x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
award
award award
award award

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

‘Five months without rent!’ - Anger at eviction ban extension

Landlords have expressed disappointment at the government decision to extend the ban on evictions by a further two months. 

It will be a further impetus to landlords leaving the market as confidence is at an all-time low according to the National Residential Landlords Association. 

NRLA chief executive Ben Beadle says: “This decision means that some landlords will now be facing five months without receiving any rent as they can take no action against tenants who were not paying before the lockdown started. 

“It also means more misery for tenants and neighbours suffering at the hands of anti-social tenants and will also cause exceptional hardship for a number of landlords, including many who depend on their rental income to live, for which there is no assistance.

“We have every sympathy with tenants who face genuine difficulties because of a loss of income due to the coronavirus crisis and as our survey out tomorrow shows, nearly all landlords are working with tenants who are struggling to keep them in their home.

“It is important that the government sets out its plans for the market at the end of this one-time extension. A failure to do so will cause serious damage to the private rented sector as a whole.  

“It will ultimately be tenants who suffer as they will find it increasingly difficult to find affordable housing if landlords do not have the confidence that they will get their properties back swiftly in legitimate circumstances.”

The announcement about the ban being extended was made on Friday evening in a tweet by Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick.

“We are suspending evictions from social and private rented accommodation by a further two months. Eviction hearings will not be heard in courts until the end of August and no one will be evicted from their home this summer due to Coronavirus” said the MP’s tweet.

In mid-March Jenrick said that agents and landlords could not start proceedings to evict tenants for at least a three-month period, in a bid to ensure renters do not worry about the threat of losing their home. That period was due to end in the final week of June.

  • James B

    So homeowners get to defer a bit of interest and pay more later and many tenants get rent free at a other individual’s expense ? Unbelievable, power of the tenant vote clearly a huge factor now in policy decisions. Landlords can be throw under the bus to keep them happy at any opportunity now

  • Roger  Mellie

    The landlord can take no action about eviction. They can go to Money Claim Online and set the wheels in motion for claiming the money back for breach of contract.

     G romit

    Paying rent is now optional!

     
  • icon

    Ah don't you just love that Westminster Bubble? Perhaps Robert Jenrick could open an on-line clinic to advise LL on how to manage without income. Better still, have his salary suspended for five months. Alternatively, in a moment of sheer inspiration, he could even come up with the idea that those LL whose tenants were in default prior to the Covid 19 lockdown were exempt from the 'no eviction' rule and could crack on with ending their expensive nightmares.

    icon

    As he been seen in the latest protests that were allowd to virtually run riot, the Government has lost the ability to govern so is pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    SInce there are more tenants than landlords, the latter lose out in the mistaken belief that the tenants will vote Tory. Notonly will tenants NOT vote Tory, few landlords will now.

     
  • Sarah Doble

    I wrote to Robert Jenrick and the Justice Secretary and my local MP 3 weeks ago on this point as a local court had put a claim of one of my clients back until end of October. I was under the impression from the Court, this had come from "on high" - this now appears so..... strangely I have not had a response from any of these three men - who will be bombarded from me now until they explain their thinking, or lack thereof! Landlords who have tenants who were in arrears before, non communicative tenants and anti social tenants should be allowed to proceed with the legal action they are entitled to. When we will the government realise that not all landlords are rouge landlords and not all tenants are law abiding rent paying individuals.

    icon

    We have had an awful lot of this and in each case we have drafted a letter for the landlord to send to the court. We are beginning to get back responses and one court replied saying that they were given a template for this and apologized. You would expect the template to have run with CPR51Z but in fact it would appear that 'on high' has no rules with templates. This court then amended the stay to the correct date which then was the 25th June. Everyone must I am afraid shove the rules into the face of the courts and tell them to abide by the rules. It is inconceivable that I am writing this about the Judiciary of England. It has come to this. Corruption, deceit, manipulation and can I bring in that great word Kangaroo. Some are saying to placate the wishes of the mass of voters. But without the landlord, where is the Government going to place all the eventually evicted tenants if enough throw in the towel? Bed and breakfasts? All we ask is that the courts abide by the rules.

     
  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    This is nothing less than the Government Transferring its Social Housing responsibilities ( or the cost thereof, at least ) onto Private landlords.
    Otherwise known as ' Sequestration of private property.'
    Definition ;
    " In law, sequestration is the act of removing, separating, or seizing anything from the possession of its owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state. "
    All Landlords should be funding a Judicial Review of the Governments suspension without Financial compensation and the amount sought in legal action against the government should be the total amount of rent lost by the Private sector during Covid-19.
    But What landlord body would have enough 'balls' to do this ?

     G romit

    ....but Landlords remain responsible for maintaining the property and meeting HHSRS.

    PAYING RENT IS NOW OPTIONAL!

    The newly formed NRLA have proved already that they are totally spineless, and have nothing but kowtow to the whims of Government. They are useless beyond belief.

