Labour Brings in excellent Renter's Rights - long overdue.

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I agree with you, Nannee49. It really isn't "emotive talk" and it's insulting to dismiss it like that.

We are entering an era where - unless we are very well heeled and can afford to support our children/grandchildren in buying on now quite large amounts - they will suffer from bad landlords if we had allowed it to continue.

Many thanks twaddle. I've seen the distress in my own family as my extremely houseproud daughter, who kept her rented flat in immaculate condition and never ever fell into arrears was served a section 21 due to a damp issue the landlord had no intention of addressing, forcing her to move out of a place where she had been very happy with her then four year old daughter.

So luckily, after a very long wait she secured a social housing tenancy but I will never forget the distress and actual fear the eviction gave her.

That was fifteen years ago when property to rent was slightly more available and social housing a bit less stretched. It's an absolutely horrendous situation now. And, as you say, extremely insulting to dismiss the very real trauma as "emotive talk".

Nannee49 saying hundreds of thousands when it is 11,400 and someof those will be for good reason, is being emotive and damages your own arguments for a cause I agree with. people will tend to dismiss you - and your cause - because you are making wild statements that can only be proved to be wrong.

Even 108,000 over 5 years is not hundreds of thousands. You gave no time frame for your figures - and some of those eviction notices will be for good reason. The owner needs to sell, or live in the property, for example

Certainly for those suffering an unjust Section 21 eviction it is a distressing and emotional time, and I have every sympathy for them and I am not opposed to them being stopped.

But when I am arguing a cause, I always make sure that all the facts and figures I uote are reliable and properly sourced. if you make wild claims, you will lose your argument.

This new act, as a whole, is driving many landlords out of the market. The rental market is falling into the hands of big letting companies, and I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. It can be far harder to get repairs done, they are freuently more inflexible and far less amenable to minor changes than big companies whose owners are often unknown.

Well, make sure you follow your own rules when arguing a cause MOnica and get your facts right.

Crisis homeless charity figures show over 108,000 households received a no fault eviction notice between April 2019 and November 2024. Are their figures inflated?

Crisis data again shows 32,000 section 21 notices served up til year end of 2025, 7% up from the previous year. You have only quoted that previous year 2024 so not actually up to date. Have Crisis got it wrong?

You don't seem to have read the part of my earlier post which quotes from a Co-op Insurance study where their figures indicate a staggering 1.2 million households...11% of tenants... have received a section 21 notice during their current tenancy. Have the Co-op got it wrong too?

And, to be tediously repetitive, there may only be 1 tenant per household holding the tenancy and therefore in receipt of the section 21 notice but many more members of the family living in the property sorely affected by being evicted...impossible to quantify how many people without individual data from each case.

twaddle

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I'm not sure why you have addressed that to me. I agree that landlords' properties are tenants homes and have said so more than once.

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Doodledog

twaddle

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I'm not sure why you have addressed that to me. I agree that landlords' properties are tenants homes and have said so more than once.

Because you wrote "I can understand a small LL (eg one who is renting out an inherited house and doesn't have a portfolio of properties) wanting to choose who rents from them and lives in what may be their family home"

Sorry, but that kind of emotional attachment has no place in a business transaction. The home is no longer the landlord's family home. The tenancy agreement signs over to the tenant the rights to the property as a "home", whether it's an inherited property or not.

M0nica

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Frankly, I find that post heartless and showing no evidence of any understanding of the very real issues. I'm guessing you've never known the physical sickness of being made homeless as a result of a Section 21 notice.

If, according to some, the loss of your home by the use of a no fault eviction order section 21 is not supposed to be expressed in emotive language and there's not that many people affected by it anyway - move along, no grossly inflated figures to see here - why has the Government banned it?

Makes no sense

twaddle

M0nica

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Frankly, I find that post heartless and showing no evidence of any understanding of the very real issues. I'm guessing you've never known the physical sickness of being made homeless as a result of a Section 21 notice.

I guess you’ve never known the physical (and mental) sickness of having your property trashed and having to pay maybe £15,000 to get it repaired, redecorated and re carpeted. Then watching those tenants just walk away leaving you £thousands of unpaid rent too.

It's the NO FAULT tenants eviction which is the issue here Primrose23.

Good rent paying, non trashing, respectful tenants evicted for no good reason...surely it doesn't need stating again.

Primrose53

twaddle

M0nica

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Frankly, I find that post heartless and showing no evidence of any understanding of the very real issues. I'm guessing you've never known the physical sickness of being made homeless as a result of a Section 21 notice.

I guess you’ve never known the physical (and mental) sickness of having your property trashed and having to pay maybe £15,000 to get it repaired, redecorated and re carpeted. Then watching those tenants just walk away leaving you £thousands of unpaid rent too.

It's very foolish to assume, when you don't know a person!

When I owned a property portfolio with my (then) husband, we redecorated and recarpeted our properties after every tenancy had ended. We were professionals and factored it into our expenses, for which there are tax allowances.

I take it that there was no security of tenure while No Fault Evictions were permitted.
I take it that LLs may still evict tenants for genuine reasons.
If so, then that is as it should be.

