No Fault Evictions

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People have spoken in this thread about the ease of diverting tax in larger companies to beneficial countries, which is so very easy to do. This is also easy for start-ups, there is a whole industry built up around doing so. A UK start up can easily register in Jersey, Cayman, BVI or other such beneficial tax regimes, with a puppet board. In a start up phase, saved corporation tax, when reinvested can make a big difference to growth trajectory. This can mean employing more people, more quickly and reducing costs from the welfare state. Anyone who puts hard earned money that has already been taxed at 40%+ into a start up is taking a big risk (60% fail within 5 years), they are also likely halving their salary for the next 3-5 years and possibly securing debt against a home. This is only done when there is the potential of a commensurate reward, hence schemes like Entrepreneurs Tax Relief. When the potential rewards are diminished, the investments do not happen, already entrepreneurs tax relief has been made more restrictive under Business Asset Disposal Relief. I expect that our incumbent government will attempt to restrict this even further. Yesterday I spoke with a wealth manager of some considerable standing, he reports that significant numbers of his clients are selling assets and crystalising capital gains before the expected CGT increase and looking for more tax efficient investments, I expect that this is happening nationwide.
 
This should be a really simple problem to resolve because any business has to accept there are risk involved in making a profit and minimising any loses and any landlord is a business. Here things seem to go wrong because for most businesses bad debt or issues are resolved in law that can result in the balifs turning up yet for landlords there does seem to be more hoops to jump through. A solution should be clear cut, if a tennant is paying the rent, looking after the property and not causing the landlord any issues then it should be a case of eviction only under exceptional circumstances on the part of the landlord decided in court and not because they think there might be more money if it was an air B&B. If a tenant fails to pay the rent then make it like the process for employment where you get a verbal warning, a written warning and then out without any questions and backed by the law.

Landlords are selling up over fears Labour is plotting a capital gains tax raid that could add thousands to their bills.
Amongst many other targets, if they can hit the old people over winter fuel payments whilst happily claiming thousands for energy bills on there second homes then no one is safe so selling up and getting out is a safer bet.
 
I have no issue with a very clear and explicit process to deal with defaulting tenants - landlords should be able to recover their property quickly. That the tenant may wind up sleeping rough is not the responsibility of the abused landlord.

The problem is far more complex if children are involved - they should not suffer for the sins of their parent(s).

Finding and funding solutions for justifiably evicted tenants should not be the responsibility of private landlords, but addressed by the wider community. This needs to have regard for the needs of any children involved.

Forcing landlords to accept ever more onerous responsibilities over delinquent tenants will have unattractive consequences for all:
  • refusal to let property to tenants with children, disabled, out of work, single parents etc.
  • fewer rental properties as landlords sell up
  • increased rents driven by both higher compliance costs and scarcity
Equally explicit and actionable solution should of course be available to tenants with landlords who fail to meet their obligations - although the solutions will inevitably be different.
 
This should be a really simple problem to resolve because any business has to accept there are risk involved in making a profit and minimising any loses and any landlord is a business. Here things seem to go wrong because for most businesses bad debt or issues are resolved in law that can result in the balifs turning up yet for landlords there does seem to be more hoops to jump through. A solution should be clear cut, if a tennant is paying the rent, looking after the property and not causing the landlord any issues then it should be a case of eviction only under exceptional circumstances on the part of the landlord decided in court and not because they think there might be more money if it was an air B&B. If a tenant fails to pay the rent then make it like the process for employment where you get a verbal warning, a written warning and then out without any questions and backed by the law.


