenancies. Just that it should be at the expense of the minority that want them, not at the expense of the majority who don’t.
No-one is saying ALL tenants want longer fixed terms. It may be that it is not even a majority who want them.
However even so I suspect a substantial number do. They will probably be mainly older people and families with younger children.
As I said;
“that is not to say I don’t think there is a need for improving the availability of longer secure tenancies. Just that it should be at the expense of the minority that want them, not at the expense of the majority who don’t.”
One might certainly disagree that most landlords like longer term tenancies; barely any being offered right now. Sadly, it does not fit with the attractively dispensable agenda of many landlords.
But most folk want a secure and stable place to call home, of course. I don’t even need a survey to tell me that. Common sense gets you to the right conclusion. HB likes to insinuate that he “knows best” and then disown his insults in the next breath – it’s his trademark.
One might certainly disagree,
One might truly believe it,
But,
One has no proof to back up one’s statements,
One might be very wrong.
(One might try to be less offensive.)