DIYbanter - View Single Post

Theo[_3_]

wrote:

taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with
antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to
understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now
the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

We also have a housing crisis. Reducing the predatory aspects of private
renting is supposed to improve that. Typically the LL is in a much stronger
position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for
instance).

Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get
paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention
there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.

Because they want to increase the rent?

OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious
financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the
tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should
people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice
to move?

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
to sell or live in the property).

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.

The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
a choice in which agency to use. This is what has resulted in agency fees
to tenants skyrocketing.

By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control. An agency which
tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.

Theo