Amongst many other targets, if they can hit the old people over winter fuel payments whilst happily claiming thousands for energy bills on there second homes then no one is safe so selling up and getting out is a safer bet.
I agree with some of what you state but there are a few differences between a business and being a landlord. For instance landlords can not offset all their finance costs against their income, thus tax is paid not purely on profit. I am not aware of any other business where this is the case. There are examples of landlords who have made a loss, yet have still been taxed. When a business agrees a contract with a client, it is for a specified time, at the end of that time, the contract is terminated. This is not the case with landlords and ASTs. For the most part, few landlords evict tenants for no reason, even if the form of eviction is classed as no fault, it is done this way because this is the easiest and cheapest way to do so. Evictions are usually for non payment of rent, antisocial behaviour with complaints from neighbours (I had one last month - police called to house as ex boyfriend attempted to climb through window to gain access in the middle of the night, violence erupted, the neighbours were woken and the police called), or for damage to the property (2 years ago a tenants dog cost me a new set of kitchen base cupboards, new lino and a new back door. You state that a landlord should not be able to evict except for mitigating circumstances.
The reality is often that the landlord is the victim of their own kindness. Tenant commences rent at say £750 per month. The landlord in recognition that the tenant pays on time and causes no issues, does not increase the rent, for many years (this is very common). Then some form of political or economic change forces the landlord to look at this more closely. They realise that market rate for said property is now £1100 per month. Their mortgage payments have increased by £300 per month, so is the landlord supposed to allow the tenant to continue to rent at below market rates, and at the same time pay the extra mortgage and just accept the loss in income? Interest rate increases have driven a lot of rent increases. Many landlords are beginning to implement annual rent increases to avoid this situation.
Swapping to a AirB&B - in many cases landlords have done this in response to the increasing legislation that standard rentals require, not necessarily to create extra income as it often does not once increased costs and vacant periods are factored in. Admittedly some do.
Let me pose another scenario, a tenant wants to rent one of my houses. My agent undertakes the requisite pre tenancy checks, I pay the cost of these. The tenant then decides for what ever reason they no longer wish to rent. What come back do I have to cover my costs - nil.
The tenant causes £5k worth of damage to the property, but I am only allowed to charge 4or5 weeks rent as a deposit - what is my come back once they have left - none.
The tenant stops paying the rent, I get a court order for them to leave, my council tells them to ignore this until the bailiffs arrive, otherwise they will be classed as having made themselves homeless, this can continue for 12 months - not rent, my come back - nil.
Businesses can get redress for many commercial risks where landlords cannot.
The courts do not accept an application to evict because a gas certificate from 5 years ago was 2 days late, because the tenant messed the engineer about restricting access - the application is thrown out. Happens weekly.
The courts are anti landlord, councils are anti landlord and an emergence of biased organisations such as Shelter just inflame the rhetoric (and house nobody).
Councils are unable to run their own social housing, which time and again gets worse satisfaction ratings than the private sector, yet they are charged with enforcing the rules within the private sector - a joke. More recently councils have begun to see fines for landlords as a good income stream. Certain councils are merciless in their application of fines, yet when the councils own housing is found to have the same shortcomings, they are not fined.
I could go on, the whole things is a mess and the blame lies with the government and councils. There are rogue landlords, but they are the minority. Sufficient legislation exists to address these, but time and again councils fail to do this.
Time to stop blaming landlords for the inadequacies of government and councils and for the behaviour of a minority of bad tenants.
 
I issued a S.20 notice on the 1st July this year for the tenant to be out on or by 1st Sept... The housing officer has rejected it that twice on the most spurious of grounds. The tenant whilst initially upset on reflection realised it was a good thing to be moving on - he is close to being disabled, is diabetic, has to visit the hospital for dressings 3 times a week. He is looking for a ground floor flat or one served by a lift. The Tenant and I finally met with with the man yesterday and we now have a final leaving date of the end of Oct.

The tenants have been in the property for 21 years and in all that time I've only increased the rent by £75 (so I'm not profiteering - Jacob!). That lack of increase hasn't done the tenant any favours as the rent increase for a new place for them is quite large. In fact with Rachel Theives likely increases on CGT I haven't done myself any favours either.

One of the reasons I'm getting out of the business is the cost of improvements on a 1930's cottage; I've already spent £9k on insulation and a hefty sum on other improvements only some which I will see relief when I sell.
 
That's good!
A pity it isn't done more often - but local authorities have been deliberately underfunded for years, to render them powerless and allow the economic jungle of "free-market" economics to spread.

Just been reading "Debt, The First 5000 Years" by the late great David Graeber.
He has a lot to say! He quotes Keynes:
"I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution."

"...
functionless investors"...spot on JMK! Nobody needs them, they have no value to society except their limited and often ineffective property management functions. They are in it for the free ride, as they often say themselves "....it's my pension.....etc etc".
So much self pity...the poor things! 🤣
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-is-rentier-capitalism
 
Last edited:
That's good!
A pity it isn't done more often - but local authorities have been deliberately underfunded for years, to render them powerless and allow the economic jungle of "free-market" economics to spread.