This from the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) seems like a very sensible factsheet.

www.nrla.org.uk/resources/renters-rights/section-21-abolition

As it clearly says:

How will landlords evict tenants once Section 21 is abolished?

Once Section 21 is abolished, you’ll be required to follow the process under Section 8, which covers most, if not all, of the reasons you may want to take possession of your property. For example, rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, and selling the property.

twaddle

Doodledog

twaddle

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I'm not sure why you have addressed that to me. I agree that landlords' properties are tenants homes and have said so more than once.

Because you wrote "I can understand a small LL (eg one who is renting out an inherited house and doesn't have a portfolio of properties) wanting to choose who rents from them and lives in what may be their family home"

Sorry, but that kind of emotional attachment has no place in a business transaction. The home is no longer the landlord's family home. The tenancy agreement signs over to the tenant the rights to the property as a "home", whether it's an inherited property or not.

Ah yes, I see what you mean, but it's possible to understand why someone might think in a certain way without thinking they are right to think it. I agree that it's a business transaction, and that it is the tenant's home, but I can understand someone wanting to make sure a house that has been in the family for ages is lived in by someone they like. That shouldn't mean that they can discriminate, but it's a human reaction, I think.

Graphite

This from the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) seems like a very sensible factsheet.

www.nrla.org.uk/resources/renters-rights/section-21-abolition

As it clearly says:

How will landlords evict tenants once Section 21 is abolished?

^Once Section 21 is abolished, you’ll be required to follow the process under Section 8, which covers most, if not all, of the reasons you may want to take possession of your property. For example, rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, and selling the property. ^

I think people are either not reading the thread, or simply ignoring posts that don't align with their views. It has been said several times (I have said it myself) that bad tenants can still be evicted for non-payment or vandalism. Which is as it should be, and as far as I can see nobody is taking issue with that.

twaddle
When I owned a property portfolio with my (then) husband, we redecorated and recarpeted our properties after every tenancy had ended. We were professionals and factored it into our expenses, for which there are tax allowances.

those of my family who have lived in rented accommodation have never moved into a freshly decorated and newly carpeted property, you must be the exception. Goodness some tenancies are only for 2 or 3 years, you must have been replacing carpets with plenty of wear left or did you insist on 10 year leases? My son's last rental property was only for 2 years until they could buy their own.

I think 'no fault' evictions were abused and my own family members were affected once or twice. However I can see that 'at fault' evictions need to be made much speedier, no landlord should have to absorb the huge costs that can mount while a tenant refuses to pay rent, and/or damages the property.

Doodledog

DollyRocker

35% of landlords have sold up. Big corporations are buying up rental properties. What could possibly go wrong ....?

Why do you think they sold?

And would big corporations be buying the houses if they felt that adhering to the new legislation would affect their profits? Surely that fact alone shows that all that will happen is that sharp practice will be curtailed.

Serco are very involved in this business. They are openly advertising for properties.
If you buy a property to house asylum seekers you are guaranteed a 5 year rental agreement.

landlordknowledge.co.uk/landlords-offered-five-year-full-rent-deals-to-house-asylum-seekers/

twaddle

Primrose53

twaddle

M0nica

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Frankly, I find that post heartless and showing no evidence of any understanding of the very real issues. I'm guessing you've never known the physical sickness of being made homeless as a result of a Section 21 notice.

I guess you’ve never known the physical (and mental) sickness of having your property trashed and having to pay maybe £15,000 to get it repaired, redecorated and re carpeted. Then watching those tenants just walk away leaving you £thousands of unpaid rent too.

It's very foolish to assume, when you don't know a person!

When I owned a property portfolio with my (then) husband, we redecorated and recarpeted our properties after every tenancy had ended. We were professionals and factored it into our expenses, for which there are tax allowances.

You couldn’t have made much money then all that painting and carpeting. 😉 It’s also not very eco friendly to unnecessarily dispose of decent carpets. Then you have to wait for carpet supplier to do the work which is often several weeks.

It is the norm around here to have it written into the agreement that the tenant should have carpets professionally cleaned before they leave and provide invoices from cleaning company.

It’s also not very eco friendly to unnecessarily dispose of decent carpets.

I hadn't even thought of that aspect, unless twaddle only used very cheap quality carpets that were scruffy after just a few years. Still not a very eco friendly practice.

"It is the norm around here to have it written into the agreement that the tenant should have carpets professionally cleaned before they leave and provide invoices from cleaning company."

That may have been the norm in the past in your area but the new Renters Rights act prohibits making it a mandatory requirement for tenants to professionally clean anything, carpets, curtains or anything else. All such costs are now met by the LL.

There’s a very interesting article in the DM’s Money page today.

A train driver in his 30’s pays £1,350 a month in Herts for a one bed apartment. He loves it and says his landlord is great - maintains the house and all repairs done within hours. They get on very well.

His Landlord has a total of 7 properties and is now selling them all due to the new Bill. This guy has been looking at other similar properties and expects to now pay £1,700 to get a new place. This new Bill is not helping him or his LL and certainly not the tenants of the other 6 properties.