     
  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    We are all familiar with the tenant support groups claiming a 'Landlord can evict a tenant with Two months notice, - when we all know that's Tosh, and that its Two months Notice before a 5 or 6 month court process can begin, - well, I was gob-smacked to read in this months magazine ( I'll tell you which one at the end )

    "... currently, they can take back homes from bad tenants in two months using the so-called 'no-fault' repossession process. "

    wait for it.... in Non other than Summer 2020 NRLA magazine !!!!!! ( page 61 ) so Gromit, do you think the NRLA are working For, or AGAINST Landlords ?

    icon

    I suspect that question was rhetorical.

     
     G romit

    It's pushing the boundaries of reality to believe they are working in the best interests of their members.

     
    icon
    • 08 June 2020 21:01 PM

    The NRLA seems to be following the same propaganda script as Shelter.
    Who would have thought!?

    If I get the chance to attend one of the regular meetings they arrange around the country I will be mentioning this false propaganda or fake news as it seems to be called these days.
    Perhaps other LL could attend their local meetings and mention the same fake news.
    The NRLA is doing very little for its credibility if it comes out with what are actually blatant lies.

    No wonder Shelter is winning the propaganda war against LL...............it now has the NRLA on it's side!!!

    The world has gone truly crazy.
    If you intend to remain a LL especially a leveraged one expect to experience many more expropriation techniques by this bonkers Tory Govt.

    It really does look like LL will need very deep pockets so that they can afford to facilitate free accommodation for their feckless rent defaulting tenants.
    If this isn't possible then such LL will need to very radically consider their position!!

     
  • icon

    I heard a radio piece, I think Radio 5 or LBC. CAS/Shelter in disguise stated that whereas landlords get help as in deferred payments tenants get no financial help. I honestly thought it was jackanory hour!!

    icon

    James O’Brien perchance??

     
  • icon

    Yep James’s show.....

    icon

    James is the kinda guy that thinks all tenants are honest and when they say they can’t pay their rent they *must* be telling the truth (for what other possible reason could they have for saying such a thing?) and therefore are genuinely struggling. As you’re a rich landlord, you should invite them over for tea and biscuits, maybe even have a fruit basket delivered to their house and have a nice chat about how you could drop the rent to a level that’s more befitting their pleasing. Start at around 50% and keep dropping from there until your darling tenant (who you are responsible for to the same degree as a parent is a child) begins to smile. Easy this landlording malarkey. He’s all bleeding-heart and would let unlimited number of people clamber into his life-raft, even to his own detriment, because one extra person, won’t make a difference, neither would two, probably not even three, possibly not four, maybe not five…but hasn’t thought his arguments all the way through to realistic possibility. Same as the rest of the Left…all theory with no skin in the game.

     
  • icon
    • 09 June 2020 05:15 AM

    It is well known amongst those of ridiculous left-wing views that ALL tenants are as pure as driven snow and that ALL LL are rich greedy bastards!!

    That mindset is the prism through which the ridiculous left view anything to do with the PRS.

    LL should be aware that this mindset will NOT be changing anytime soon.

    Consequently they should be aware that such a mindset infects even the current PTB as well as the usual idiotic left.

    As such LL need to very careful as to how they operate in the PRS to the point that leaving the PRS would be the best thing to do.

    It is clear that the PTB intend to utilise the assets of LL to provide free accommodation for feckless tenants.

    It is for LL to determine whether they wish to be exploited in such a fashion any longer.

    Some may choose to risk rent defaulting tenants and further eviction bans.
    Others especially leveraged LL may consider the risks are too high.
    It is plain that the PTB have NO consideration whatsoever for the costs that a L L occasions especially a leveraged one.

    Effectively Govt doesn't care if by their penal anti-LL actions they bankrupt a LL.
    LL should really understand this situation.
    If they don't they are being incredibly naive.
    BTL lenders will have no compunction in repossessing rental properties if LL aren't able to pay the mortgage from their own resources in the absence of rent.

    Do LL really wish to waste their hard earned resources on providing effectively FREE rental accommodation for feckless tenants!?


    This is probably the most important business decision many LL will ever need to consider.

  • icon

    The Catch 22 we have is this: Even is the disastrous policies of the Conservative government continue or (more likely) worsen, what choice to Landlords have? If their disillusionment of the government makes them switch their vote... who will it be to? The labour party would do exactly the same ...they are both falling over each other to attract the tenants' votes!

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    I would prefer Proportional representation and remove the Whip system. As for a party, None are 'perfect' nor ever will there be, - but for me - its the Brexit party.

     
  • icon

    Proportional representation isn’t as great as it sounds as the parties get a party list which means they nominate a set number of people who take seats if they don’t get voted back in. If the party takes 60% of the votes the get 60% of the allocated party seats. This has been in NZ for almost 30 years, we have only ever had power share governments as none have ever had enough votes to govern alone. So we could potentially have 30 years of a Labour controlled government!

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    But without the whip system and least a huge number of peoples votes are and voice is not Lost.
    No system is perfect.

     
icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up