Just been reading "Debt, The First 5000 Years" by the late great David Graeber.
He has a lot to say! He quotes Keynes:
"I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution."

"...
functionless investors"...spot on JMK! Nobody needs them, they have no value to society except their limited and often ineffective property management functions. They are in it for the free ride, as they often say themselves "....it's my pension.....etc etc".
So much self pity...the poor things! 🤣
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-is-rentier-capitalism
I compartmentalise my tenants into the following - (1) men who have left the family home due to relationship breakdown and are in need of temporary accommodation (2) young couples who want to try living together before making the commitment to buy somewhere together (3) temporary residents, people who have come in from out of town to fulfil a temporary employment contract or to rent before buying locally if permanent employment as they need to move in with speed (4) corporate lets, where a company wishes to provide accommodation for contractors, employees, visitors (5) people who don't want the responsibility of buying and maintaining a home (I do not understand this type of person but they do exist) (6) people who rent because they do not have the funds and are not able to borrow the funds to buy.
Currently my composition is (1) 40% (2) 25% (3)10% (4)0% (5)10% (6)15%. I provide houses that are finished to a higher standard than others in the locale. I charge a higher rental to reflect the added costs I incur and in the hope that I will attract tenants who look after houses. This may influence the composition of my tenant types. The question I have is once us "Rentiers have been euthanised", who is going to provide the accommodation for people in categories 1,2,3,4,5?
 
.......The question I have is once us "Rentiers have been euthanised", who is going to provide the accommodation for people in categories 1,2,3,4,5?
Councils, not-for-profit housing associations and variations thereof.
Always a role for the private renter of course, but only if much better controlled and regulated than now.
The system has failed and the blame is inadequate government housing policy.
The free-market can't do it, as is glaringly obvious.
It's not like any other hire/rentier commodity in that housing is a basic essential for absolutely everybody and has a huge bearing on the quality of life and personal development. When inadequate it can go on to create other social problems affecting us all
 
Last edited:
I compartmentalise my tenants into the following - (1) men who have left the family home due to relationship breakdown and are in need of temporary accommodation (2) young couples who want to try living together before making the commitment to buy somewhere together (3) temporary residents, people who have come in from out of town to fulfil a temporary employment contract or to rent before buying locally if permanent employment as they need to move in with speed (4) corporate lets, where a company wishes to provide accommodation for contractors, employees, visitors (5) people who don't want the responsibility of buying and maintaining a home (I do not understand this type of person but they do exist) (6) people who rent because they do not have the funds and are not able to borrow the funds to buy.
Currently my composition is (1) 40% (2) 25% (3)10% (4)0% (5)10% (6)15%. I provide houses that are finished to a higher standard than others in the locale. I charge a higher rental to reflect the added costs I incur and in the hope that I will attract tenants who look after houses. This may influence the composition of my tenant types. The question I have is once us "Rentiers have been euthanised", who is going to provide the accommodation for people in categories 1,2,3,4,5?
Tch! You and your actual experience and knowledge. ;)
 
I think that was more wishful thinking on Keynes part. There will always be a mix of the private and public. The problem is that local authorities and housing associations have failed to keep pace with the growing need for social housing. And, the free-market is incapable of making up the short-fall , as there is no profit to be made.
 
Councils, not-for-profit housing associations and variations thereof.
Always a role for the private renter of course, but only if much better controlled and regulated than now.
The system has failed and the blame is inadequate government housing policy.
The free-market can't do it, as is glaringly obvious.
It's not like any other hire/rentier commodity in that housing is a basic essential for absolutely everybody and has a huge bearing on the quality of life and personal development. When inadequate it can go on to create other social problems affecting us all

What controls and regulations need to be put in place that are not in place?
Who is going to manage the private rental sector, as councils can not, even though it is easily a self financing activity?
How are councils and NFP housing associations going to up their game to provide a decent service, as currently their tenants are much less content with their properties than private sector renters?
Is it ok for houses to be provided at up to 50% below market rent (i.e. subsidised) for people earning £60k in London, or £40k in Manchester?
 
Very arrogant of you. You might have a comfortable pension but I certainly don’t. The only option I have for a regular income through retirement is a couple of rental properties.
You and me in the same boat, what villeins we are!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top